July, 22 2021, 02:16pm EDT
Lawsuit Challenges Seismic Oil, Gas Testing in Gulf of Mexico
Powerful underwater blasts put iconic endangered whale at risk.
WASHINGTON
NRDC and partner groups Healthy Gulf, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Surfrider Foundation sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) today over a Trump administration decision to allow extensive seismic airgun testing in the Gulf of Mexico, with minimal protections for marine animals.
Most at risk is an endangered whale species with just 50 surviving individuals.
The lawsuit, which was filed near NMFS' headquarters in southern Maryland, claims that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and National Environmental Policy Act when it approved the testing, which is used to search for oil and gas deposits deep beneath the ocean floor. The intense noise produced by the tests is known to travel widely through the ocean and to disrupt marine animals on a vast scale, impairing their ability to communicate, feed and reproduce.
"NMFS has been playing games with both the science and some of this nation's bedrock environmental laws to justify an insupportable amount of harm to marine species," said Michael Jasny, director of NRDC's Marine Mammal Protection Project. "The agency should be fighting to save endangered whales, not auctioning off their last chances for survival to the oil and gas industry."
In conducting its tests, the oil and gas industry typically relies on high-energy seismic airguns, which are towed behind ships in large arrays and release intense bursts of compressed air in the water, producing intense sound about every 10 to 12 seconds. Seismic tests take place day and night and can continue for weeks or months depending on the size of the survey.
The amount of seismic activity anticipated by NMFS is enormous, amounting to around-the-clock activity from simultaneous tests each year in what is among the most intensively prospected bodies of water on the planet. The agency's approval would allow the industry to harm marine mammals in the Gulf of Mexico more than 8 million times over 5 years.
"The level of damage to the marine mammals of the Gulf that NMFS is authorizing is immense and unacceptable," said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of Healthy Gulf. "It could contribute to the extinction of the highly endangered Rice's whale and would undermine the recovery of many populations of dolphins and whales harmed by the BP Disaster."
Among the species at greatest risk is the Gulf of Mexico whale, also known as "Rice's whale." In January NMFS scientists published a paper recognizing the Gulf of Mexico whale as a unique species, making it the only species of baleen whale believed to reside entirely off the United States. Last year NMFS found that oil and gas activities, including seismic testing, would jeopardize the whales' continued existence if allowed to proceed without sufficient protection. A mere 50 individuals are thought to remain.
"We have to block this Trump-approved scheme to blast some of the world's most endangered whales with seismic airguns," said Kristen Monsell, legal director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Oceans program. "The oil industry's horrifically loud testing threatens the very existence of the Gulf of Mexico whale, and it'll do tremendous harm to other marine mammals. Wreaking this kind of havoc to find new fossil fuels makes zero sense as the climate crisis accelerates, and we need Biden officials to stop allowing new offshore drilling activity."
The lawsuit claims that NMFS violated the Endangered Species Act in failing to prescribe statutorily required "reasonable and prudent alternatives" to protect the Gulf of Mexico whale from seismic testing. It also claims that the agency violated Marine Mammal Protection Act standards that only "small numbers" of marine mammals will be taken, that the impacts on those species and populations will be "negligible," and that, through mitigation, the "least practicable adverse impact" on marine mammals and their habitat is achieved.
Finally, the lawsuit claims that NMFS, together with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, violated the National Environmental Policy Act in failing to adequately assess the impacts of seismic testing on the Gulf of Mexico whale.
"Members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums have a long track record of action to protect and save species from extinction. This five-year approval issued on the last day of the Trump administration appears rushed and inconsistent with the scientific record," said Dan Ashe, president and CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. "If left unchecked, the amount of proposed seismic testing in the Gulf of Mexico could have catastrophic impacts on the marine animals who call the Gulf of Mexico home, particularly the less than 100 remaining Gulf of Mexico whales, one of the most endangered species in the world. We must do what we can to avoid this possible outcome."
The lawsuit was filed as the Biden administration is reviewing the government's leasing and permitting practices for fossil fuel development on federal lands. In January the White House included the NMFS rule authorizing seismic testing, which was published in the waning hours of the Trump administration, in a list of agency environmental actions for review.
"Seismic testing can be harmful to the tens of thousands of dolphins, whales and other marine animals in the Gulf of Mexico," said Angela Howe, legal director at the Surfrider Foundation. "We have filed this lawsuit to protect the Gulf of Mexico from the damaging impacts of seismic testing and ensure that federal laws to protect our environment are properly enforced. We are proud to join our partners in standing up to protect the Gulf of Mexico's invaluable marine ecosystem for this and future generations."
"These loud seismic blasts will unnecessarily harm whales and dolphins in the Gulf in order to search for more oil and gas reserves that we don't need," said Brettny Hardy, senior attorney at Earthjustice, which is representing Healthy Gulf and Surfrider Foundation in the lawsuit. "The oil industry has a store of nearly 10 million acres of public land that has yet to be developed. As demand for petroleum products continues to drop, there is no reason to harm majestic and endangered whales just to search for new reserves that won't be needed in the future."
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
Warning of 'Unprecedented Risks,' Scientists Say Mirror Bacteria 'Should Not Be Created'
"Our analysis suggests that mirror bacteria could broadly evade many immune defenses of humans, animals, and plants," according to a group of 38 scientists, including multiple Nobel Prize winners.
Dec 13, 2024
Dozens of scientists are calling in no uncertain terms for a halt on research to create "mirror life," particularly "mirror bacteria" that could "pose ecological risks" and possibly cause "pervasive lethal infections in a substantial fraction of the plant and animal species, including humans."
The group of 38 scientists, who include Nobel laureates and other experts, addressed research into "mirror life"—mirror-image biological molecules—in a piece of commentary published in the journal Science published Friday, which accompanied a technical report that was released earlier in December.
One of the scientists, synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota, was working on creating a mirror cell but "changed track last year" after studying the risks, according to the Guardian.
"We should not be making mirror life," she told the outlet. "We have time for the conversation. And that's what we were trying to do with this paper, to start a global conversation."
To that end, the authors of the commentary plan to convene discussions on the risks of mirror life and related topics in 2025, with the hope that "society at large will take a responsible approach to managing a technology that might pose unprecedented risks."
The ability to create mirror life is likely over a decade away and would require sizable investment and technical progress, meaning the world has the opportunity to "preempt risks before they are realized," according to the scientists.
When broken down into simple terms, mirror life sounds like something out of science fiction. All the biomolecules that constitute life have a "handedness" to them—"right-handed" nucleotides make up DNA and RNA, and proteins are formed from "left-handed" amino acids.
"So when we're talking about mirror-image life, it's kind of like a 'what if' experiment: What if we constructed life with right-handed proteins instead of left-handed proteins? Something that would be very, very similar to natural life, but doesn't exist in nature. We call this mirror-image life or mirror life," explained to Michael Kay, a professor of biochemistry at University of Utah's medical school.
Some scientists like Kay are interested in the medical possibilities of mirror-image therapeutics—which Kay says holds potential for treating chronic illness in a more cost-effective way—but both he and the authors of the recently published commentary are concerned about the potential threats posed by mirror bacteria.
"Our analysis suggests that mirror bacteria could broadly evade many immune defenses of humans, animals, and plants. Chiral interactions, which are central to immune recognition and activation in multicellular organisms, would be impaired with mirror bacteria," according to the scientists.
Essentially, as Kay puts it, it’s unlikely that mirror bacteria would be subject to the same constraints as regular bacteria, such as the human immune system or antibiotics.
The scientists warn that further developing this research could open a Pandora's box: "Unless compelling evidence emerges that mirror life would not pose extraordinary dangers, we believe that mirror bacteria and other mirror organisms, even those with engineered biocontainment measures, should not be created."
The authors argue that scientific research with the goal of creating mirror bacteria should not be allowed, and that potential funders should not support work related to mirror bacteria.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Wake of Killing, UnitedHealth CEO Admits 'No One Would Design a System Like the One We Have'
One critic said UnitedHealth Group chief executive Andrew Witty should "resign and then dedicate every dollar he has to dismantling the current system brick by brick and building one based on public health in its stead."
Dec 13, 2024
UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty wrote in a New York Times op-ed Friday that the for-profit U.S. healthcare system "does not work as well as it should" and that "no one would design a system like the one we have," admissions that came as his industry faced a torrent of public anger following the murder of UnitedHealthcare's chief executive.
Witty declared that his firm, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare and the nation's largest private insurer, is "willing to partner with anyone, as we always have—healthcare providers, employers, patients, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and others—to find ways to deliver high-quality care and lower costs."
But critics didn't buy Witty's expressed commitment to reforming an industry that his company has helped shape and profited from massively. Witty was the highest-paid healthcare executive in the U.S. last year, and 40% of the private insurance industry's total profit since the passage of the Affordable Care Act has flowed to UnitedHealth Group.
"It is (barely) true that UnitedHealth didn't design the U.S. system of corporate insurance, which kills tens of thousands of people a year through denial of care," Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams. "But they certainly have perfected it and turned it into a medical murder apparatus at industrial scale. They not only block all attempts to change the system in the direction of public health, they bribe and bully with their billions in blood money to make it even crueler."
"Andrew Witty is the high priest of the temple to Moloch and Mammon, murder and money," Lawson added. "And there is no way for him to wash his hands of it, except perhaps to resign and then dedicate every dollar he has to dismantling the current system brick by brick and building one based on public health in its stead."
"Medicare for All is the only proposal on the table capable of delivering universal, continuous coverage for everyone, while also securing the efficiency and savings only possible through the elimination of private insurance."
While publicly pledging to cooperate with reform efforts, Witty has defended his company's care denials in private and urged his employees not to engage with media outlets in the aftermath of Thompson's murder.
Contrary to Witty's depiction of his company in his Times op-ed, UnitedHealth has historically been an aggressive opponent of reform efforts aimed at mitigating the harms of for-profit insurance and building public alternatives. The Leverreported in 2021 that UnitedHealth Group "held a webinar to pressure its rank-and-file employees to mobilize against efforts in Connecticut to create a state-level public health insurance option."
At the national level, UnitedHealth has spent over $5.8 million this year lobbying the federal government, according to OpenSecrets.
Witty, who was born in a country with a public healthcare system, did not detail the kinds of reforms he would support in his op-ed Friday, but it's clear he would oppose a transition to a single-payer system such as Medicare for All, which would effectively abolish private health insurance and provide coverage to all Americans for free at the point of service—and at a lower total cost than the status quo.
In a column for The Nation on Friday, writer Natalie Shure argued that "the appalling amount of resources and energy we put into maintaining the existence of health insurance is wasted on an industry with no social value whatsoever."
"You could eliminate every one of these corporations tomorrow and build a system without them that works better, for less money, and with less hassle," Shure wrote. "Other countries already have systems like this. Medicare for All is the only proposal on the table capable of delivering universal, continuous coverage for everyone, while also securing the efficiency and savings only possible through the elimination of private insurance."
"None of that means that murder is justified or useful," Shure added. "But anger can be. Some politicians, from Bernie Sanders, to Elizabeth Warren, to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have begun to make public statements ascribing the reaction to Brian Thompson's murder to widespread fury over the health insurance industry. The next step is to harness it, and to build something new."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Can't We Fund Universal Public Goods? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire Nepo Babies
"In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta," reads a new report.
Dec 13, 2024
The children of the richest families in the U.S. are well-known for spending their vast wealth on frivolous luxuries—constructing a replica of a medieval church on their acres of property, in the case of banking heir Timothy Mellon, or starting a brand of T-shirts described by one critic as "terrible beyond your wildest imagination," as Wyatt Koch, nephew of Republican megadonors Charles and David, did.
But a report released by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) on Thursday shows how "billionaire nepo babies" don't just waste their families' fortunes. They also benefit from "a rigged system" that allows them to "pass that wealth down over generations without being properly taxed–often without being taxed at all."
In addition, the heirs of the country's biggest fortunes spend vast sums "to elect politicians who protect their unearned wealth and manipulate the country's economy in their favor," said ATF.
Along with Mellon and Koch, the report profiles Samuel Logan of the Scripps media dynasty; Nicola Peltz-Beckham, daughter of billionaire investor Nelson Peltz; Gabrielle Rubenstein, whose family has made its fortune in private equity; and President-elect Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump.
The nepo babies are part of a small group of billionaire families in the U.S. who benefit from tax loopholes that ensure little of their immense wealth ever goes to benefit the public good.
At least 90 billionaires have passed away over the last decade, leaving their beneficiaries $455 billion in collective wealth.
But according to ATF, "$255 billion (56%) of that amount was likely entirely exempt from the capital gains tax because of a special break called 'stepped up basis.'"
"Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations."
Without loopholes included the stepped up basis tax cut, the current estate tax on billionaires and centimillionaires would yield enough revenue to fund universal childcare, preschool, and paid family leave for U.S. workers, with hundreds of billions of dollars left over, according to ATF's report.
The wealthy heirs profiled in the report and their families are some of the Republican Party's top donors—contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to candidates including Trump in the hopes of securing even more tax cuts.
Mellon, for example, is Trump's "biggest supporter, giving $140 million to a pro-Trump PAC in 2024 alone," reads the report.
A previous analysis by ATF found that as of late October, just 150 billionaire families had spent $1.9 billion on the 2024 elections.
As the Center for American Progress found earlier this year, Trump's plan to extend the tax cuts that he pushed through in 2017 would cost $4 trillion over the next decade.
"The vast wealth inherited by centuries-old billionaire families is staggering. While these heirs and their billions go undertaxed, enormous sums are squandered on lavish mansions, private jets, and vanity projects instead of funding crucial public investments," said ATF executive director David Kass. "In 2024, these billionaire families used their enormous wealth to make record-breaking political contributions to secure a GOP trifecta. Now, Trump and his allies in Congress are doing their donors' bidding by rigging the system in their favor and pushing a $4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites and giant corporations—all while advocating for cuts to vital programs that working and middle-class Americans depend on."
The report calls for Congress to pass "proven, pragmatic proposals to unrig the tax system that enjoy high levels of popular support," such as the Ultra Millionaire Tax Act that was proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) this year. The bill would tax fortunes between $50 million and $1 billion at 2% and wealth above $1 billion at $1 billion.
The small tax on enormous wealth would generate "a whopping $3 trillion over 10 years," said ATF.
The estate tax could also be "restored so that it can play a meaningful role in promoting fairness and equal opportunities" through the passage of the For the 99.5% Act, which was introduced in 2023 by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.).
Under the bill, the estate tax exemption would be lowered to $7 million per couple and the current 40% flat rate would be replaced with a sliding scale that would charge higher rates as a family's wealth grows.
"None of these tax reforms would impoverish the ultra wealthy, nor even inconvenience them in any meaningful way–but they would reduce the concentration of wealth that is so corrosive to society," reads the report. "At the same time, they would raise trillions of dollars that could be used to reduce inequality and improve the lives of families that can only dream of the kind of security and opportunity enjoyed by the nation’s richest clans."
"And if rich families ever did need to tighten their belts a bit to pay their taxes," the report continues, "the economizing might begin by reducing the flow of money funding the extravagant lifestyles of America's Billionaire Nepo Babies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular