July, 31 2023, 12:35pm EDT
DOT Should Consider Climate Impacts of Proposed Offshore Export Terminals
Today 130 organizations are calling on Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to require his agencies to consider the impacts offshore oil and liquefied methane gas (LNG) export terminals will have on the climate when reviewing their applications.
The letter comes as the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) finalizes best practices for federal agencies to use when evaluating greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts of projects proposed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Secretary of Transportation can direct the Maritime Administration to apply draft guidelines released earlier this year to six deepwater port applications off the coast of Texas and Louisiana — GulfLink, Blue Marlin, Bluewater, New Fortress Energy Louisiana FLNG, West Delta LNG, and Grand Isle LNG.
“If the Department of Transportation approves another mega-polluting offshore export terminal, it will push the world closer to climate catastrophe,” said Kelsey Crane, Senior Policy Advocate at Earthworks. “This administration’s continued expansion of fossil fuels contradicts the promises Biden made to all of us when he said he would tackle the climate crisis.”
Building and investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure like offshore terminals locks in decades of new sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The federal government approved Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT) last year, the largest oil export terminal in the U.S that will have the capacity of a quarter of all the oil the U.S. currently exports each day. Combined, the four proposed oil terminals would emit three times what the U.S. emits each year.
“Coastal communities in Texas are already worried about our poor public health and hurricanes, yet this administration is pushing to increase these risks,” said Melanie Oldham, Founder and Director of Better Brazoria. “We have shown adamant opposition to more export terminals but no one is listening. Biden and his agencies must address our concerns about air pollution and the effects of greenhouse gasses before it's too late.”
Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that building new fossil fuel infrastructure would make it more difficult to limit warming to 1.5 degrees celsius, and would lock-in high GHG emissions for decades. If the Biden administration goes forward with these six projects, not only would it derail the country’s climate goals, but ensure that the rest of the world suffers the same fate.
“Amidst the challenges posed by rising sea levels and increasingly severe storms, the approval of new offshore oil and gas export terminals compounds our climate crisis and significantly affects communities,” said James Hiatt, Director of For a Better Bayou. “It is crucial for agencies like DOT and MARAD to adhere to CEQ's GHG guidance, meaningfully evaluating greenhouse gas emissions during their reviews. These terminals would contribute massive releases of these harmful gases, and are completely incompatible with our collective best interests.”
“The Department of Transportation must carefully evaluate the impact that offshore oil and LNG terminals have on the Gulf Coast and on the climate as a whole,” said Roishetta Sibley Ozane, Founder of Vessel Project of Louisiana. “We cannot overlook these consequences in the face of the climate crisis. It is time to prioritize the long-term well-being of our environment and communities over short-term gains. Our children’s future depends on it.”
For additional quotes from letter signers, click here.
Earthworks is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the adverse impacts of mineral and energy development while promoting sustainable solutions.
(202) 887-1872LATEST NEWS
'Truly Historic' Youth-Led Climate Case Arrives at European Human Rights Court
Six Portuguese young people are suing the governments of 33 countries, arguing their human rights have been violated by a widespread failure to mitigate the climate crisis.
Sep 27, 2023
Lawyers for six Portuguese children and young adults on Wednesday expressed hope that their unprecedented climate case, brought to the European Court of Human Rights three years after it was first filed, will ultimately be a "game-changer" that forces governments in Europe and across the globe to take decisive action to address the climate emergency.
Ranging in age from 11 to 24, the six plaintiffs sat on Wednesday before nearly two dozen human rights judges and attorneys representing nearly three dozen nations, determined to prove to the court that countries across Europe have violated their fundamental rights by allowing greenhouse gas emissions to continue heating the planet despite warnings from energy experts and scientists.
In Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and 32 Others, the plaintiffs are seeking not financial relief but a ruling from the court that would compel the governments of the 27 E.U. member-nations as well as Russia, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, and Turkey to speed up their efforts to keep planetary heating below 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
Because the human rights court's rulings are legally binding for E.U. members, a decision in favor of the young plaintiffs "would act like a binding treaty imposed by the court on the respondents, requiring them to rapidly accelerate their climate mitigation efforts," Gerry Liston of the U.K.-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), told the Associated Press.
"In legal terms, it would be a game-changer," Liston told the outlet.
Four of the plaintiffs live in central Portugal, where wildfires killed at least 66 people in 2017. The country faced more blazes this summer—the hottest on record—as well as a record-breaking heatwave which saw the temperature in the central region of the country rise to 46.4°C (115.5°F), which at least one plaintiff said had interfered with schoolwork, and which climate scientists said would not have happened without planetary heating and fossil fuel extraction.
"Without urgent action to cut emissions, [the place] where I live will soon become an unbearable furnace," 20-year-old Martim Agostinho, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
Lawyers for the defendants claimed the group should have litigated the case in the domestic court system, with Belgian legal expert Isabelle Niedlispacher arguing before the court that the plaintiffs did not make an attempt "to invoke, let alone exhaust domestic remedies."
But GLAN, which says it "pursues innovative legal actions across borders," dismissed the claims, noting that the fossil-fueled climate emergency and the extreme weather it's causing have no respect for countries' boundaries and are placing the entire planet at risk.
"It cannot be within a state's discretion whether or not to act to prevent catastrophic climate destruction," said Alison MacDonald, another attorney representing the young people.
Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, called the case "truly historic" because the governments of dozens of countries have been compelled to respond.
"These governments are forced to lay out a legal defense justifying the gap between their climate policies and what science says is needed to avoid climate breakdown," said Duyck. "In the broader context of global litigation, this case wields remarkable influence, given that the European Court of Human Rights holds a prominent role in setting legal precedents within Europe and beyond."
The case was brought to the court a month after a state judge in Montana sided with 16 young residents who argued that the state had violated their rights by promoting fossil fuel extraction. The United Nations Environment Program released a report in July showing that climate litigation has emerged as an important driver of far-reaching, concrete action by governments to reduce emissions.
Gearoid O'Cuinn, another lawyer for GLAN, said defendants resorted to "climate denialism" when they argued, as Greece did, that the "effects of climate change, as recorded so far, do not seem to directly affect human life or human health."
Greece has faced both deadly wildfires and flooding in recent weeks.
"European governments' climate policies are consistent with a catastrophic 3° of global heating this century," said Liston. "For the brave youth-applicants, that is a life sentence of heat extremes which are unimaginable even by today's rapidly deteriorating standards."
"The European Court of Human Rights was set up following the horrors of World War II to hold European governments to account for failing to protect human rights," Liston added. "Never has there been as urgent a need for the court to do so than in this case."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Morally Obscene’: UK Approves Massive Undeveloped Oil and Gas Field in North Sea
"The disgraceful decision to give Rosebank the green light shows the extent of the U.K. government's climate denial," one activist said.
Sep 27, 2023
Regulators in the United Kingdom on Wednesday greenlit the Rosebank oilfield in the North Sea, which campaigners warn contains enough oil and gas to match the yearly emissions of 28 low-income countries.
The U.K. government said it welcomed the approval, in a statement that comes one week after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced he was delaying some elements of the country's net-zero plan.
"By approving Rosebank, Rishi Sunak has confirmed he couldn't care less about climate change," climate lawyer and executive director of the advocacy group Uplift Tessa Khan said in a statement. "As we've heard repeatedly, our world can no longer sustain new oil and gas drilling. And when we're witnessing scorching temperatures, wildfires, devastating flooding, and heatwaves in our seas, it could not be clearer that this is a decision by the prime minister to add more fuel to the fire."
Rosebank, which is located off the northwest coast of the Shetland Islands, is the largest currently undeveloped oil field in the U.K., CNBCreported. Equinor, Norway's state-owned oil company, has an 80% share in the project, with British company Ithaca Energy holding the remaining 20%.
Equinor said it expected development to begin in 2026-2027 and for the field to produce more than 300 million barrels of oil overall, while Friends of the Earth Scotland said it contained 500 million barrels.
The approval comes despite the fact that the International Energy Agency concluded in 2021 that no new fossil fuel projects should be launched if world leaders wanted to limit global heating to 1.5°C. It also comes on the heels of a government report finding that a record number of people in England died of heat-related causes in 2022.
"This decision is nothing but carte blanche to fossil fuel companies to ruin the climate, punish bill payers, and siphon off obscene profits."
Green Member of Parliament Caroline Lucas called the approval "the greatest act of environmental vandalism in my lifetime" in a statement posted on X, formerly known as Twitter.
"This is morally obscene," she added in a second post. "It won't improve energy security or lower bills—but it will shatter our climate commitments and demolish global leadership. Govt is complicit in this climate crime—as is Labour unless they pledge to do all possible to revoke it."
Sunak, a conservative, promised to approve hundreds of oil and gas drilling licenses in the North Sea in July, arguing it was necessary for energy security. The opposition Labour Party says it will prioritize renewable energy if it takes power, but will respect any licenses or approvals already in place, according to Reuters.
"The disgraceful decision to give Rosebank the green light shows the extent of the U.K. government's climate denial," Friends of the Earth Scotland's oil and gas campaigner Freya Aitchison said in a statement. "Fossil fuels are driving both climate breakdown and the cost of living crisis yet the U.K. Government is slamming its foot down on the accelerator."
Aitchison also called on the Scottish government specifically to oppose the project.
"Delivering a fair and fast transition away from fossil fuels is one of the defining challenges of Humza Yousaf's term as First Minister," Aitchison said. "This must start with unequivocally condemning Rosebank and opposing the U.K. government's decision to go ahead with a project that deliberately prioritizes the interests of Equinor while bringing little or no benefit to Scottish people."
Campaigners also questioned who would benefit from the project. While the government argued that it would inject cash into the economy and create almost 1,600 jobs, activists pointed out that Equinor made £62 billion in pre-tax profits last year and would get more than £3.75 billion in tax breaks for its work on Rosebank, meaning the U.K. would ultimately lose £750 million in tax money from the field's development.
"The ugly truth is that Sunak is pandering to vested interests, demonstrating the stranglehold the fossil fuel lobby has on government decision-making. And it's bill payers and the climate that will suffer because of it," Greenpeace U.K. climate campaigner Philip Evans said in a statement. "Why else would he make such a reckless decision?
"This decision is nothing but carte blanche to fossil fuel companies to ruin the climate, punish bill payers, and siphon off obscene profits," Evans added.
Opponents of the project have promised to take legal action to stop it.
"There are strong grounds to believe that the way this government has come to this decision is unlawful," Khan said in a statement. "We shouldn't have to fight this government for cheap, clean energy, and a liveable climate, but we will."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unbelievably Cruel': GOP Pushes Astronomical Cuts to Education, Housing, and Food Aid
"The same party who provided $2 trillion tax giveaways to the wealthy wants to slash funding for WIC, devastating women and children," said Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore.
Sep 27, 2023
Democratic lawmakers and policy analysts are expressing growing alarm over the House GOP's pursuit of increasingly severe spending cuts that would decimate education programs, slash housing assistance and food aid for low-income families, undermine clean air and water safety, and compromise medical research.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called the Republican proposals "unbelievably cruel" and accused the GOP of "playing political games on the backs of the most vulnerable, working people, families just trying to get by."
House Republicans' push for sharp cuts that would be dead on arrival in the narrowly Democratic Senate has all but guaranteed a government shutdown come midnight Saturday.
After failing twice last week to approve a rule that would have advanced a Pentagon spending measure, House Republicans on Tuesday voted to open debate on a package of appropriations bills for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, and Agriculture—just four out of the 12 measures that must be approved to fully fund the federal government.
In floor remarks ahead of Tuesday's vote, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)—the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee—warned that the GOP's agriculture appropriations bill "shamefully" cuts aid "for the most vulnerable children and families."
"This bill abandons the most vulnerable among us by slashing the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program by $800 million. Some 4.6 million women and children would also get severely reduced food and vegetable vouchers," said DeLauro.
"I do not believe we should practice this so-called 'fiscal responsibility' by taking food out of the mouths of moms and of children," she added. "Is this how Republicans seek to sell their spending cuts to the American people? By taking food from veterans and the most vulnerable?"
DeLauro also pointed to a rider in the GOP legislation that would reverse the Food and Drug Administration's decision earlier this year to allow the abortion pill mifepristone to be dispensed at certain pharmacies.
As The Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported Tuesday, House Republican leaders are aiming to cut discretionary federal spending by around 27%, ditching spending levels that they agreed to as part of a bipartisan debt ceiling agreement reached earlier this year.
The floated 27% cut, Stein observed, "appears to translate into taking more than $150 billion per year out of the part of the budget that funds childcare, education subsidies, medical research, and hundreds of additional federal operations."
Citing estimates from the Center for American Progress (CAP), Stein noted that the GOP's current appropriations bills would cut housing subsidies for the poor by 33%, force "more than 1 million women and children onto the waitlist of a nutritional assistance program for poor mothers with young children," and slash home heating assistance for low-income families by more than 70%.
CAP also estimated in a recent analysis that the House GOP's proposed appropriations measures would inflict a staggering 80% cut on Title I education grants for elementary and secondary schools in low-income areas.
Additionally, according to CAP, Republicans' bills would cut Social Security Administration funding by $183 million, slash $2.8 billion from the National Institutes of Health's budget, and curb Environmental Protection Agency funding by 39%.
"Back in May, Speaker Kevin McCarthy made a bipartisan debt ceiling deal with deep cuts and policies that hurt everyday people but with a promise to the American people that no further cuts would harm them," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said in a statement Tuesday.
"Today," Ramirez continued, "Speaker McCarthy's hunger for power and lack of leadership are leading him to back out of that deal and further cave into far-right Republicans' irrational demands to cut more than $150 billion per year for childcare, education, medical research, and hundreds of other federal critical programs that feed families, provide safe housing, and protect our environment. These are unacceptable demands that I WILL NOT support."
"The same party who provided $2 trillion tax giveaways to the wealthy wants to slash funding for WIC, devastating women and children."
The Senate, meanwhile, voted Tuesday to begin debate on a continuing resolution that would fund the government through November 17, a short-term solution as both chambers work on passing their appropriations bills for the coming fiscal year.
"A shutdown would be nothing short of a catastrophe for American families, our national security, and our economy," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. "It is critical that we avoid one, and that's exactly what this bipartisan legislation will do."
But a number of House Republicans, including members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, have signaled that they are opposed to any short-term government funding bill. Earlier this month, the House GOP put forth a 30-day stopgap funding measure that would have cut nonmilitary discretionary spending by 8% instead of keeping the government funded at current levels.
The House Republican leadership ultimately pulled the bill after it became clear it did not have the votes to pass.
"The House GOP doesn't serve working families," Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) wrote on social media Tuesday. "The same party who provided $2 trillion tax giveaways to the wealthy wants to slash funding for WIC, devastating women and children who depend on this program to receive fresh fruits and vegetables."
The Biden White House
warned Wednesday that in addition to threatening food aid for millions of mothers and children, a government shutdown "would have damaging impacts across the country—including risking significant delays for travelers and forcing air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Officers to work without pay."
"During an Extreme Republican Shutdown, more than 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 Transportation Security Officers—in addition to thousands of other Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel—would have to show up to do their critical jobs without getting paid until funding becomes available," the White House said. "In previous shutdowns, this led to significant delays and longer wait times for travelers at airports across the country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!