August, 08 2018, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Clare Lakewood, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 316-8615, clakewood@biologicaldiversity.org
Greg Loarie, Earthjustice, (415) 217-2000, gloarie@earthjustice.org
Trump Administration Moves to Reopen California Public Lands to Oil Leasing
Process could end 5-year moratorium on leasing federal land to oil companies
BAKERSFIELD, Calif
The Trump administration today took the first step in a process that could open more than a million acres of public land and mineral estate in central California to oil drilling and fracking. The move could end a five-year-old moratorium on leasing federal public land in the state to oil companies.
Today's notice from the Bureau of Land Management seeks comments on the potential harms of fracking in 400,000 acres of public land and an additional 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura counties.
"This step toward opening our beautiful public lands to fracking and drilling is part of the Trump administration's war on California," said Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "We desperately need to keep these dirty fossil fuels in the ground. But Trump is hell-bent on sacrificing our health, wildlife and climate to profit big polluters."
In 2015 the Center for Biological Diversity and Los Padres ForestWatch, represented by Earthjustice, successfully sued the BLM for approving a resource management plan allowing oil and gas drilling and fracking on vast stretches of California's public lands without adequately analyzing and disclosing the impacts of fracking on air quality, water and wildlife.
As a result of the groups' legal victory, the BLM agreed to complete a new analysis of the pollution risks of fracking before deciding whether to allow drilling and fracking on public land across California's Central Valley, the southern Sierra Nevada and in Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties.
The BLM has not held a single lease sale in California since 2013 when a federal judge first ruled that the agency had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by issuing oil leases in Monterey County without considering the environmental dangers of fracking.
Fracking is an extreme oil-extraction process that blasts toxic chemicals mixed with water underground to crack rocks. The public lands at stake encompass "numerous groundwater systems that contribute to the annual water supply used by neighboring areas for agricultural and urban purposes," a federal judge noted in 2016.
A 2015 report from the California Council on Science and Technology concluded that fracking in California happens at unusually shallow depths, dangerously close to underground drinking water supplies, with unusually high concentrations of chemicals, including substances dangerous to human health and the environment.
Today's announcement comes after San Luis Obispo residents, concerned about the harms fracking poses to their county, placed a voter initiative on the November election ballot. If passed, Measure G will ban fracking and new oil and gas wells in San Luis Obispo County.
"It's great that BLM is finally going to look at this problem," said Greg Loarie, an attorney at Earthjustice. "But analyzing the impacts of fracking is like analyzing the impacts of smoking cigarettes: there's really no question that more fracking would be terrible for California."
The BLM's 30-day comment period for the proposal begins today.
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 Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as 'Nonbinding'
One expert accused the U.S. of working to "undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
Mar 26, 2024
Biden administration officials attempted Monday to downplay the significance of a newly passed United Nations Security Council resolution, drawing ire from human rights advocates who said the U.S. is undercutting international law and stonewalling attempts to bring Israel's devastating military assault on Gaza to an end.
The resolution "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire." The U.S., which previously vetoed several cease-fire resolutions, opted to abstain on Monday, allowing the measure to pass.
Shortly after the resolution's approval, several administration officials—including State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—falsely characterized the measure as "nonbinding."
"It's a nonbinding resolution," Kirby told reporters. "So, there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas."
Watch Matt Lee ask StateSpox about the passing of the UN ceasefire resolution. Basically the US position is it makes no difference and Miller calls 🇷🇺/🇨🇳 veto cynical.
Lee: Do you expect Israel is going to announce a ceasefire?
Miller: I do not
Lee: What’s the point of the UN? pic.twitter.com/FibaSKWjuh
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) March 25, 2024
Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University and former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, wrote in response that "there is no such thing as a 'nonbinding' Security Council resolution."
"Israel's failure to abide by this resolution must open the door to the immediate imposition of Chapter VII sanctions," Ruebner wrote.
Beatrice Fihn, the director of Lex International and former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, condemned what she called the Biden administration's "appalling behavior" in the wake of the resolution's passage. Fihn said the administration's downplaying of the resolution shows how the U.S. works to "openly undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
In a Monday op-ed for Common Dreams, Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that administration officials' claim that the resolution was "nonbinding" should be seen as "setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the U.N. Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution's terms."
While all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they're difficult to enforce and regularly ignored by the Israeli government, which responded with outrage to the latest resolution and canceled an Israeli delegation's planned visit to the U.S.
Israel Katz, Israel's foreign minister,
wrote on social media Monday that "Israel will not cease fire."
The resolution passed amid growing global alarm over the humanitarian crisis that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip, where most of the population of around 2.2 million is displaced and at increasingly dire risk of starvation.
Amnesty International secretary-general Agnes Callamard said Monday that it was "just plain irresponsible" of U.S. officials to "suggest that a resolution meant to save lives and address massive devastation and suffering can be disregarded."
In addition to demanding an immediate cease-fire, the Security Council resolution calls for the unconditional release of all remaining hostages and "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance."
Israel has systematically obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza, including
U.S.-funded flour shipments.
Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, stressed during a briefing Monday that "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law."
"They are as binding as international laws," Haq said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
​State of Emergency Declared After Cargo Ship Destroys Baltimore Bridge
Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin said he was "deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore."
Mar 26, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
A state of emergency was declared in Maryland early Tuesday morning after a large cargo ship slammed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore leading to its total collapse and sending a still unverified number of vehicles and people into the Patapsco River.
As the Baltimore Sunreports:
In a Tuesday morning news conference, just a few hours after the incident, Baltimore Fire Department Chief James Wallace said authorities are "still very much in an active search and rescue posture" noting they are searching for "upwards of seven individuals" and that sonar has detected the presence of vehicles in the water. There is no indication that the event was intentional, Wallace said.
"This is a tragedy that you could never imagine … It looked like something out of an action movie," Mayor Brandon Scott said.
The terrifying footage of the bridge's collapse—which CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez commented was "almost unbelievable" to watch—is circulating widely on news channels and social media:
This video is almost unbelievable. The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore literally collapsed this morning after it was struck by this large ship. pic.twitter.com/rYuy4U2r7H
— Omar Jimenez (@OmarJimenez) March 26, 2024
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Tuesday that he had spoken with Mayor Scott and well as Maryland Governor Wes Moore and was helping to coordinate federal assistance.
"Rescue efforts remain underway and drivers in the Baltimore area should follow local responder guidance on detours and response," said Buttigieg.
Moore said in a statement he had declared a state of emergency and that work was underway to "quickly deploy federal resources" to the area.
"We are thankful for the brave men and women who are carrying out efforts to rescue those involved and pray for everyone's safety," said Moore. "We will remain in close contact with federal, state, and local entities that are carrying out rescue efforts as we continue to assess and respond to this tragedy."
Kevin Cartwright of the Baltimore Fire Department told CNN that the number of missing people may be higher than reported in other outlets. "Unfortunately," said Cartwright, "we understand that there were up to 20 individuals who may be in the Patapsco River right now as well as multiple vehicles."
Early reporting indicated that no crew members aboard the container ship, which sails under a Singapore flag, were injured or missing. A local harbor pilot was also said to be on board at the time of the crash.
"Deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) following the accident. "I'm profoundly thankful to first responders on the scene and will track rescue efforts by local, state, and federal authorities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grave 'Threat to Journalists' Remains as UK Court Delays Assange Extradition Ruling
"The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all," said the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Mar 26, 2024
The United Kingdom's High Court ruled Tuesday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot immediately be extradited to the United States and gave the Biden administration three weeks to provide "assurances" that the publisher's First Amendment rights will be protected and that he won't face the death penalty.
If the U.S. does not provide the requested assurances, Assange will be allowed to pursue a limited appeal of his extradition. Should the U.S. submit assurances by the April 16 deadline, a hearing will be held on May 20 to determine whether they are "satisfactory."
Assange, whose health has deteriorated badly during his five years in a high-security London jail, faces 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and a possible 175-year prison sentence in the U.S. for publishing classified information—a common journalistic practice. WikiLeaks disclosures exposed grave U.S. and U.K. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Press freedom and human rights groups say the extradition of Assange to the U.S. would set a dangerous precedent and pose a dire threat to journalism everywhere.
Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement Tuesday that "we are glad Julian Assange is not getting extradited today."
"But this legal battle is far from over, and the threat to journalists and the news media from the Espionage Act charges against Assange remains," said Timm. "Assange's conviction in American courts would create a dangerous precedent that the U.S. government can and will use against reporters of all stripes who expose its wrongdoing or embarrass it. The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case."
The U.S., which has been aggressively pursuing Assange's extradition for years, previously provided the U.K. government with assurances that Assange would not be held at a supermax prison that's notorious for its inhumane treatment of inmates.
Human rights groups have said such assurances from the U.S. government are "inherently unreliable" and should not be taken seriously by British authorities.
"While the U.S. has allegedly assured the U.K. that it will not violate Assange's rights, we know from past cases that such 'guarantees' are deeply flawed—and the diplomatic assurances so far in the Assange case are riddled with loopholes," noted Simon Crowther, legal adviser at Amnesty International.
"The U.S. must stop its politically motivated prosecution of Assange, which puts Assange and media freedom at risk worldwide," Crowther said Tuesday. "In trying to imprison him, the U.S. is sending an unambiguous warning to publishers and journalists everywhere that they too could be targeted and that it is not safe for them to receive and publish classified material—even if doing so is in the public interest."
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, echoed that message, saying in a statement that "prosecuting Assange for the publication of classified information would have profound implications for press freedom, because publishing classified information is what journalists and news organizations often need to do in order to expose wrongdoing by government."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case," said Jaffer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular