April, 22 2021, 12:00am EDT
U.S. Climate Target Falls Short of What Science, Justice Demand
WASHINGTON
The new U.S. target for reducing climate-heating emissions 50%-52% by 2030 fails to meet the demands of climate science and environmental and energy justice.
While the new U.S. target doubles the emissions-reduction commitments made in the country's 2016 pledge, it falls short of what's needed to address both the climate emergency and global equity.
"A pledge to cut emissions 50%-52% by 2030 simply isn't big enough to meet the massive scale of the climate emergency," said Jean Su, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Energy Justice program. "Solving the climate crisis requires applying both science and equity. The U.S. is the largest historic polluter and one of the wealthiest nations, and it must do its fair share and cut domestic emissions by at least 70% by 2030. Combating the climate emergency at home also requires transforming our economy by moving immediately to end the fossil fuel era and create a renewable and anti-racist energy system that advances justice first."
A United Nations report released in February showed that current climate commitments would only reduce global emissions 1% by 2030 from 2010 levels. That's far below the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recommendation that the world must commit to reduce at least 45% of emissions over the same time period to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius--the point at which scientists predict catastrophic, irreversible consequences.
A recent effort led by civil society groups, including the Center, called for the Biden administration to contribute its fair share of global climate action, based on climate science demands and the country's historical emissions contribution and wealth.
According to the US Climate Action Network and the Climate Equity Reference Project, the U.S. fair share amounts to reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions 70% below 2005 levels by 2030, with substantial assistance to developing countries to cut their emissions and mitigate climate change harms.
As the world's largest cumulative greenhouse emitter, largest oil and gas producer, third-largest coal producer and the world's wealthiest nation, the United States has an obligation to achieve greater-than-average emissions reductions. The United States committed to do so in the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change but has yet to honor that promise.
In addition, the U.S. NDC fails to include foundational climate actions to achieve the needed emissions reductions. Because 86% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels, no climate policy can succeed unless it ends new fossil fuel infrastructure and limits fossil fuel production.
Both the NDC and the Biden administration's proposed infrastructure plan fail to halt new fossil fuel infrastructure, including destructive oil and gas pipelines across the country. Biden has yet to take action to limit U.S. fossil fuel exports. And while President Biden has implemented a laudable moratorium on new federal oil and gas leasing, he has yet to match the decisive leadership of other countries such as Denmark, which has reached broad agreement to cancel ongoing leasing, ban all future oil and gas licensing, and set a final phase-out date of 2050 for all fossil fuel extraction.
At the same time, while the Biden infrastructure plan does invest in transmission lines and extends renewable energy tax credits, it fails to tackle systemic reform of investor-owned utilities that have lined the pockets of investors while obstructing distributed clean energy systems like rooftop and community solar that boost energy affordability and climate resilience.
The Biden administration is also promoting a clean energy standard that, according to White House climate czar Gina McCarthy, will include carbon capture and storage technology, an unproven technology that prolongs dirty gas extraction and the pollution of communities of color.
"It is not enough that President Biden build back better. Justice requires we build back fossil free," said Su. "The global response to climate change requires a transformational shift in how our economy and energy systems work. But President Biden's lackluster plans continue to embrace the false solutions of carbon capture and storage and other market measures that landed us in this emergency to begin with. We need to reject that broken paradigm and instead build a new climate future in a way that combats the country's inequalities, racism and ecocide."
Swift executive actions to end fossil fuel extraction and advance a clean and just energy transition are central premises in the progressive Climate President action plan and model executive order, authored by the Center and supported by nearly 750 climate and environmental justice groups.
Ending oil and gas exports is also a core pillar of Build Back Fossil Free--a growing grassroots campaign pushing Biden to take executive action to end the era of fossil fuel production, declare a climate emergency and protect communities reeling from the climate and COVID-19 crises.
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 Supreme Court Lets Texas Enforce 'Unconstitutional and Extreme' Border Law
"Allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk," said one campaigner. "We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4."
