January, 20 2016, 03:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Ted Zukoski, Earthjustice, (303) 996-9622, tzukoski@earthjustice.org
Nathaniel Shoaff, Sierra Club, (415) 977-5610, Nathaniel.shoaff@sierraclub.org
Marissa Knodel, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0729, mknodel@foe.org
Shelley Silbert, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, (970) 385-9577, shelley@greatoldbroads.org
Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, (303) 437-7663, jnichols@wildearthguardians.org
Alli Melton, High Country Conservation Advocates, (970) 349-7104 ext. 2, alli@hccacb.org
Matt Reed, High Country Conservation Advocates, (303) 505-9917, matt@hccacb.org
Michael Saul, Center for Biological Diversity, (303) 915-8308, msaul@biologicaldiversity.org
Rosalind Jackson, Vote Solar, (415) 817-5061, rosalind@votesolar.org
Erin Overturf, Western Resource Advocates, (303) 918-051, Erin.overturf@westernresources.org
Matt Sandler, Rocky Mountain Wild, (303) 579-5162, matt@rockymountainwild.org
Anna McDevitt, Environment Colorado, (952) 454-6867, anna@environmentcolorado.org
150,000 Comments Oppose Coal-mining Loophole on Colorado Forest
Subsidies to Arch Coal Slammed, Renewable Energy Groups Join Wildlife, Climate Advocates in Opposition
DENVER
More than 150,000 people, including thousands of Coloradoans, called on the U.S. Forest Service today to prevent a bankrupt coal company from bulldozing nearly 70 miles of roads through pristine national forest in Colorado's backcountry.
The comments came in response to a Forest Service draft environmental analysis on a proposal to reinstate a loophole in a rule that protects Colorado's roadless national forest lands. Allowing mining operators to build roads through 20,000 acres of roadless forest would permit mining of 170 million tons of coal. Burning that coal would unleash 130 million tons of CO2, about as much as all climate emissions from all human sources in Colorado for a year.
The Forest Service also estimated that burning the coal would cause billions of dollars in damage to the environment and the world's economy.
"The public has spoken loud and clear: the Forest Service's plan threatens our children's future on a livable planet, our wild forest, our wildlife, and our beautiful areas to hunt, fish, and hike," said Earthjustice attorney Ted Zukoski, who represented the conservation groups in federal court.
Coal in the North Fork Valley contains huge amounts of methane (natural gas), which mining companies simply waste rather than capturing. The Forest Service's analysis found that mining the coal in the roadless area would unleash enough methane to overwhelm nearly all of the climate benefit of Colorado's 2014 oil and gas rules, one of Gov. John Hickenlooper's signature achievements in limiting climate pollution.
The Forest Service's analysis also showed dumping the 170 million tons of coal on the market would undermine the nation's transition to clean energy by displacing 40,000 gigawatt hours of renewable power. By one measure, that would have the same effect as having about 140,000 homes use 100 percent coal rather than 100 percent clean energy each year for 38 years.
"The loophole could cost the global economy over $12 billion in carbon impacts and keep renewable energy off the grid," saidNathaniel Shoaff, staff attorney with the Sierra Club's Environmental Law program. "The Forest Service should listen to President Obama and reject the Arch Coal loophole: it is time to use our public lands to incentivize the future rather than subsidize the past."
The fact that expanded coal mining would undercut renewable energy prompted several local solar companies and renewable energy supporters including Western Resource Advocates and Vote Solar to oppose the loophole. Interwest Energy Alliance, a western regional renewable energy trade group, expressed concerns about the proposal's impact.
"It's important to consider the impact additional coal mining will have on the broader electricity market, and whether artificially low coal prices supported through federal leasing will displace cleaner resources that we could be using instead," saidErin Overturf, staff attorney at Western Resource Advocates. "According to the Forest Service's analysis, that damaging displacement is exactly what will happen here."
"Solar and other renewable energy sources are ready to meet our power needs reliably and cost-effectively. Our state and our nation should be investing in the clean energy sources of today, not more of the harmful, polluting and increasingly obsolete fossil fuels of the past," said Adam Browning, executive director of Vote Solar, a national solar advocacy organization. "Given the negative impacts that increased coal extraction would have on community health, climate stability and continued solar progress, we urge the Forest Service to protect Colorado's roadless lands from coal mining."
The loophole opens the door for bankrupt Arch Coal to expand its underground West Elk mine in an area of crucial wildlife habitat. The Forest Service estimated mining coal in the area could result in the bulldozing of 67 miles of road and the construction of 450 drilling pads throughout nearly 20,000 acres of publicly owned roadless forest. That forest now provides habitat for black bear, elk, Colorado River cutthroat trout, goshawk and lynx.
"The Forest Service should not allow our pristine national forests to become energy sacrifice zones for the dying coal industry," said Marissa Knodel, with Friends of the Earth. "Now that Arch Coal has declared bankruptcy, investing in the expansion of its West Elk mine makes no sense. For a resilient and healthy future for our forests and climate, the time when coal companies could profit off the destruction of our national heritage is over, and the time for keeping dirty fossil fuels like coal in the ground is now."
"Roadless areas provide important habitat to many species including the Federally listed Canada lynx," said Matt Sandler with Rocky Mountain Wild. "Jeopardizing these intact refuges to appease the coal industry is a bad decision."
"It's simply ludicrous to make an exception for a bankrupt company to carve roads through prime wildlife habitat in our national forests and spew billions of cubic feet of methane into the air. There is no value here for the American public," said Shelley Silbert, executive director of Durango-based Great Old Broads for Wilderness. "It's urgent that we make our public lands part of the solution to climate change."
"We need the Forest Service to show leadership and choose to keep the coal in the ground," said Alli Melton, public lands director at High Country Conservation Advocates. "The roadless forests of the Upper North Fork Valley are a Colorado treasure, and are part of what makes our state such a great place to live and visit. Scraping over 60 miles of new roads and hundreds of methane drainage wells across this pristine landscape is not in the best interest of the public or the environment."
"President Obama just announced a much-needed and long-overdue halt to new federal coal leasing in order to look seriously at the climate costs of the program," saidMichael Saul with the Center for Biological Diversity. "It makes no sense to undermine this bold step by rushing through a costly, unneeded, and polluting loophole to allow more coal mining in Colorado's roadless forests."
"With Colorado already feeling the impacts of a changing climate, we should be doing everything we can to cut global warming pollution and boost renewable energy sources," said Anna McDevitt, lead organizer with Environment Colorado. "States are formulating efforts to comply with the Clean Power Plan - the nation's first-ever limits on carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. A mining project that will spew additional carbon pollution and displace 40,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy from the grid is counterproductive to both state and federal priorities."
In 2014, Earthjustice, representing local and national organizations, won a court decision to block the loophole in the U.S. District Court of Colorado. The court decision permitted the Forest Service to revive the loophole if the agency undertook a new analysis that adequately disclosed the climate pollution the loophole would cause.
A final decision on the loophole is expected in the spring of 2016. The Interior Department's "pause" on coal leases announced last week specifically exempts Arch Coal's proposed expansion plan.
"The gift of our public forest to a bankrupt coal company is just another wasteful and disgraceful subsidy," saidJeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardian's climate and energy program director. "It's time we stopped financing the destruction of our forests and our climate."
Nichols cited Forest Service documents showing the agency will spend half a million dollars in taxpayer funds on the rulemaking to open forests to Arch's coal mining. He also noted that from 2010-2015, the BLM cut Arch Coal's royalty payments for the West Elk mine by up to $7 million in order to encourage coal mining. During just one year of that five-year period (2014), Arch Coal's CEO salary was $7 million.
Rejecting the coal mine loophole would have no immediate impact on Arch's West Elk Mine, which has a decade of coal already under lease according to the Forest Service.
Those submitting comments against the proposal included supporters of Earthjustice (50,000), Sierra Club (50,000), Friends of the Earth (33,000), Climate Reality Project (12,000); WildEarth Guardians (6,000); and Center for Biological Diversity (1,000).
Photos of the roadless areas at risk: https://earthjustice.org/features/photos-sunset-roadless-area
Photos of Arch Coal's bulldozing and drilling: https://earthjustice.org/features/colorado-forests-and-coal
ONLINE VERSION OF STATEMENT: https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2016/150-000-comments-oppose-coal-mining-loophole-on-colorado-forest-0
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
Warren Asks the Fed to Reconsider Approval of Capital One-Discover Merger
"This decision will inflict serious harm on consumers and merchants, especially low-income consumers and small businesses," wrote Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters.
May 05, 2025
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California are urging the Federal Reserve to reconsider its approval of an impending merger between Capital One Financial Corporation and Discover Financial Services, a tie-up that critics have warned could harm consumers.
In a letter sent last week, Warren and Waters wrote that the decision to approve the merger by the Federal Reserve "was inconsistent with the legal requirements" under the Bank Holding Company Act. They also argued that it did not include a number of relevant assessments, including how the the merger would impact the "convenience and needs of the community" or the "competitive effects on the credit card market."
"This decision will inflict serious harm on consumers and merchants, especially low-income consumers and small businesses, and threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system," states the letter, which was addressed to Secretary of the Board Ann Misback and dated May 1.
Warren is the ranking member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Waters is the ranking member on the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.
The deal was announced in February 2024 and is valued at $35 billion. A report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released right before the acquisition was announced found that the largest credit card firms charge much higher interest rates than smaller banks and credit unions.
The deal initially received some scrutiny around possible impacts to competition, but in April 2025 overcame a major obstacle when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), now under the Trump administration, decided not to challenge the merger.
The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency gave the deal the green light last month.
In response to the DOJ's decision not to challenge the merger, Morgan Harper, the director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote that "if the Trump administration green-lights the Capital One-Discover merger, it will be a betrayal of working-class Americans and small businesses." The American Economic Liberties Project is an anti-monopoly research and advocacy group.
"If the deal goes through, Capital One will become the largest credit card lender in the country, the first major issuer in decades to control its own payments network, and entrench its striking dominance in subprime credit card lending," Harper continued.
One noteworthy aspect of the merger, which is expected to be finalized mid-May, is that Capital One is set to acquire Discover's card network. This means the combined firm would be akin to a larger version of American Express, "a stand-alone integrated system that could use its millions of customers to push higher fees onto merchants," according to The American Prospect.
Capitol One currently uses Visa and Mastercard credit card networks, which operate an effective duopoly of global payment processing, but has said it would transition to the Discover card network, according the outlet CNET.
This aspect of the merger is without clear precedent and raises concerns about competition, according to Jesse Van Tol, the chief executive of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a group that is opposed to the deal, who spoke to The New York Times in April.
"The market power it gives them, and the opportunity it gives them to set pricing in ways that captures a lot of value for the company at the expense of the consumer, is significant," Van Tol told the Times.
In their letter, Warren and Waters alleged that the Federal Reserve failed to adequately scrutinize the competitive effect of this aspect of the deal.
"The board argued that given 'the significant, larger competitors that would remain,' and that Capital One doesn't currently own a network, there aren't any competitive concerns. The board completely missed the fact that the merger would provide Capital One with significant market power to increase interchange fees charged to merchants and reduce rewards and other benefits for consumers. It didn't grapple with the implications of vertical integration and network effects," the two wrote.
When considering the conveniences and needs of the community, Warren and Waters said in their letter that the Federal Reserve did not perform the prospective analysis required by law, and instead "focused on each bank's past performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)," even though "the convenience and needs of the community is a distinct legal factor, separate and apart from banks' past performance under the CRA."
The two also said that the Federal Reserve appears to not have taken into consideration relevant findings from the CFPB, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the DOJ.
Bloombergreported last week that the Federal Reserve received the letter and plans to response, per a spokesperson.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alcatraz Push 'No More Than a Sensational Distraction' From Trump's Attack on Public Safety
Less than two weeks ago, Trump's DOJ slashed nearly $1 billion from existing public safety grants that experts warn will "imperil public safety, not promote it."
May 05, 2025
Add "distraction" to the list of words being used to describe President Donald Trump's "psychotic," "deluded," and "unbefuckinglievable" talk about reopening the island prison of Alcatraz in California's San Francisco Bay.
In a statement to reporters on the White House lawn Sunday night, Trump said the idea for reopening Alcatraz—which he first floated in a social media post—was "just an idea I had" and that the prison was a "symbol of law and order."
But less than two weeks ago, the Trump administration ordered the cancellation of an estimated $811 million in grants for public safety from the Justice Department that experts and advocates say were proving successful at reducing crime and curbing harm in communities nationwide—all with bipartisan support.
"Alcatraz," said civil rights attorney Scott Hechinger in response to Trump's social media post—which sparked no shortage of headlines across the news media—is "no more than a sensational distraction from this: Trump just cut nearly $1 billion from bipartisan, proven, successful anti-crime, violence prevention programs around the country."
The various programs impacted by the grant cuts—including gun violence prevention and law enforcement trainings—said Hechinger, were designed to prevent crime "before people were ever harmed."
Arguing that Trump has made the country less safe, not more, by his policies, Hechinger added, "now he's stomping and parading around with big words and sensational capital letters about a wasteful reopening of a domestic torture complex that will never actually happen and do nothing to keep America safer. All while claiming to care about violence prevention. What a dangerous joke."
Lamenting the public safety grant cuts in a blog post last week, the Brennan Center for Justice's Rosemary Nidiry, senior counsel in the group's justice program, detailed how the grant funding slashed by Trump "filled critical gaps" in the nation's public safety infrastructure.
The grants, she noted, "supported victims of crime, trained law enforcement, offered treatment to people with behavioral health and substance issues, and helped people reintegrate into society after incarceration. They also promoted research used to create and guide effective policies. Many if not all were ended immediately and without warning, in the middle of a typical 3-year grant period, disrupting programs and creating financial strain for nonprofits."
"The slashed programs have been proven to make communities safer," wrote Nidiry, "and their end will in fact imperil public safety, not promote it."
When Alcatraz was closed by the Bureau of Prisons in 1963, the cost of running the crumbling facility was the primary driver of that decision.
As Newsweek reports, "Operating Alcatraz proved to be significantly more expensive than other federal prisons. In 1959, the daily per capita cost at Alcatraz was $10.10, compared with $3.00 at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, making it nearly three times more costly to operate. This high expense was largely due to the island's isolation, which necessitated that all supplies, including food, water, and fuel, be transported by boat. For instance, nearly one million gallons of fresh water had to be barged to the island each week."
In a letter on Friday, over three dozen Democratic lawmakers called on the Justice Department to reinstate $150 million in grants awarded for gun violence prevention.
"This funding, appropriated by Congress, directly contributes to making communities safer," the lawmakers stated in a letter. "We urge you to honor the grants already awarded and to implement this funding as Congress directed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Mockery' of Humanitarian Law: Israel Wants US Mercenaries for Aid Relief in Gaza
What the Israeli government is planning is "not an aid plan," said one legal scholar, but rather "an aid denial plan."
May 05, 2025
Despite global outcry to end the "genocidal" assault on the people of Gaza, Israeli cabinet ministers early Monday approved a plan that could lead to the capture of the "entire Gaza Strip," prompting fresh warnings of a complete ethnic cleansing of the enclave coupled with outrage over a proposal to use U.S.-based mercenaries to be part of distribution of humanitarian aid.
One Israeli official familiar with the shift in military tactics toldHaaretz that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear to his Security Cabinet that the new approach in Gaza will be different from what's been going over the previous 18 months in that it will shift from what were described as "raid-based operations" to "the occupation of territory and a sustained Israeli presence in Gaza."
Another unnamed Israeli official told Agence France-Press that the plan "will include, among other things, the conquest of the Gaza Strip and the holding of the territories, moving the Gaza population south for their protection."
"It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement."
To support the occupation plan, the Israeli army, with the approval of the Security Cabinet, will be calling up tens of thousands of reservist soldiers, in the words of the IDF, to "intensify the pressure" on Hamas and "expand and intensify" operations in Gaza.
According to the Associated Press:
The new plan, which the officials said was meant to help Israel achieve its war aims of defeating Hamas and freeing hostages held in Gaza, also would push hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to southern Gaza, what would likely exacerbate an already dire humanitarian crisis.
Since a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas collapsed in mid-March, Israel has unleashed fierce strikes on the territory that have killed hundreds. It has captured swathes of territory and now controls roughly 50% of Gaza. Before the truce ended, Israel halted all humanitarian aid into Gaza, including food, fuel and water, setting off what is believed to the be the worst humanitarian crisis in nearly 19 months of war.
The ban on aid has prompted widespread hunger and shortages have set off looting.
In addition to expanded military operations, the Israelis also presented a new approach to distribution of aid on Sunday that would include the use of private military contractors, also known as mercenaries. By relocating the civilian population to the south and forcing people to travel for food, water, and medicine only to designated "hubs" for relief, humanitarians said the plan violates all principles of human rights and the laws of war.
The Washington Postreports Monday that "American contractors" would be used to carry out the plan, which was presented to officials in the Trump administration on Friday.
According to the Post, "two U.S. security companies are expected to be contracted to handle logistics and provide security along initial distribution corridors and in and around the hubs."
The companies, Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions, organized and staffed a vehicle checkpoint along a major north-south road through Gaza during the ceasefire.
SRS, which is to handle planning and logistics, is headed by Phil Reilly, a former CIA senior intelligence officer with extensive overseas service who has held senior positions in other private security companies. SRS is to subcontract on-the-ground security operations to UG Solutions, headed by Jameson Govoni, a former Green Beret whose service from 2004 to 2015 included tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The security contractors are to be armed and have their own force protection. They will not have detention authority.
In response to the new distribution plan, the coalition of United Nations and NGOs operating in Gaza, known as the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), which operates within the U.N. Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), issued a harsh rebuke to the Israelis, saying that the proposal "contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic–as part of a military strategy."
"The design of the plan presented to us will mean large parts of Gaza, including the less mobile and most vulnerable people, will continue to go without supplies," said the HCT in its statement. "It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement."
The group added that both the U.N. Secretary-General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator in Gaza "have made clear that we will not participate in any scheme that does not adhere to the global humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality." Instead of the plan presented by the Israelis, the HCT called for an end to the imposed blockade so that neutral relief agencies could bring in the necessary supplies to the suffering population in Gaza.
Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), which helps distribute aid in Gaza and was presented with the plan, decried the proposal.
"After two months of devastating blockade and starvation of Gaza, Israeli officials demand that we shut down the universal aid distribution system run by the UN and NGOs like NRC," said Egeland. "They want to manipulate and militarize all aid to civilians, forcing us to deliver supplies through hubs designed by the Israeli military, once the government agrees to re-open crossings."
Adil Haque, law professor at Rutgers University and director of Just Security, said what the Israeli government is planning is "not an aid plan," but rather "an aid denial plan"—one that "makes a mockery of international humanitarian law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular