November, 10 2022, 11:40am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lauren Parker, Center for Biological Diversity, lparker@biologicaldiversity.
Elida Castillo, Chispa Texas, ecastillo@lcv.org
Legal Petition Urges Biden Administration to Stop New Deepwater Ports for Oil, Gas Exports
HOUSTON
The Center for Biological Diversity and 289 organizations sent a legal petition today to the Maritime Administration, or MARAD, an agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation, demanding that the Biden administration halt approvals of new deepwater port infrastructure for oil and gas exports.
Activists and community leaders will deliver the petition and host a rally at the MARAD office in Houston today, where more than 180 healthcare professionals will also deliver a letter demanding an end to deepwater port approvals to protect public health.
At the COP27 climate summit in Egypt today, grassroots leaders from the U.S. Gulf Coast, Europe and Africa staged a demonstration to highlight that importing and exporting fossil fuels is a global disaster for communities and the climate.
"Exporting oil and gas unleashes climate calamity on the U.S. and the world," said Lauren Parker, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. "Biden needs to respect the science, the law and his own climate goals by keeping these dangerous fossil fuel projects off our coasts."
The petition comes as MARAD considers whether to approve the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT), which would be the largest offshore export terminal in the United States. It calls on the agency to halt approvals of such projects as contrary to its mandatory "national interest" standard.
According to MARAD's mandate under the Deepwater Port Act, any new project approvals must conform with national environmental laws and be in the "national interest and consistent with national security and other national policy goals and objectives, including energy sufficiency and environmental quality."
Issuing permits for new deepwater ports to import or export oil and liquified gas fails to meet that agency standard. In addition to worsening the fossil-fueled climate crisis, new deepwater ports and their associated infrastructure threaten sensitive ecosystems, coastlines and ocean waters. They also directly harm the health of frontline communities that have long been treated as sacrifice zones for the fossil fuel industry.
"Where I live in Brazoria County, we're already experiencing extremely poor air quality from fossil fuel pollution, which is causing serious health harm," said Melanie Oldham, president of Citizens for Clean Air and Water in Brazoria County, Texas. "Now they're proposing to build not one but two additional oil export projects. This is not in the interest of our community, and it's not in the interest of the United States. These oil projects are not needed."
New oil and gas export terminals contradict Biden's pledge during this week's COP27 climate summit in Egypt to "take decisive action to decarbonize all key sectors" and "lead global efforts to keep the 1.5 degree goal within reach."
Recent reports have found the world is wildly off track for keeping to that dangerous temperature-rise threshold. There must be no new fossil fuel development starting now to keep that goal within reach.
Deepwater ports also disproportionately harm Black, Indigenous and communities of color, as well as low-income communities. The onshore infrastructure that supports oil and gas imports and exports, such as terminals and pipelines, is concentrated in communities already overburdened with air and water pollution and suffering disproportionate health harms, including cancer, respiratory illness and even premature death.
"Biden has a chance to show his commitment to environmental justice right now by denying the Bluewater Texas Terminal and polluting projects like it," said Elida Castillo, program director of Chispa Texas. "Our communities, economy and planet can't sustain these long-term projects that cause irreparable harm and only benefit the companies and their shareholders. Biden needs to order MARAD and all agencies to stop further fossil fuel project approvals -- and declare a climate emergency to reinstate the crude oil export ban before it's too late for us."
There are six applications for new deepwater port infrastructure pending before MARAD. The legal petition cites the United States' outsize role in fossil fuel production as the key reason it must deny such permits, stating, "as the world's largest oil and gas producer, the U.S. must act swiftly to limit warming if we want to avoid truly apocalyptic climate disruption."
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
Sanders Champions Those Fighting Back Against Water-Sucking, Energy-Draining, Cost-Boosting Data Centers
Dec 10, 2025
Americans who are resisting the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers in their communities are up against local law enforcement and the Trump administration, which is seeking to compel cities and towns to host the massive facilities without residents' input.
On Wednesday, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged AI data center opponents to keep up the pressure on local, state, and federal leaders, warning that the rapid expansion of the multi-billion-dollar behemoths in places like northern Virginia, Wisconsin, and Michigan is set to benefit "oligarchs," while working people pay "with higher water and electric bills."
"Americans must fight back against billionaires who put profits over people," said the senator.
In a video posted on the social media platform X, Sanders pointed to two major AI projects—a $165 billion data center being built in Abilene, Texas by OpenAI and Oracle and one being constructed in Louisiana by Meta.
The centers are projected to use as much electricity as 750,000 homes and 1.2 million homes, respectively, and Meta's project will be "the size of Manhattan."
Hundreds gathered in Abilene in October for a "No Kings" protest where one local Democratic political candidate spoke out against "billion-dollar corporations like Oracle" and others "moving into our rural communities."
"They’re exploiting them for all of their resources, and they are creating a surveillance state,” said Riley Rodriguez, a candidate for Texas state Senate District 28.
In Holly Ridge, Lousiana, the construction of the world's largest data center has brought thousands of dump trucks and 18-wheelers driving through town on a daily basis, causing crashes to rise 600% and forcing a local school to shut down its playground due to safety concerns.
And people in communities across the US know the construction of massive data centers are only the beginning of their troubles, as electricity bills have surged this year in areas like northern Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio, which have a high concentration of the facilities.
The centers are also projected to use the same amount of water as 18.5 million homes normally, according to a letter signed by more than 200 environmental justice groups this week.
And in a survey of Pennsylvanians last week, Emerson College found 55% of respondents believed the expansion of AI will decrease the number of jobs available in their current industry. Sanders released an analysis in October showing that corporations including Amazon, Walmart, and UnitedHealth Group are already openly planning to slash jobs by shifting operations to AI.
In his video on Wednesday, Sanders applauded residents who have spoken out against the encroachment of Big Tech firms in their towns and cities.
"In community after community, Americans are fighting back against the data centers being built by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world," said Sanders. "They are opposing the destruction of their local environment, soaring electric bills, and the diversion of scarce water supplies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Protest in Oslo Denounces Nobel Peace Prize for Right-Wing Machado
"No peace prize for warmongers," said one of the banners displayed by demonstrators, who derided Machado's support for President Donald Trump's regime change push in Venezuela.
Dec 10, 2025
As President Donald Trump issued new threats of a possible ground invasion in Venezuela, protesters gathered outside the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo on Tuesday to protest the awarding of the prestigious peace prize to right-wing opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, whom they described as an ally to US regime change efforts.
“This year’s Nobel Prize winner has not distanced herself from the interventions and the attacks we are seeing in the Caribbean, and we are stating that this clearly breaks with Alfred Nobel’s will," said Lina Alvarez Reyes, the information adviser for the Norwegian Solidarity Committee for Latin America, one of the groups that organized the protests.
Machado's daughter delivered a speech accepting the award on her behalf on Wednesday. The 58-year-old engineer was unable to attend the ceremony in person due to a decade-long travel ban imposed by Venezuelan authorities under the government of President Nicolás Maduro.
Via her daughter, Machado said that receiving the award "reminds the world that democracy is essential to peace... And more than anything, what we Venezuelans can offer the world is the lesson forged through this long and difficult journey: that to have a democracy, we must be willing to fight for freedom."
But the protesters who gathered outside the previous day argue that Machado—who dedicated her acceptance of the award in part to Trump and has reportedly worked behind the scenes to pressure Washington to ramp up military and financial pressure on Venezuela—is not a beacon of democracy, but a tool of imperialist control.
As Venezuelan-American activist Michelle Ellner wrote in Common Dreams in October after Machado received the award:
She worked hand in hand with Washington to justify regime change, using her platform to demand foreign military intervention to “liberate” Venezuela through force.
She cheered on Donald Trump’s threats of invasion and his naval deployments in the Caribbean, a show of force that risks igniting regional war under the pretext of “combating narco-trafficking.” While Trump sent warships and froze assets, Machado stood ready to serve as his local proxy, promising to deliver Venezuela’s sovereignty on a silver platter.
She pushed for the US sanctions that strangled the economy, knowing exactly who would pay the price: the poor, the sick, the working class.
The protesters outside the Nobel Institute on Tuesday felt similarly: "No peace prize for warmongers," read one banner. "US hands off Latin America," read another.
The protest came on the same day Trump told reporters that an attack on the mainland of Venezuela was coming soon: “We’re gonna hit ‘em on land very soon, too,” the president said after months of extrajudicial bombings of vessels in the Caribbean that the administration has alleged with scant evidence are carrying drugs.
On the same day that Machado received the award in absentia, US warplanes were seen circling over the Gulf of Venezuela. Later, in what Bloomberg described as a "serious escalation," the US seized an oil tanker off the nation's coast.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Princeton Experts Speak Out Against Trump Boat Strikes as 'Illegal' and Destabilizing 'Murders'
"Deploying an aircraft carrier and US Southern Command assets to destroy small yolas and wooden boats is not only unlawful, it is an absurd escalation," said one scholar.
Dec 10, 2025
Multiple scholars at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs on Wednesday spoke out against the Trump administration's campaign of bombing suspected drug boats, with one going so far as to call them acts of murder.
Eduardo Bhatia, a visiting professor and lecturer in public and international affairs at Princeton, argued that it was "unequivocal" that the attacks on on purported drug boats are illegal.
"They violate established maritime law requiring interdiction and arrest before the use of lethal force, and they represent a grossly disproportionate response by the US," stressed Bhatia, the former president of the Senate of Puerto Rico. "Deploying an aircraft carrier and US Southern Command assets to destroy small yolas and wooden boats is not only unlawful, it is an absurd escalation that undermines regional security and diplomatic stability."
Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Program in Law and Public Policy at Princeton, said that she has been talking with "military operations lawyers, international law experts, national security legal scholars," and other experts, and so far has found none who believe the administration's boat attacks are legal.
Pearlstein added that the illegal strikes are "a symptom of the much deeper problem created by the purging of career lawyers on the front end, and the tacit promise of presidential pardons on the back end," the result of which is that "the rule of law loses its deterrent effect."
Visiting professor Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that it was not right to describe the administration's actions as war crimes given that a war, by definition, "requires a level of sustained hostilities between two organized forces that is not present with the drug cartels."
Rather, Roth believes that the administration's policy should be classified as straight-up murder.
"These killings are still murders," he emphasized. "Drug trafficking is a serious crime, but the appropriate response is to interdict the boats and arrest the occupants for prosecution. The rules governing law enforcement prohibit lethal force except as a last resort to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, which the boats do not present."
International affairs professor Jacob N. Shapiro pointed to the past failures in the US "War on Drugs," and predicted more of the same from Trump's boat-bombing spree.
"In 1986, President Ronald Reagan announced the 'War on Drugs,' which included using the Coast Guard and military to essentially shut down shipment through the Caribbean," Shapiro noted. "The goal was to reduce supply, raise prices, and thereby lower use. Cocaine prices in the US dropped precipitously from 1986 through 1989, and then dropped slowly through 2006. Traffickers moved from air and sea to land routes. That policy did not work, it's unclear why this time will be different."
The scholars' denunciation of the boat strikes came on the same day that the US seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in yet another escalatory act of aggression intended to put further economic pressure on the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular