July, 29 2016, 11:45am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, jnichols@wildearthguardians.org
Michael Saul, Center for Biological Diversity, msaul@biologicaldiversity.org
Denni Cawley, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, dcawleyuphe@gmail.com
Mariel Nanasi, New Energy Economy, mariel@seedsbeneaththesnow.com
Kyle Tisdel, Western Environmental Law Center, tisdel@westernlaw.org
Kaitlin Butler, Science and Environmental Health Network, kaitlin@sehn.org
To Protect Climate, Public Health, Americans Call for End to Federal Coal Program
Ending Public Coal Leasing, Mining Would Keep 212 Million Tons of Carbon in Ground, Save $7 Trillion
WASHINGTON
A coalition of groups today called on President Obama to permanently end the federal coal program, highlighting the fact that ending leasing and mining of public coal in the United States would keep up to 212 billion metric tons of carbon pollution in the ground -- the equivalent of taking nearly 50 billion cars off the road and saving society more than $7 trillion in avoided climate damages.
"If we have any chance of avoiding the worst consequences of global warming, we have to move away from fossil fuels," said Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians' climate and energy program director. "This shift starts with reining in the mining of our publicly owned coal and helping coal-dependent communities transition to more prosperous and sustainable economies."
The new figures were part of detailed comments submitted today at the close of the public scoping period for the comprehensive review and potential reform of the federal coal-leasing program. In response to mounting controversy, including the climate impacts from burning coal, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell kicked off the reform process in January, announcing a temporary moratorium on new leasing and the initiation of a full environmental review of the federal coal program. While the review is underway, Jewell has ordered a pause in significant new coal-leasing decisions on public lands.
Halting federal coal leasing and mining will have significant benefits to the climate as well as people and the environment. Among the more than $7 trillion in savings from stopping public coal leasing in the United States are savings in terms of human health costs and infrastructure damage caused by climate-driven events.
The groups today, representing local, regional and national environmental and health organizations, also sent a letter to President Obama summarizing the specific requests for reforms in how publicly owned coal is managed, including an end to the federal coal program altogether, which would keep up to 212 billion metric tons of carbon in the ground, according to a recent report by EcoShift, prepared for the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth.
Based on conservative carbon-cost estimates that place the value of a metric ton of carbon dioxide at $37, future coal leasing and mining threaten to saddle society with more than $7 trillion in damages and health-related costs.
"The science is clear that there's no reasonable path to avoiding the worst effects of climate change without the phaseout of coal mining and combustion," said Michael Saul, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "We can't do that while simultaneously committing to massive new coal mining into the 2040s and beyond. It's time for the Department of the Interior to start being honest with itself and American communities and shift policies now for a clean and sustainable future."
Currently more than 40 percent of all coal produced in the United States comes from publicly owned reserves that have been leased and are managed by the Department of the Interior. The vast majority of this coal is in the American West. When mined and burned, this coal is responsible for more than 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
The groups' letter comes as global warming is taking a tremendous toll on society, fueling rising temperatures, worsening droughts in the American West, threatening public health and risking billions in damages to U.S. national parks and other public lands. It also comes amid growing public support for keeping fossil fuels in the ground as a means to combat climate change.
"The climate crisis is now widely regarding by medical organizations throughout the world as the greatest public health threat of the 21st century," said Brian Moench, president of the board of directors for Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. "We are already seeing the consequences of hotter temperatures, worsening air pollution, more insect-borne diseases, food insecurity and water contamination and scarcity. Those trends will become much worse if we fail to act."
Last year scientists reported that to rein in global temperature increases, more than 90 percent of all coal reserves in the United States would have to remain untouched. Further reports have found more than 100 million metric tons of carbon pollution stands to be prevented annuallyby keeping publicly owned fossil fuels in the ground.
Another recent study found that making permanent the moratorium on new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana-- the largest coal-producing region in the nation -- could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still meeting foreseeable power demands. The fact is that current federal coal leases will last through 2040 and issuing any new leases is incompatible with meeting the U.S. commitment to the Paris agreement to limit global warming.
The groups joining the letter to President Obama include WildEarth Guardians, the Center for Biological Diversity, Rainforest Action Network, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, New Energy Economy, Montana Environmental Information Center, Western Environmental Law Center, Grand Canyon Trust, Science and Environmental Health Network and Great Old Broads for Wilderness.
While the coalition today is calling for reforms to lead to the end of the federal coal program, the groups' letter also joined thousands of Americans in calling on the Obama administration to ensure a "just transition" away from coal, to provide assistance to communities for economic planning and development and to prioritize transition as a reform goal.
The Interior Department expects to release an interim report by the end of 2016 with conclusions from its public process.
Additional Group Statements
"If science, not politics, is the guide for the decision on public lands management then the issue is absolutely clear: the federal coal-leasing program must be terminated," said Mariel Nanasi, executive director of the New Mexico-based New Energy Economy. "It's time for the administration to put science and our future ahead of politics and protect our climate."
"There is a fundamental disconnect between President Obama's recognition that we need to take immediate action on climate change and how our public lands are managed for energy production, particularly coal," said Kyle Tisdel, attorney and climate and energy program director with the Western Environmental Law Center. "If we are to stem the most catastrophic impacts from a warming planet, as well as dramatic impacts to our communities and public health, the transformation must start by reforming the federal coal program."
"In coal country, like Utah where I'm from, the legacy spans more than a century. Local coal jobs mean income to support family, benefits and getting to work close to home. The hard facts are that only a handful of people benefit while the majority of the costs -- health, environmental, economic -- are borne by frontline workers and communities, and will be felt by generations to come," said Kaitlin Butler, program director, Extreme Energy program of the Science and Environmental Health Network. "Ending coal in coal country is hard, complicated. Climate change is straightforward; we have a big-time problem that calls for urgent action, status-quo is catastrophic. A Just Transition is a way to confront the roots of the climate crisis, which are the roots of an extractive economy; it's about the future of the planet and a new economy. President Obama and Secretary Jewell, you have the opportunity to be proactive and visionary and begin to shift this legacy of debts in a real way. It's hard and important. And it's the only way forward."
Detailed comments submitted today by the Center for Biological Diversity can be downloaded here.
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
US Led 'Unprecedented' Surge in Global Military Spending in 2024
"As governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come," said one expert.
Apr 28, 2025
Military spending worldwide soared to $2.718 trillion last year, meaning it "has increased every year for a full decade, going up by 37% between 2015 and 2024," according to an annual report released Monday.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has tracked conflict, disarmament, and weapons for nearly six decades. Its 2024 spending report states that "for the second year in a row, military expenditure increased in all five of the world's geographical regions, reflecting heightened geopolitical tensions across the globe."
In a Monday statement, Xiao Liang, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, highlighted that "over 100 countries around the world raised their military spending in 2024."
"It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War."
"This was really unprecedented... It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War," Liang told Agence France-Press, while acknowledging that there may have been larger jumps during the Cold War but Soviet Union data is not available.
Liang warned that "as governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come."
The United States—whose Republican lawmakers are currently cooking up a plan to give even more money to a Pentagon that's never passed an audit—led all countries, with $997 billion in military spending. The report points out that the U.S. not only allocated "3.2 times more than the second-largest spender," but also "accounted for 37% of global military expenditure in 2024 and 66% of spending by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members."
In the second spot was China, with an estimated $314 billion in spending. Nan Tian, director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, raised the alarm about spending in Asia.
"Major military spenders in the Asia-Pacific region are investing increasing resources into advanced military capabilities," said Tian. "With several unresolved disputes and mounting tensions, these investments risk sending the region into a dangerous arms-race spiral."
In third place was Russia, with an estimated $149 billion in spending. Russia remains at war after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rounding out the top five were Germany ($88.5 billion) and India ($86.1 billion).
They were followed by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Poland, Italy, and Australia. The report says that "together, the top 15 spenders in 2024 accounted for 80% of global military spending ($2,185 billion) and for 79% of the total increase in spending over the year. All 15 increased their military spending in 2024."
"The two largest year-on-year percentage increases among this group were in Israel (+65%) and Russia (+38%), highlighting the effect of major conflicts on spending trends in 2024," the publication continues. Israel has been engaged in a U.S.-backed military assault on the Gaza Strip—globally condemned as genocide—since October 2023.
"Russia once again significantly increased its military spending, widening the spending gap with Ukraine," noted SIPRI researcher Diego Lopes da Silva. "Ukraine currently allocates all of its tax revenues to its military. In such a tight fiscal space, it will be challenging for Ukraine to keep increasing its military spending."
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday announced an upcoming three-day truce to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for an immediate monthlong cease-fire.
All NATO members boosted military spending last year, which SIPRI researcher Jade Guiberteau Ricard said was "driven mainly by the ongoing Russian threat and concerns about possible U.S. disengagement within the alliance."
"It is worth saying that boosting spending alone will not necessarily translate into significantly greater military capability or independence from the USA," the expert added. "Those are far more complex tasks."
Another SIPRI researcher, Lorenzo Scarazzato, highlighted that "for the first time since reunification Germany became the biggest military spender in Western Europe, which was due to the €100 billion special defense fund announced in 2022."
"The latest policies adopted in Germany and many other European countries suggest that Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future," Scarazzato said.
As for the Middle East, SIPRI researcher Zubaida Kari said that "despite widespread expectations that many Middle Eastern countries would increase their military spending in 2024, major rises were limited to Israel and Lebanon."
In addition to slaughtering at least tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza over the past nearly 19 months, Israel has killed thousands of people in Lebanon while allegedly targeting the political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Kari said that elsewhere in the region, "countries either did not significantly increase spending in response to the war in Gaza or were prevented from doing so by economic constraints."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Not Just for the Battlefield: Rights Group Warns of Dystopian World Where Killer Robots Reign
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," according to the author of the report.
Apr 28, 2025
In a report published Monday, a leading human rights group calls for international political action to prohibit and regulate so-called "killer robots"—autonomous weapons systems that select targets based on inputs from sensors rather than from humans—and examines them in the context of six core principles in international human rights law.
In some cases, the report argues, an autonomous weapons system may simply be incompatible with a given human rights principle or obligation.
The report, co-published by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, comes just ahead of the first United Nations General Assembly meeting on autonomous weapons systems next month. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the U.N. to ban the development and use of killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," said the author behind the report, Bonnie Docherty, a senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch and a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, in a statement on Monday.
According to the report, which includes recommendations on a potential international treaty, the call for negotiations to adopt "a legally binding instrument to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapons systems" is supported by at least 129 countries.
Drones relying on an autonomous targeting system have been used by Ukraine to hit Russian targets during the war between the two countries, The New York Timesreported last year.
In 2023, the Pentagon announced a program, known as the Replicator initiative, which involves a push to build thousands of autonomous drones. The program is part of the U.S. Defense Department's plan to counter China. In November, the watchdog group Public Citizen alleged that Pentagon officials have not been clear about whether the drones in the Replicator project would be used to kill.
A senior Navy admiral recently toldBloomberg that the program is "alive and well" under the Department of Defense's new leadership following U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Docherty warned that the impact of killer robots will stretch beyond the traditional battlefield. "The use of autonomous weapons systems will not be limited to war, but will extend to law enforcement operations, border control, and other circumstances, raising serious concerns under international human rights law," she said in the statement
When it comes to the right to peaceful assembly under human rights law, which is important in the context of law enforcement exercising use force, "autonomous weapons systems would be incompatible with this right," according to the report.
Killer robots pose a threat to peaceful assembly because they "would lack human judgment and could not be pre-programmed or trained to address every situation," meaning they "would find it challenging to draw the line between peaceful and violent protesters."
Also, "the use or threat of use of autonomous weapons systems, especially in the hands of abusive governments, could strike fear among protesters and thus cause a chilling effect on free expression and peaceful assembly," per the report.
Killer robots would also contravene the principle of human dignity, according to the report, which establishes that all humans have inherent worth that is "universal and inviolable."
"The dignity critique is not focused on the systems generating the wrong outcomes," the report states. "Even if autonomous weapons systems could feasibly make no errors in outcomes—something that is extremely unlikely—the human dignity concerns remain, necessitating prohibitions and regulations of such systems."
"Autonomous weapon systems cannot be programmed to give value to human life, do not possess emotions like compassion that can generate restraint to violence, and would rely on processes that dehumanize individuals by making life-and-death decisions based on software and data points," Docherty added.
In total, the report considers the right to life; the right to peaceful assembly; the principle of human dignity; the principle of nondiscrimination; the right to privacy; and the right to remedy.
The report also lists cases where it's more ambiguous whether autonomous weapons systems would violate a certain right.
The right to privacy, for example, protects individuals from "arbitrary or unlawful" interferences in their personal life. According to the report, "The development and use of autonomous weapons systems could violate the right because, if they or any of their component systems are based on AI technology, their development, testing, training, and use would likely require mass surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolute Insanity': Right-Wing Activist Asks If Trump Will Suspend Habeas Corpus to Expel More Migrants
"Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution," said one policy expert.
Apr 28, 2025
With the Trump administration making space in the press briefing room for right-wing podcasters and other conservative "new media" content creators, viewers of briefings since President Donald Trump took office have seen his press secretary field questions about the Ukrainian president's clothing during an Oval Office meeting, compliments about Trump's "fitness plan," and attacks on reporters who have long reported from the White House.
On Monday, the first question of the briefing was derided by one Democratic politician as "absolute insanity," as right-wing commentator and influencer Rogan O'Handley—also known by the handle "DC Draino"—was given the floor to ask whether Trump will suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to circumvent several judges' rulings and "start shipping out" undocumented immigrants without due process.
"Can you please let us know if and when the Trump administration is planning to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to circumvent these radical judges?" asked O'Handley after accusing federal judges of "thwarting [Trump's] agenda with an unprecedented number of national injunctions."
O'Handley shared some familiar right-wing talking points—saying federal judges have provided "more due process to violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua illegal aliens than they did for U.S. citizens who peacefully protested on January 6"—as he suggested the administration should abandon the legal principle under which people who are detained are permitted to challenge their imprisonment in court.
"You have got to be kidding me," wrote Sara McGee, a Democrat running for the Texas House of Representatives.
His question came amid escalating attacks by Republicans and the administration on judges who have ruled against the White House. A Republican congressman said last month that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. should be impeached for issuing an order against Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel hundreds of undocumented immigrants to El Salvador. Last week, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant evade arrest by escorting him out of her courtroom.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, noted that O'Handley and press secretary Karoline Leavitt also repeatedly cited at least one statistic that was "completely made up"—that the Biden administration allowed 15 million undocumented immigrants into the United States—as they suggested Trump should take legal steps to force all of them out of the country without the input of the judicial system.
The undocumented population in the U.S. in 2023 was 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies, down from the peak of 12 million, which was reached in 2008.
"They've been pushing this on the right for about a week now," said Reichlin-Melnick of the push to suspend habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants. "Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution."
Leavitt responded to O'Handley's question by saying while she has "not heard such discussions take place... the president and the entire administration are certainly open to all legal and constitutional remedies" to continue expelling people from the United States.
Several cases of undocumented immigrants who have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center have made national headlines in recent weeks, including that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Merwil Gutiérrez, a 19-year-old who federal agents acknowledged was not who they were looking for during a raid; and Andry Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist who was accused of being a gang member solely because he had tattoos.
O'Handley's suggestion that the bedrock legal principle be suspended for undocumented immigrants—hundreds of whom have already been forced out of the country without due process—came ahead of Trump's scheduled signing of two new immigration-related executive orders.
One would direct the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary cities and states—those where local law enforcement are directed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it seeks to arrest undocumented immigrants.
The other, Leavitt said, would "unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals." The New York Postreported that the order would be related to providing local police agencies with military equipment and legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular