November, 08 2018, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tel: (520) 623.5252,Email:,center@biologicaldiversity.org
In Blow to Pipeline Project, Court Invalidates Trump Administration's Keystone XL Environmental Review, Blocks Construction
GREAT FALLS, MONT
A federal judge ruled today that the Trump administration violated bedrock U.S. environmental laws when approving a federal permit for TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project. The judge blocked any construction on the pipeline and ordered the government to revise its environmental review.
The decision is a significant setback for a pipeline that investors are already seriously questioning. TransCanada has not yet announced a Final Investment Decision on whether to move forward and build Keystone XL should it receive all the necessary permits.
U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris found that the Trump administration's reliance on a stale environmental review from 2014 violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. This ruling follows the court's previous decision on August 15 to require additional analysis of the new route through Nebraska.
The court required the U.S. Department of State to revise the proposed project's environmental impact statement to evaluate the extraordinary changes in oil markets that have occurred since the previous review was completed in 2014; to consider the combined climate impacts of approving both the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines; to study the many cultural resources along the pipeline's route; and to examine the harmful risks of oil spills on nearby water and wildlife.
The State Department must also provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to reverse course and approve the permit, after the Obama administration denied it just three years ago on the same set of facts.
Based on these violations, the court ordered the State Department to revise its environmental analysis, and prohibited any work along the proposed route -- which would cross Nebraska, South Dakota, and Montana -- until that analysis is complete. Keystone XL would have carried up to 35 million gallons a day of Canadian tar sands -- one of the world's dirtiest energy sources -- across critical water sources and wildlife habitat to Gulf Coast refineries.
Plaintiffs Northern Plains Resource Council, Bold Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club filed the lawsuit in March 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
Quotes
"Today's ruling is a victory for the rule of law, and it's a victory for common sense stewardship of the land and water upon which we all depend. Despite the best efforts of wealthy, multinational corporations and the powerful politicians who cynically do their bidding, we see that everyday people can still band together and successfully defend their rights. All Americans should be proud that our system of checks and balances can still function even in the face of enormous strains," said Dena Hoff, Montana farmer and member-leader of the Northern Plains Resource Council.
"Farmers and our Tribal Nation allies in Nebraska, South Dakota and Montana celebrate today's victory foiling the Trump administration's scheme to rubber-stamp the approval of Keystone XL. This now ten-year battle is still far from over. We'll continue to stand together against this tar sands export pipeline that threatens property rights, water and climate at every opportunity, at every public hearing. People on the route deserve due process and the Ponca Trail of Tears must be protected," said Mark Hefflinger, communications director for Bold Alliance.
"Today's ruling makes it clear once and for all that it's time for TransCanada to give up on their Keystone XL pipe dream," said Sierra Club Senior Attorney Doug Hayes. "The Trump administration tried to force this dirty pipeline project on the American people, but they can't ignore the threats it would pose to our clean water, our climate, and our communities."
"This is a complete repudiation of the Trump administration's attempts to evade environmental laws and prioritize oil company profits over clean water and wildlife," said Jared Margolis, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Keystone XL would devastate species and put communities at risk of contamination. There's simply no excuse for approving this terrible project. We need to move away from fossil fuel dependence, not support more devastation."
"Keystone XL would be a disaster for the climate and for the people and wildlife of this country," said Jackie Prange, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "As the court has made clear yet again, the Trump administration's flawed and dangerous proposal should be shelved forever."
"Today's ruling is a decisive moment in our fight against the corporate polluters who have rushed to destroy our planet," said Marcie Keever, legal director at Friends of the Earth. "Rejecting the destructive Keystone XL pipeline is a victory for the grassroots activists who have worked against the Keystone XL pipeline for the past decade. Environmental laws exist to protect people and our lands and waters. Today, the courts showed the Trump administration and their corporate polluter friends that they cannot bully rural landowners, farmers, environmentalists and Native communities."
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
'Disastrous': US Vetoes Cease-Fire Resolution at UN Security Council
"The Security Council was again prevented from rising to this moment to uphold its clear responsibilities in the face of this grave crisis threatening human lives and threatening regional and international peace and security," said the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations.
Dec 08, 2023
As the United Nations humanitarian chief warned that aid workers in Gaza are "hanging on by our fingertips" as they try to mitigate an "untenable" disaster, and with Americans' support for Israel's U.S-backed bombardment of the enclave eroding, the United States on Friday vetoed a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire at the U.N. Security Council.
U.S. Envoy to the U.N. Robert Wood told members of the council that a cease-fire would "only plant the seeds for the next war."
Thirteen member-countries voted in favor of the cease-fire resolution, which was introduced after U.N. Secretary-General AntĂłnio Guterres took the rare step of invoking Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, warning that Israel's slaughter of at least 17,487 Palestinians in just two months "may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
The U.K. abstained from voting on the resolution, saying it did not take into account that Hamas committed acts of terrorism when it attacked Israel on October 7.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. envoy, called the veto "disastrous."
"The Security Council was again prevented from rising to this moment to uphold its clear responsibilities in the face of this grave crisis threatening human lives and threatening regional and international peace and security," said Mansour. "Instead of allowing this council to uphold its mandate by finally making a clear call after two months of massacres that the atrocities must end, the war criminals are given more time to perpetuate them. How can this be justified?"
Nicolas de Rivière, France's permanent representative to the Security Council, who voted in favor of the cease-fire, argued that there is no "contradiction in the fight against terrorism and the protection of civilians, in strict respect of international humanitarian law."
"Unfortunately once again, this council has failed. With a lack of unity and by refusing to genuinely commit to negotiations in doing this, the crisis in Gaza is getting worse and it runs the risk of extending," said de Rivière.
The U.S. has now vetoed U.N. resolutions to hold Israel accountable for its policies in Palestine 45 times, human rights lawyer Noura Erakat said.
Former U.N. human rights official Craig Mokhiber—who resigned in October over the U.N.'s response to the war in Gaza—noted that U.S. blocked the resolution on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the U.N. Genocide Convention.
"Thousands have died since [the United States'] last veto and more will die now," said Mokhiber.
Keep ReadingShow Less
73% of US Voters Want Emissions Cut in Half by 2023: Poll
One expert expressed hope that Democrats "realize that strong positions on abortion and climate change are no longer 'partisan' or 'divisive'—religious freedom, bodily privacy, and saving the world are BIG TENT, winning issues."
Dec 08, 2023
Polling results released Friday by CNN show that 73% of U.S. voters across the political spectrum believe the government should design policies to meet its commitment to cut planet-heating emissions in half by the end of this decade.
End Climate Science founding director Genevieve Guenther noted on social media that the overall figure includes 95% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, and even 50% of Republicans.
She expressed hope that the Democratic Party will now "realize that strong positions on abortion and climate change are no longer 'partisan' or 'divisive'—religious freedom, bodily privacy, and saving the world are BIG TENT, winning issues."
The survey was conducted by SSRS last month and the results were revealed during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) set to run through Tuesday—which U.S. President Joe Biden has been criticized for blowing off.
As CNNdetailed:
Americans give Biden a 43% approval rating for his handling of environmental policy, which is several points above his overall approval rating and well above his numbers for handling the economy. But few Americans, only 2%, see climate change as the most important issue facing the country, giving higher priority to the economy and cost of living.
But climate change and clean energy are increasingly intertwined with the economy. Climate change-fueled disasters don’t just impact commerce, they also strike at the heart of the American dream: homeownership.
The approval and disapproval responses strongly correlate to political party, with far more Democrats backing Biden's environmental policy.
Most Americans disapprove of President Biden's handling of environmental policy
(Graphic: Matt Stiles/CNN)
Pollsters found that 58% of voters worry about the effects of extreme weather, 68% worry about the risks of climate change, and 79% think that climate change contributed to extreme weather in their area.
Large majorities of voters from the partisan spectrum agreed that humanity as a whole, the energy and automobile industries, and the U.S. and Chinese governments have some or even a great deal of responsibility to try to reduce climate change. Slightly smaller majorites said that those entities are doing "too little" to address the emergency.
Two-thirds of voters said that "requiring that all electricity in the U.S. be produced using renewable sources like solar and wind by the year 2035" as well as "offering federal tax credits for purchasing and installing home solar panels should be important, or even top priorities.
Even more (71%) noted the importance of "offering federal tax credits for purchasing and installing ultra-efficient home heating and cooling systems" along with "prioritizing investments in clean energy sources over energy from fossil fuels." A slim majority (54%) prioritized "offering federal tax credits for purchasing an electric vehicle."
While Biden—who is seeking reelection next year—campaigned on the promise of being a "climate president," during his first term so far he has faced criticism from campaigners and frontline communities for declining to declare a national climate emergency, supporting the Willow oil project and Mountain Valley Pipeline, backing the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports, and continuing fossil fuel lease sales for public lands and waters.
The president has also had to contend with Republicans and right-wing Democrats in Congress who want to kill or water down climate policies. For example, this week, the House GOP has voted to block a proposed Biden administration rule meant to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and advance various fossil fuel industry-friendly bills, including one that would saddle taxpayers with the cost of cleaning up oil and gas wells on federal lands.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crunch Time at COP28': Latest Draft Still Has Loopholes, Omits 'Just' Fossil Fuel Phaseout
As the newest Global Stocktake draft was released, an OPEC letter showed oil-producing companies are fearful that the world is getting closer to phasing out fossil fuels.
Dec 08, 2023
Reviewing the latest draft of the Global Stocktake regarding the climate emergency out of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference, campaigners on Friday noted that negotiators left in numerous loopholes that would allow the fossil fuel industry to continue polluting, while eliminating one option for a clause that appeared to call for a just transition toward renewable energy.
The new draft is the result of three more days of negotiations since the last version of the Global Stocktake (GST) was released on Tuesday, when advocates warned policymakers appeared insistent on including a call for "abatement" of fossil fuel emissions—meaning further development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which have so far failed to deliver the emissions-reduction results promised by proponents.
The latest version of the document includes four options for a paragraph that would address the future of fossil fuel use in the remaining years of this decade.
The options that remain in the draft are:
- A phaseout of fossil fuels in line with best available science;
- A phasing out of fossil fuels in line with best available science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 1.5°C pathways and the principles and provisions of the Paris agreement;
- A phaseout of unabated fossil fuels recognizing the need for a peak in their consumption in this decade and underlining the importance for the energy sector to be predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050; and
- No text regarding changes to fossil fuel use.
Negotiators crossed out an option that would call for "an orderly and just phaseout of fossil fuels."
"There is some good stuff in there, but still too many dangerous distractions," said 350.org on social media. "We must agree [to] a fair and fast phaseout of fossil fuels and to triple renewable energies by 2030!"
The draft suggested that many policymakers remain committed to calling for a phaseout of "unabated" fossil fuel emissions—those that are not "captured" and stored underground or under the seabed before they hit they atmosphere.
As Common Dreamsreported Friday, more than 470 lobbyists representing carbon capture and storage interests and companies are in attendance at COP28—along with more than 2,400 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, which has openly supported CCS as a solution that would allow oil, gas, and coal giants to continue operating.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, said world leaders must take their "historic opportunity to secure a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels in line with what the science shows is necessary to meet critical climate goals."
"It's crunch time at COP28," Cleetus told Common Dreams. "The latest draft of the Global Stocktake text includes several potential options, with varying degrees of ambition. Now, it's time to reach consensus on a final outcome that is true to the science, includes near- and long-term benchmarks, has no loopholes, and has an equitable provision of finance to drive a clean energy transition. Countries must take bold action and rise above narrow self-interest and zero-sum political games, as well as the influence of fossil fuel companies, to deliver what people around the world urgently need as climate impacts rapidly worsen."
"The time is now, and the place is Dubai, to finally address the root cause of this global crisis: fossil fuels," said Cleetus.
Oil Change International global policy manager Romain Ioualalen said the latest draft left him hopeful that the world has "never been closer to an agreement on a fossil fuel phaseout."
"What that transition will look like will be a fierce battle over the next few days," said Ioualalen. "We are alarmed about some of the options in this text that seem to carve out large loopholes for the fossil fuel industry. These will need to be opposed. The draft is also missing a clear recognition that developed countries will need to phase out faster and provide their fair share of finance, as well as a recognition that the decline of fossil fuel production must start immediately, not in the distant future."
Ghiwa Nakat, executive director of Greenpeace MENA, said the latest draft and "everything so far" at COP28 "has been just a prelude to what we really want to hear—commitment to a just and equitable phaseout of all fossil fuels by mid-century, coupled with key milestones for this critical decade."
While "alternative formulations on fossil fuel phaseout" have never "made it this far into a draft text," said Greenpeace International, "there are still no guarantees on a decision on fossil fuels, so all is in play."
Shortly after the draft was made public, letters from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were leaked to multiple news outlets and made it even more clear that campaigners' fight for a strong final Global Stocktake is not over—but that major fossil fuel producers are growing concerned that COP28 could be a turning point for the industry.
The letters, dated December 6 and signed by OPEC secretary-general and Kuwaiti oil executive Haitham al-Ghais, were sent to members countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Nigeria.
Al-Ghais urged the countries to "proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy, i.e. fossil fuels, rather than emissions."
"These letters show that fossil fuel interests are starting to realize that the writing is on the wall for dirty energy," Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, toldThe Guardian. "Climate change is killing poor people around the globe and these petrostates don't want COP28 to phase out fossil fuels because it will hurt their short-term profits. It's shameful."
While the draft text "offers hope with several options for a phaseout of fossil fuels," said Cansın Leylim, associate director of global campaigns for 350.org, fossil fuel lobbyists are still "trying to block progress" at COP28.
"OPEC needs to get with the program or move out of the way of our just transition to a 100% renewable energy powered future," said Leylim. "The spotlight is now on the COP28's presidency and if they will broker a deal for a just transition or instead align themselves with the oil industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular