

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Kelly Trout, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 240-396-2022 (office), kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Kathleen Scatassa, Earthjustice, 212-845-7380 (office) kscatassa@earthjustice.org
Environmental groups faced off with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today, arguing that the agency illegally overlooked significant pollution and human safety risks in approving a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal along the Chesapeake Bay in southern Maryland.
The $3.8 billion Cove Point facility was approved in October 2014 and is currently under construction by Cove Point LNG, LP, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources. It would be the first LNG export terminal on the East Coast and, the groups argue, would play a major role in expanding harmful fracking operations across the Mid-Atlantic region.
Earthjustice filed the lawsuit (Case No. 15-1127) in May 2015 on behalf of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Patuxent Riverkeeper, and the Sierra Club, after FERC ended nearly seven months of delay and officially denied the groups' request for a rehearing. The case is part of a steady line of lawsuits challenging FERC for facilitating a massive expansion of gas export infrastructure and pipelines without fully accounting for the public and environmental harms.
"FERC once again shirked its duty under federal environmental law, and the result could be a disaster for both the climate and communities scarred by fracking wells and pipelines," said Deborah Goldberg, managing attorney at Earthjustice, who presented oral arguments to the court today. "We are asking the court to require that FERC go back to the drawing board and fully evaluate the many ways in which this project will degrade the environment."
Specifically, the petitioners are asking the federal court to require FERC to prepare a more rigorous Environmental Impact Statement, and to order Dominion to halt construction in the meantime.
The groups contend that FERC circumvented the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to credibly consider the significant new amounts of air, water, and climate pollution that would be triggered by expanded fracking and fracked-gas infrastructure "upstream" of the Cove Point facility. Dominion is permitted to export nearly one billion cubic feet of gas per day. Analysis indicates that, accounting for emissions triggered across the lifecycle of fracking, piping, liquefying, shipping and burning the gas, the Cove Point terminal could cause more greenhouse gas pollution than all eight of Maryland's coal-fired power plants combined.
"It defies logic and the law for FERC to claim that it can't determine whether exporting massive new amounts of gas will involve new fracking, or new emissions of heat-trapping methane," said Anne Havemann, general counsel at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. "Based on a shoddy environmental review, FERC has already subjected residents of Calvert County to irreparable harm. We look to the court to step in before an ounce of gas is exported, causing even more harm to our climate and worsening record heat, storms, sea-level rise, and flooding."
"The stated purpose of this and other export terminals is to provide a market for increased gas production," said Nathan Matthews, staff attorney at Sierra Club, who is litigating Sierra Club's challenges to other LNG export approvals. "Exports plainly mean more drilling, more fracking, and more climate-disrupting pollution, but FERC has consistently refused to consider any of these impacts."
The groups' legal petition further cites FERC's failure to adequately address the safety threats to nearby residents in Lusby, Maryland--where the liquefaction plant would be built in closer proximity to residences than any other facility previously approved by FERC. Additionally, the groups contend that FERC did not thoroughly consider how foreign tanker ships discharging dirty ballast water will harm the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay or how an increase in tanker traffic could threaten the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale.
Lawyers for Dominion and the American Petroleum Institute joined FERC in court today to defend the agency's limited environmental review.
The D.C. Circuit has previously heard challenges by Sierra Club and Galveston Baykeeper to FERC's approval of LNG export facilities at Sabine Pass, Louisiana, and Freeport, Texas, but has yet to rule in those cases. Sierra Club has also challenged FERC's approval of the Corpus Christi, Texas, LNG export facility. That case is fully briefed, but has not yet been set for oral argument.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) is the first grassroots, nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to fighting global warming in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Our mission is to build and mobilize a powerful grassroots movement in this unique region that surrounds our nation's capital to call for state, national and international policies that will put us on a path to climate stability. - See more at: https://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view;=itemlist&...
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."