Mar 19, 2024
Rights advocates on Tuesday blasted the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing Texas to enforce Senate Bill 4, a contested law empowering local and state authorities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
"Today's decision is disappointing and threatens the integrity of our nation's immigration laws and bedrock principles of due process," said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "But it is only preliminary and turned on the specific posture of the case. We'll continue to fight against S.B. 4 until it is struck down once and for all."
After Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill in December, the national and state ACLU joined Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) in filing a lawsuit on behalf of American Gateways, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and El Paso County. The U.S. Department of Justice has also argued that "it is flatly inconsistent with federal law in all its applications, and it is therefore preempted on its face."
U.S. District Judge David Ezra last month issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while it is challenged on constitutional grounds. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay, which the justices left in place on Tuesday.
In a concurring opinion that Law Dork's Chris Geidner called "embarrassingly absurd," Justice Amy Coney Barrett—joined by fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh—highlighted that this was just a stay decision and they weren't yet weighing in on the merits.
The high court's three liberal members—Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor rejected—dissented. Kagan briefly explained why she would not have allowed S.B. 4 to take effect while Sotomayor, joined by Jackon, penned a lengthier dissent warning that the majority decision "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."
Those behind the ongoing legal battle against S.B. 4 issued similar warnings on Tuesday. Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, declared that "the implementation of this unconstitutional and extreme anti-immigrant law will likely be disastrous for both Texans and our legal system."
Tami Goodlette, director of TCRP's Beyond Borders Program, said that "allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk. Everyone, no matter if you have called Texas home for decades or just got here yesterday, deserves to feel safe and have the basic right of due process."
"We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4 to show the nation that no state has the power to overtake federal immigration authority," she pledged.
The law's other challengers also expressed their disappointment and stressed that they remain determined to defeat S.B. 4.
"While today's Supreme Court decision is another setback for immigrants and refugees, we will continue to advocate for civil rights and dignity for people fleeing persecution," said American Gateways co-executive director Rebecca Lightsey. "We all recognize that our current immigration system is broken. It's past time to take a look at realistic solutions that will help not only those coming and seeking protection, but also the communities that are receiving them."
Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, was also undeterred, saying that "make no mistake, this decision does not change our commitment to this fight."
"Everyone, regardless of race or immigration status, has the freedom to move and the freedom to thrive," Babaie added. "We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure this anti-immigrant and unconstitutional law is struck down for good, and Texans are protected from its inherent discrimination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Years of Indigenous-Led Campaigning, Court Grants Rights to Peru's Marañón River
The decision "establishes a groundbreaking legal framework that acknowledges the inherent rights of natural entities," said one campaigner.
Mar 19, 2024
After years of campaigning, an organization of Indigenous women in Peru's Loreto province celebrated "a landmark decision" on Tuesday by a court in Nauta, which found that the Marañón River has "intrinsic value" and that its "inherent rights" must be recognized by the government.
The Mixed Court of Nauta ruled that specific rights of the river must be codified, including the right to exist, the right to ecological flow, the right of restoration, the right to be free of pollution, the right to exercise its essential functions with the ecosystem, and the right of representation.
Led by Kukama women, the Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana Federation in the Parinari district of Loreto began its legal fight on behalf of the Marañón River in 2021, demanding that the state and federal governments protect the waterway from "constant oil spills."
Petroperu's Oleoducto Norperuano, or Norperuvian oil pipeline, caused more than 60 oil spills between 1997-2019, and the 28 communities represented by the federation are still recovering from a 2010 oil spill that sent 350 barrels of oil into the river near Saramuro port.
Indigenous groups blocked the river in protest in September 2022 after another spill sent 2,500 barrels of crude oil into the Amazon, of which the Marañón is a main tributary.
The Marañón supplies drinking water directly to communities in Loreto, and is a vital habitat for fish that help sustain Indigenous communities.
"We do not live on money. We live from what we grow on our land and our fishing. We cannot live without fish," Isabel Murayari, a board member of the federation, told the Earth Law Center, when the group filed its lawsuit in 2021.
The Kukama women also aimed to halt infrastructure projects including hydroelectric dams and the Amazon Waterway—recognized as environmental risks by the International Union for Conservation of Nature—and warned that illegal gold mining has left the Marañón with mercury contamination that must be remedied.
Martiza Quispe Mamani, an attorney representing the Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana Federation, said the "historic ruling is an important achievement of the Kukama women."
"The fact that the judge of the Nauta Court has declared the Marañón River as a subject of rights represents a significant and transcendental milestone for the protection not only of the Marañón River but also of all rivers contaminated by extractive activities," said Mamani.
In addition to granting the river inherent rights, the court named the Indigenous group and the Peruvian government as "guardians, defenders, and representatives of the Marañón River and its tributaries."
Loreto's regional government was ordered to take necessary steps with the National Water Authority to establish a water resource basin organization for the river. The court also required Petroperu to present an updated environmental management plan within six months.
Mariluz Canaquiri Murayari, president of the federation, said the group's fight to protect the environment in the region "will continue."
"It encourages us to fight to defend our territories and rivers, which is fundamental," Murayari said of the ruling. "The recognition made in this decision has critical value. It is one more opportunity to keep fighting and claiming our rights. Our work is fundamental for Peru and the world: to protect our rivers, territories, our own lives, and all of humanity, and the living beings of Mother Nature."
The women who led the legal action noted that courts in recent years have recognized rights for other waterways, including Colombia's Atrato River, New Zealand's Whanganui River, and Canada's Magpie River.
Monti Aguirre, Latin America director of International Rivers, which supported the federation in its lawsuit, said the ruling "underscores the vital impact of community-led advocacy in safeguarding river ecosystems and sets a crucial precedent for river conservation efforts globally."
"By recognizing the Marañón River as a subject of rights, this decision is significant not only in terms of environmental protection but also in advancing the rights of nature and the rights of rivers," said Aguirre. "It establishes a groundbreaking legal framework that acknowledges the inherent rights of natural entities, paving the way for similar legal recognition and protection of rivers worldwide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Son-in-Law Jared Kushner Calls for Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza to 'Finish the Job'
Kushner, who served as a key Middle East adviser to Trump, said that Gaza's "waterfront property could be very valuable" and urged Israel to "clean it up."
Mar 19, 2024
Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump, said in a recent interview that if he were in charge of Israeli policy, he would push Gaza civilians into Egypt or Israel's Negev desert—a proposal that critics denounced as ethnic cleansing.
"You want to get as many civilians out of Rafah as possible," Kushner told the faculty chair of Harvard University's Middle East Initiative, Tarek Masoud, in a March 8 interview that was first reported widely on Tuesday. "I think that you want to try to clear that out. I know that with diplomacy maybe you get them into Egypt."
"I know that that's been refused, but [with] the right diplomacy I think it would be possible," Kushner added. "But in addition to that, the thing that I would try to do if I was Israel right now is I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there. I know that won't be the popular thing to do, but I think that that's a better option to do so you can go in and finish the job."
Kushner played a central role in crafting Trump's Middle East policy during his first four years in the White House, and the former president's son-in-law's remarks provided a potential glimpse of how the U.S. would approach Gaza if Trump wins another term in November.
Earlier this month, Trump said he wants Israel to "finish the problem" in Gaza—a remark that Kushner echoed just three days later in his March 8 interview.
In addition to advocating the removal of civilians from Rafah—which is currently packed with more than 1.5 million people, including hundreds of thousands of children—Kushner said Gaza's "waterfront property could be very valuable."
"It's a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel's perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up," Kushner said.
Just days after the @ADL’s @JGreenblattADL gave him an award for “his record of policy work,” Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner openly advocates for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza: https://t.co/VFhidPf60W
— Dylan Williams (@dylanotes) March 19, 2024
Kushner responded flippantly to concerns that if Gazans were forced out of their territory, the Israeli government wouldn't let them return—something that top Israeli officials have publicly advocated.
"Maybe," he said, "but I'm not sure there's much left of Gaza at this point."
Kushner also claimed that Israel has gone "way more out of its way" than other countries would to protect civilians—despite the
abundance of evidence to the contrary.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular