February, 23 2021, 11:00pm EDT
Newsom Administration Sued Over Thousands of Unlawful Oil, Gas Projects
Lawsuit says state failed to conduct proper environmental review.
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
The Center for Biological Diversity sued the state of California today for approving thousands of oil and gas drilling and fracking projects without the required environmental review.
Today's lawsuit says that the state's primary oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, or CalGEM, has ignored its legal obligation to conduct analyses of environmental and health harms before issuing permits and approvals.
In 2020 alone regulators approved nearly 2,000 permits for new oil and gas wells without proper environmental review.
"It is completely unacceptable for Gov. Newsom to continue to ignore our flagship environmental law that's meant to protect people from oil industry pollution," said Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney at the Center's Climate Law Institute. "Newsom can't protect our health and climate while giving thousands of illegal permits each year to this dirty and dangerous industry. We need the courts to step in and stop this."
Under the California Environmental Quality Act -- the state's bedrock environmental protection and community right-to-know law -- state and local agencies are required to disclose, analyze and mitigate a project's environmental harms before approving oil and gas permits. But for years CalGEM has granted approvals for new oil and gas activity without conducting any such studies. As a result, regulators have approved thousands of permits every year that haven't been reviewed for health and environmental risks.
Regulators have also skipped public notice, comment and hearing requirements that ordinarily apply.
"The state's failure to conduct environmental review has been in reckless disregard of the health and safety impacts imposed on communities at the frontlines of gas and oil operations," said Gladys Limon, executive director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance. "Our government's primary duty is to protect communities, which requires diligently identifying and preventing short- and long-term impacts to people's health and life expectancy."
The lawsuit challenges CalGEM's approval of oil and gas projects, including drilling, fracking and injection throughout the state. If successful it would force CalGEM to complete a review of health and environmental impacts before approving future projects.
"State laws are designed to protect communities and minimize pollution," said Deborah Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, who is representing the Center in the lawsuit. "The state can't continue to pretend these fundamental protections don't apply to one of the most polluting and dangerous industries on the planet."
Despite Gov. Newsom's progressive rhetoric on climate change, he has failed to curb California's dirty and carbon-intensive oil and gas production. His regulators continue to issue thousands of permits without review, and the governor has refused to act on his stated desire to ban fracking. Newsom's regulators also failed to meet the governor's deadline to publish a draft health-and-safety rule after vowing to do so before the end of 2020.
"The governor is openly flouting the law by rubberstamping new oil permits, and we believe the courts will make him stop," Kretzmann said.
Today's suit was filed in the California Superior Court of Alameda County.
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
'Shameful': UK Conservatives Push Through Plan to Deport Asylum-Seekers to Rwanda
"The U.K. government could literally pay every refugee a £30,000 annual salary for life, and it would be cheaper," said one critic. "We're burning money just to enjoy the cruelty."
Apr 23, 2024
Legal and human rights experts on Tuesday said the British Conservative Party's decision to push through a bill allowing the government to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda—effectively overriding last year's Supreme Court ruling—represented a "desperate low" from lawmakers eager to exploit migrants ahead of elections expected later this year.
"A lot of this is performative cruelty," Daniel Merriman, a lawyer whose clients have included some asylum-seekers whom the Tories tried to deport after it first introduced its plan in 2022, toldNPR. "The elephant in the room is the upcoming election."
After a prolonged debate, the unelected House of Lords cleared the way to pass the Safety of Rwanda bill early Tuesday morning, after dropping several proposed amendments including one that would have required independent verification that the central African country is a safe place to send migrants.
The House of Commons then passed the bill, and King Charles III is expected to formally approve the legislation in the coming days.
The bill requires courts and immigration officials to "conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country" to send asylum-seekers, even though the Supreme Court ruled in November that people deported to the country would face a significant risk of refoulement, or being sent back to the countries where they originally fled persecution or violence.
The Conservative government signed a treaty with Rwanda last December to strengthen protections for asylum-seekers, including a provision that partially bans Rwanda from sending people back to their home countries.
But the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called on the U.K. to abandon the plan and instead "take practical measures to address irregular flows of refugees and migrants, based on international cooperation and respect for international human rights law."
"The new legislation marks a further step away from the U.K.'s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention," said Filippo Grandi, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees. "Protecting refugees requires all countries—not just those neighboring crisis zones—to uphold their obligations. This arrangement seeks to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermining international cooperation and setting a worrying global precedent."
"The U.K. has a proud history of effective, independent judicial scrutiny," Grandi added. "It can still take the right steps and put in place measures to help address the factors that drive people to leave home, and share responsibility for those in need of protection, with European and other international partners."
Dorothy Guerrero, head of policy and advocacy at Global Justice Now, noted that "disastrous foreign and economic policies of successive governments have contributed to the need for people to seek refuge."
"These same people's lives are continually used as a political football, after years of being scapegoats for bad government decisions," said Guerrero. "Statements from politicians are now even more blatantly devoid of any pretense of care for human rights. We will not stop pushing for a change of course, with safe routes to seek asylum in the U.K. so that people no longer have to risk their lives in the Channel."
"The passing of the Rwanda Bill is a shameful day for the U.K.," she added.
Hours after the legislation was passed, French officials announced that at least five people, including a seven-year-old child, had been killed while attempting to cross the English Channel, bound for the U.K. in an overloaded inflatable boat.
At The New Statesman, associate political editor Rachel Cunliffe wrote Tuesday that the tragedy reveals "the flaws of the Rwanda plan," which proponents say could deter migrants from seeking refuge in Britain.
Proponents of the Rwanda plan will inevitably point to today's disaster as further evidence that strong measures are needed to address the issue of Channel crossings. They will accuse Labour and opposition parties of ignoring the human cost of letting this crisis continue and argue that lives are at stake if the government does not act.
[...]
The reality is that a substantial number of people who pay people traffickers large sums of money to crowd them on to a tiny boat do so because they feel they have no other option. Fleeing war and persecution, they are desperate. And so they are prepared to take desperate measures. Measures that sometimes lead to tragedy, but which are deemed necessary given the hopelessness of their situation.
It is hard to see how the threat to send a tiny fraction of those who arrive (Rwanda has said it will only take 150-200 migrants) changes this calculation.
The Labour Party, which is leading Conservatives in polls ahead of the expected elections, has vowed to scrap the legislation if it wins control of the government later this year, and critics have expressed doubt that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will actually secure deportation flights before Britons vote.
One flight was grounded in June 2022 after the European Court of Human Rights intervened, and on Monday the OHCHR warned aviation authorities that they would risk violating international law if they allow "unlawful removals" of asylum-seekers to Rwanda.
Critics have also pointed to a finding by the National Audit Office that the deportations would cost £1.8 million ($2.2 million) per person.
"The U.K. government could literally pay every refugee a £30,000 annual salary for life, and it would be cheaper than sending them to Rwanda," said David Andress, a history professor at the University of Portsmouth. "We're burning money just to enjoy the cruelty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
PEN America Cancels Awards Ceremony Amid Boycott Over 'Disgraceful' Gaza Response
"We cannot, in good faith, align with an organization that has shown such blatant disregard of our collective values," a group of authors and translators wrote in an open letter.
Apr 23, 2024
The prominent free expression group PEN America announced Monday that it has canceled its 2024 literary awards ceremony amid growing backlash over the organization's response to Israel's assault on Gaza and alleged attempts to suppress dissent among its employees.
The decision came after nearly half of the authors nominated for PEN America awards withdrew their names from consideration, accusing PEN America of not sufficiently speaking out against Israel's war on Gaza and the dire consequences for free expression.
The awards ceremony was scheduled to take place on April 29 in Manhattan.
In an open letter released last week, dozens of authors and translators who refused to accept any honors from the organization wrote that "PEN America has remained shamefully unwilling to speak out against the systematic nature" of Israel's "often-targeted killings of Palestinian writers, professors, and journalists and their families."
"We stand in solidarity with one another and with the people of Palestine in our refusal to lend our names and tacit approval to PEN America's disgraceful inaction," reads the open letter, which demands the resignation of PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, president Jennifer Finney Boylan, and the group's entire executive committee.
"We cannot, in good faith, align with an organization that has shown such blatant disregard of our collective values," the letter adds. "We stand in solidarity with a free Palestine. We refuse to be honored by an organization that acts as a cultural front for American imperialism. We refuse to gild the reputation of an organization that runs interference for an administration aiding and abetting genocide with our tax dollars. And we refuse to take part in anything that will serve to overshadow PEN's complicity in normalizing genocide."
"We have been disgusted, for months, by the sight of these leaders clinging to a disingenuous façade of neutrality."
Clarisse Rosaz Shariyf, PEN America's literary programming chief officer, said in a statement Monday that "we greatly respect that writers have followed their consciences, whether they chose to remain as nominees in their respective categories or not."
"We regret that this unprecedented situation has taken away the spotlight from the extraordinary work selected by esteemed, insightful, and hard-working judges across all categories," Rosaz Shariyf added. "As an organization dedicated to freedom of expression and writers, our commitment to recognizing and honoring outstanding authors and the literary community is steadfast."
Outrage over PEN America's approach to Israel's war on the Gaza Strip has been intensifying for months.
In March, as Common Dreamsreported at the time, Naomi Klein, Michelle Alexander, and other high-profile writers pulled out of the PEN World Voices Festival, accusing PEN America of betraying "the organization's professed commitment to peace and equality for all, and to freedom and security for writers everywhere."
After initially refusing to do so, PEN America late last month joined its global parent PEN International in calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. But the organization's critics—including current and former employees—argue it has failed to clearly and forcefully condemn Israel's assault, which has killed more than 34,000 people in Gaza and fueled a catastrophic humanitarian emergency.
"We have been disgusted, for months, by the sight of these leaders clinging to a disingenuous façade of neutrality while parroting hasbara talking points," the open letter from PEN America award nominees states. "We have also been appalled to learn that management has sought to suppress the off-hours political speech and activity of its own workers, in part by suggesting language by which staffers could be punished for participating in any political activity that undermines PEN America's mission."
The Interceptreported late last month that PEN America staffers also raised concerns in December over Nossel's decision to visit Israel amid the country's devastating attack on Gaza.
"We are concerned that Suzanne Nossel's trip as planned will be perceived as a dismissal of the urgent and worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and free expression and human rights violations in the West Bank and in Israel," the staffers wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Pushes Amendment to 'Cut Billions in Offensive Military Funding to Israel'
"Enough is enough," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "We cannot continue to fund this horrific war."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders said Monday that he would put forth an amendment to remove offensive military funding for Israel from a House-passed aid package that the Senate is set to consider this week.
The amendment would "cut billions in offensive military funding to Israel from the proposed national security supplemental package," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. The package, approved by the Republican-controlled House over the weekend, includes $17 billion in unconditional military assistance to the Israeli government, which stands accused on the world stage of perpetrating genocide in Gaza.
The senator said he would also offer an amendment to "protect essential humanitarian operations" in the Gaza Strip, where millions of people are facing the possibility of starvation due to Israel's suffocating and illegal blockade. At least 28 children under the age of 12 have starved to death in Gaza in recent weeks.
Sanders' amendment would restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the most important aid agency working in Gaza.
An independent report released Monday found that Israel has not provided any evidence to support its claim that a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organizations. The U.S. suspended its UNRWA aid in late January in response to Israel's unsubstantiated allegations against the agency's workers, and the House-passed Israel legislation would prohibit funding for the organization.
Sanders said Monday that the Senate "should have a chance to debate and vote on the key components of such a massive package."
"In poll after poll, Americans have showed their increasing disgust for [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's war machine and the humanitarian disaster it has caused in Gaza," the senator added. "Enough is enough. We cannot continue to fund this horrific war."
I look forward to offering amendments tomorrow to cut billions in offensive military funding to Israel from the proposed national security supplemental package and protect essential humanitarian operations. We cannot continue to fund this horrific war. pic.twitter.com/8JpxpT7IX2
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 23, 2024
A Senate vote on final passage of the White House-backed aid package—which also includes aid for Ukraine and Taiwan—is expected before Wednesday night. As Punchbowl reported, "each senator will be limited to just one hour of remarks" following procedural votes on Tuesday, so "it's likely that those who oppose the measure won't be able to drag this out much later than tonight."
The Senate vote on whether to hand Israel billions more in unconditional military aid will come as the country's military appears poised to escalate its devastating assault on the Gaza Strip, which has killed more than 34,000 people so far.
Satellite imagery obtained and analyzed by Al Jazeera shows that Israel has positioned "troops and vehicles at nearby army bases and outposts just outside the enclave."
"The analysis indicates that Israel has deployed more than 800 military vehicles to two bases," the outlet continued. "At least 120 vehicles are stationed at the northern border of the Gaza Strip and 700 are in the Negev desert, to the south. The satellite imagery also reveals that Israel has established nine military outposts just outside the enclave. Three were erected in November and December 2023 and six were set up between January and March of this year. The outposts house soldiers, operational command centers, and military vehicles."
A U.S. State Department report released Monday acknowledges that Israel has been credibly accused of grave human rights abuses in Gaza and the West Bank, including extrajudicial killings and torture. U.S. law prohibits American military assistance for governments violating human rights, but the Biden administration has resisted global calls to cut off arms sales to Israel.
"The widespread nature of the abuses described in the human rights report is overshadowed by the State Department's inaction on these same findings," Raed Jarrar, advocacy director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, said Monday. "The State Department needs to read its own report and take immediate action against all abusive Israeli units."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular