June, 14 2022, 01:11pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brady Bradshaw, Center for Biological Diversity, (442) 370-0626, bbradshaw@biologicaldiversity.org
Angela Mooney D’Arcy, Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, (310) 678-1747, a.mooneydarcy@gmail.com
Pete Stauffer, Surfrider Foundation, (503) 887-0514, pstauffer@surfrider.org
Lawmakers, Organizations Warn Biden Against Rushed Pipeline Restart Off California Coast
Repair of Ruptured Oil Pipeline to Be Fast-Tracked Without Public Input
WASHINGTON
Environmental organizations sued the Bureau of Land Management today for issuing more than 3,500 oil and gas drilling permits in New Mexico and Wyoming during the first 16 months of the Biden administration in violation of the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The lawsuit was filed in the federal District Court of Washington, D.C.
These approved oil and gas wells will result in approximately 490 million to 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions over their operational lives. That pollution will worsen the climate crisis, damage ecosystems across the United States, and harm more than 150 climate-imperiled species, including Hawaiian songbirds, polar bears and coral reefs. Such climate harm also results in the unnecessary and undue degradation of public lands.
"Fossil fuels are driving the extinction crisis, and the Bureau of Land Management is making things worse by failing to protect these imperiled species," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The agency's cursory approval of more than 3,500 drilling permits contradicts President Biden's pledges to address the terrifying threat of climate change. Every new well takes polar bears and many other species one step closer to extinction."
The Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to ensure their activities do not jeopardize the existence of threatened and endangered species. Agencies must use the best available science to assess the impacts and harms -- including indirect harm from pollution -- caused by their activities. But the BLM has never acknowledged that emissions from oil and gas extraction on public lands and waters could harm climate-imperiled species.
In January 2021 President Biden signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to follow the best available science in developing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based on an enormous international body of research, scientists have warned that more than 1 million species will go extinct in the coming decades because of climate change and other causes.
Today's lawsuit also challenges these permit approvals for numerous violations of the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires all federal agencies take a hard look at the consequences of their actions, including the cumulative impacts of fossil fuel emissions. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act obligates the BLM to take action to prevent the unnecessary and undue degradation of public lands, including from the climate-related impacts that the BLM admits are occurring from ongoing oil and gas permitting.
"The climate crisis is happening now, causing harms that are disproportionately felt by environmental justice communities, and it requires immediate action in order to maintain a livable planet," said Kyle Tisdel, climate and energy program director with Western Environmental Law Center. "The federal government's oil and gas program accounts for almost one-tenth of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. While President Biden has acknowledged the urgency of this crisis, it is time for action to align with rhetoric. The Bureau of Land Management has admitted that continued oil and gas exploitation is a significant cause of the climate crisis, yet the agency continues to recklessly issue thousands of new oil and gas drilling permits, violating its duty to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of public lands."
Virtually all decisions to approve oil and gas drilling permits are made without any meaningful opportunity for public engagement, the groups note. Instead, these rubber-stamp approvals rely on prior decisions at the oil and gas leasing and planning stages, which themselves can be woefully out of date and often fail to allow for meaningful public participation.
While the Bureau of Land Management has begun to provide estimates of emissions from drilling, it has never made any meaningful attempt to assess how these emissions are worsening the climate crisis, damaging the lands the agency manages, or hurting people and communities and worsening environmental inequities and injustices.
"The Biden administration is literally drilling away the climate," said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians. "Today's lawsuit is about enforcing the reality that more oil and gas extraction only stands to fuel the climate crisis, contrary to the promises of President Biden."
Background
Oil and gas production from public lands annually emits more than 400 million tons of CO2e greenhouse gas pollution. This represents roughly 8% of all climate pollution from fossil fuel burning in the United States and 1% of greenhouse gas pollution globally.
Federal fossil fuels that have not been leased to the industry contain up to 450 billion tons of potential climate pollution; those already leased to the industry contain the potential for 43 billion tons of emissions in total.
Hundreds of organizations have petitioned the Biden administration to follow through on the president's promise to end all new federal fossil fuel leasing immediately. They have also petitioned to phase out existing federal oil and gas production to near zero by 2035. Renewed IPCC warnings and several scientific analyses show that climate pollution from the world's already-producing oil, gas and coal developments would push warming past 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Oil, gas, and coal extraction uses mines, well pads, gas lines, roads and other infrastructure that destroy habitat for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Oil spills and other harms from offshore drilling have done immense damage to ocean wildlife and coastal communities. Fracking and mining also pollute watersheds and waterways that provide drinking water to millions of people.
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
NY Appeals Court Delivers Reprieve for Trump on $454 Million Bond
"They sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment," said one legal expert.
Mar 25, 2024
As the deadline arrived Monday for Donald Trump to pay a $454 million bond following a New York judge's ruling that the former Republican president and his company committed fraud, an appeals court in the state ruled that Trump would be permitted to post a vastly reduced amount.
The appeals court panel said the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee could pay $175 million after the former president indicated he was unable to pay the full amount, having sought the bond from more than two dozen surety companies.
New York Attorney General Letitia James indicated earlier this month that she could begin seizing Trump's assets as soon as Monday if he was unable to pay the $454 million judgment.
Trump was hit with the fine as the result of James' civil fraud case against the former president and his real estate company, the Trump Organization. Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump and the firm had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
The former president is appealing the ruling and had looked for companies to guarantee the full amount of the bond in the event that he lost the appeal, but with much of his fortune tied up in his properties, he was unable to come up with the collateral demanded by the institutions.
Trump said Monday that he plans to "post either a bond, equivalent securities, or cash" within the 10 days granted by the appeals court in order to delay enforcement of the full fine.
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, now a senior legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times, said the "pro-business" appellate court's decision was not surprising and was "reasonable," considering that "a bond is designed to secure eventual payment, not to financially wreck the defendant."
"In a sense the decision reducing Trump's bond and giving him more time is consistent with the 'treat Trump like any other litigant' credo," said Litman, "but they sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment."
James' office responded to the appeals court's decision by focusing on the fact that the full judgment against Trump, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and former executive Allen Weisselberg still stands.
"Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud," said a spokesperson for James. "The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We're Calling for Justice': Allies Slam Trial for El Salvador Water Defenders
Ahead of proceedings next week, an international coalition continues to back a call to "drop the baseless charges against the Santa Marta Five."
Mar 25, 2024
Nine organizations from around the world on Monday renewed calls for El Salvador's government to drop "politically motivated charges" against the "Santa Marta Five" as the well-known water defenders prepared to stand trial beginning April 3.
Miguel Ángel Gámez, Alejandro Laínez García, Pedro Antonio Rivas Laínez, Teodoro Antonio Pacheco, and Saúl Agustín Rivas Ortega were arrested in January 2023 and accused of murdering an alleged military informant during a civil war over three decades ago. Rights groups worldwide have repeatedly highlighted that not only has the Salvadoran government failed to produce any proof of their guilt, but also the five men should be covered under a 1992 amnesty law related to the war.
"In the spirit of Saint Óscar Romero, these community leaders have embodied the legacy of the preferential option for the poor in their fight for justice and for the well-being of their communities," Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) senior adviser John Cavanagh said Monday, a day after the 44th anniversary of Romero's assassination in San Salvador.
"Now, we're calling for justice for the Santa Marta Five as they face politically motivated charges and attempts to silence their movement," added Cavanagh, whose group gave its 2009 Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award to the National Roundtable on Metals Mining, a coalition the arrested water defenders helped build.
"We recognize the historic and heroic struggle of the community of Santa Marta to build a better future for the most marginalized populations."
The Santa Marta Five, who were released to house arrest in September, helped pass a 2017 legislative ban on metal mining in El Salvador. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who was reelected last month, has reportedly been considering reversing the prohibition in response to economic issues resulting from his policies.
"The Santa Marta Five water defenders were part of an emblematic fight to protect their land and waters from Canadian gold mining and ban metal mining," declared Viviana Herrera, Latin America program coordinator at MiningWatch Canada. "However, as in other countries in the region, their environmental struggle has come at an immense cost for them and their communities."
Chris Aylward, national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said that "we recognize the historic and heroic struggle of the community of Santa Marta to build a better future for the most marginalized populations, one where universal rights are guaranteed, including to health and water for all."
Acknowledging the global movement that has rallied behind the Santa Marta Five, the United Church of Canada's Christie Neufeldt vowed to keep pushing "for the charges to be dropped and to accompany their work to protect the ban on metals mining."
Along with the Canadian groups and IPS, the coalition supporting the five men includes the Central American Alliance on Mining, Pax Christi International, the SHARE Foundation, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and the Washington Ethical Society (WES).
“The Washington Ethical Society has a long history with the communities of El Rodeo and Santa Marta. We partnered with ADES in an eight-year process to build a potable water system for the community," noted Ross Wells, co-chair of WES's sister community program in El Salvador. "Antonio Pacheco, director of ADES and one of the arrested water defenders, was instrumental in making this project possible."
"WES members met with him every year for 12 years. Like the other members of the Santa Marta Five, Antonio was arrested and jailed for political reasons. These men fought hard to protect the waters of El Salvador from the ravages of metallic mining," he continued. "To help prop up an imploding economy, the current regime is making moves to reintroduce mining against the will of the people."
Wells also pointed out that the Santa Marta Five are among the tens of thousands of people arrested under El Salvador's state of exception, which began in March 2022 and has provoked intense condemnation from rights groups that have documented sweeping abuse by security forces, including arbitrary detention without due process.
"WES stands with the people of Santa Marta, in working for a just El Salvador, where human rights and the rule of law are respected," he said. "We pledge to continue fighting with others in the international community to protect the existing law against mining and drop the baseless charges against the Santa Marta Five."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Abstains as UN Security Council Demands 'Immediate Cease-Fire' in Gaza
"This resolution must be implemented," said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. "Failure would be unforgivable."
Mar 25, 2024
The U.S. on Monday declined to veto but still abstained from a United Nations Security Council on Monday to adopt a resolution demanding an "immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan" in the embattled Gaza Strip, a move that came amid an ongoing Israeli genocide in which more than 114,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded and hundreds of thousands of others are starving.
The Security Council voted 14-0, with the U.S. abstaining, to approve a resolution for the cessation of hostilities during the Muslim holy month after member states overcame a sticking point over the removal of the word "permanent" from an earlier draft version. Instead, the resolution calls for an "immediate" cease-fire.
"Humanity prevails. Humanity always prevails," Palestine's U.N. mission said on social media following the vote. "Today's historic vote by the Security Council for a #ceasefire and an end to Israel's crimes is a first step towards justice. The resolution is binding."
The U.S. had vetoed three of the previous four cease-fire resolutions.
"This resolution must be implemented," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said following Monday's vote. "Failure would be unforgivable."
As the U.N. Newsexplained:
The resolution is a bare-bones call for a cease-fire during the month of Ramadan, which began on March 11. It also demands the return of about 130 hostages seized in Israel and held in Gaza and emphasizes the urgent need to allow ample lifesaving aid to reach a starving population in the besieged enclave.
The demand to end hostilities has so far eluded the council following the Israeli forces' invasion of Gaza in October after Hamas attacks left almost 1,200 dead and 240 taken hostage.
Since then, Israel's daily bombardment alongside its near-total blockade of water, electricity, and lifesaving aid has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the health ministry there, where a recent U.N.-backed report showed an imminent famine unfolding.
Palestinians—especially children—are starving to death in Gaza. Hospitals are under attack, with Israeli forces reportedly executing large numbers of people inside al-Shifa Hospital.
Meanwhile, the approximately 1.5 million Palestinians in the southern city of Rafah—most of them refugees forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza—are bracing for an anticipated ground invasion, which Israeli leaders say will proceed despite a warning from U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris that such an operation would have "consequences."
Monday's vote followed intense negotiations over the measure introduced by 10 non-permanent Security Council members—Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Korea, and Switzerland.
According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the vote on the resolution was delayed 20 minutes as the United States "pushed to include condemnation of Hamas in the text."
"This is despite the fact that the U.S. has VETOED previous resolutions that clearly condemned Hamas," Parsi wrote on social media.
Parsi said:
America's abstention in today's U.N. vote marks a real shift by [President Joe] Biden—this is the first time we've seen his administration's rhetorical shift in favor of a cease-fire translate into political action.
There's no question that all of the domestic pressure on the Biden administration to stop blocking a cease-fire is having an impact. The pressure is working—without it, Biden likely would've vetoed today' resolution. Yet, while Biden is no longer standing in the way of a cease-fire, this is hardly the same thing as helping to bring about a cease-fire. America must do much more to bring an end to this war.
Politically, today's vote will certainly increase pressure on Washington to help implement an immediate cease-fire. Will the Biden administration continue to sell Israel arms, even if Israel refuses the UNSC's call for a cease-fire?
The United States—which, despite growing frustration over genocidal atrocities, still arms Israel—brushed off a threat from far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel a planned visit to Washigton by a high-level Israeli delegation if the U.S. did not veto the resolution.
The Associated Pressreported Netanyahu followed through with his threat and canceled the trip.
Human rights defenders welcomed Monday's vote.
"Israel needs to immediately respond to the U.N. Security Council resolution adopted today by facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, ending its starvation of Gaza's population, and halting unlawful attacks," Louis Charbonneau, director of Human Rights Watch's U.N. program, said in a statement.
"Palestinian armed groups should immediately release all civilians held hostage," he added. "The U.S. and other countries should use their leverage to end atrocities by suspending arms transfers to Israel."
In the United States, progressive lawmakers also welcomed the resolution's adoption.
"The U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, the release of all hostages, and full humanitarian access," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who has been criticized by the left for his earlier failure to call for a cease-fire. "The U.S. must push all parties to honor this cease-fire and rush massive humanitarian aid into Gaza to feed starving people."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) praised the Biden administration's "significant change" in policy after three previous vetoes.
"Grassroots activism is making the difference," he added. "Moral positions that just a few weeks ago were described as fringe are starting to be vindicated."
Meanwhile, the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) said it was "disappointed" by the Biden administration's veto, which the group said "fails to acknowledge that Hamas is to blame for ongoing hostilities and could stop the fighting by surrendering and releasing all the hostages."
In response, Jewish Voice for Peace Action asserted: "AIPAC will not accept anything less than complete and unquestioning amplification of Israeli military's talking points. They are fueling every part of this genocide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular