October, 14 2008, 02:38pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Leda Huta, Endangered Species Coalition, 202-320-6467
Susan Holmes, Earthjustice, 202-667-4500, ext 204
Andrew Wetzler, Natural Resources Defense Council, 312-780-7429
James Navarro, Defenders of Wildlife, 202-772-0247
Kristina Johnson, Sierra Club, 415-977-5619
Colin Durrant, Conservation Law Foundation, 617-850-1722
Over 100,000 Americans Oppose Bush Endangered Species Rewrite
Members of Congress and Citizen Organizations Urge Administration to Withdraw Regulations that Undermine the Endangered Species Act
WASHINGTON
Today more than 100,000 citizens opposed
the Bush Administration's attempts to severely weaken the Endangered Species
Act.
"In the midst of a financial crisis,
it is incredible that Americans, despite their numerous other worries, rose up
and declared that they wanted an end to the destruction of endangered species
protections. To think that more
than 100,000 individuals took notice and opposed these regulations being pushed
through by Bush, Cheney and company is astounding. Demonstrating such massive opposition
ensures that Bush and friends will not be able to go quietly into the night
while destroying one of our country's greatest wilderness laws," said Leda Huta, Executive Director of the
Endangered Species Coalition.
Representatives from the Endangered Species
Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Sierra Club,
National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity
delivered over 100,000 comments emailed in from Americans of all walks of life
after the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration refused to accept public comments in the form of e-mails or
faxes.
"Over 100,000 people around the country are
telling the Bush administration to abandon its last-ditch attempts to
remove protections for our nation's wildlife and wild places," said Melissa
Waage at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "With only three months left in
office, President Bush should consider his legacy on the environment and take
steps to protect our endangered species, not harm them. Public reaction has been
swift and clear: diminishing protections for our endangered species will not be
tolerated."
The Bush administration proposals
would significantly weaken the Endangered Species Act. According to a Congressional Research
Service report, the proposed regulations may violate the Endangered Species Act,
allow federal actions to proceed that would harm endangered species and create
more work for federal agencies, not less, as the Administration claims.
"The Bush administration proposal
eliminates the critical checks and balances needed to protect endangered species
and cuts scientists from the process of making decisions that need to be
science-based," said Mike Daulton, with National Audubon Society.
"In its waning days in office,
the Bush administration is trying to fast track oil drilling, mining, logging
and development by stripping away protections for our public lands and wildlife
heritage," stated Matthew Kirby with Sierra Club. "The Bush administration has
attempted to unravel the Endangered Species Act quietly and without notice. It
isn't working. Tens of thousands of Americans have already demanded protection
for this cornerstone environmental law."
Over 80 Members of Congress also sent a
letter asking the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed regulations and
the Senate attempted to hold a hearing to delve into them more deeply.
"The
wildlife agencies are the 'keepers of the flame' for our threatened and
endangered wildlife. They are the only experts equipped to make decisions based
on looking at the whole picture for a species, and taking them out of the
decision-making process is the height of recklessness," said Jamie Rappaport
Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife. "The danger that these
proposed changes spell for imperiled wildlife is clear, not only to us but to
the thousands of Americans who have urged the Bush administration to drop these
proposals."
"Such a major change to a bedrock
environmental law deserves open and honest debate with Congress and the American
public," said Susan Holmes of Earthjustice. "Yet, the administration refused to
defend their proposal by canceling
their scheduled appearance before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works
committee last month-a rarely, if ever, seen occurrence. This only demonstrated how desperate
they are to hide their unpopular changes."
Well over 100 conservation, scientific,
education, religious, sporting and community organizations asked the
administration to stop their assault on one of our nation's most important
conservation laws.
"The
Bush administration's proposed wholesale evisceration of the consultation
regulations would have a particularly nefarious impact on our ability to protect
species such as the polar bear from global warming and would allow corrupt
agencies such as the Mineral Management Service to proceed without check, " said
Bill Snape with the Center for Biological Diversity.
"What New
England's imperiled wildlife need is better science-based
management, not less. The Bush proposal takes us in the wrong direction and
would only create more problems for North Atlantic right whales,
Canada lynx and
other imperiled species such as the Atlantic wolffish," said Sean Cosgrove of the Conservation
Law Foundation.
Pictures of the comment delivery
can be found at: https://stopextinctionblog.blogspot.com/
Video of the comment delivery can
be found at: https://empivot.com/watch.php?mdid=999
The Endangered Species Coalition's mission is to stop the human-caused extinction of our nation's at-risk species, to protect and restore their habitats, and to guide these fragile populations along the road to recovery.
LATEST NEWS
US Leads Charge as Surge of Oil and Gas Projects Threaten Hope for Livable Planet
"The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle," said one analyst.
Mar 28, 2024
Fossil fuel-producing countries late last year pledged to "transition away from fossil fuels," but a report on new energy projects shows that with the United States leading the way in continuing to extract oil and gas, governments' true views on renewable energy is closer to a statement by a Saudi oil executive Amin Nasser earlier this month.
"We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas," the CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, said at an energy conference in Houston.
A new report published Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) suggests the U.S. in particular has abandoned any plans to adhere to warnings from climate scientists and the International Energy Agency (IEA), which said in 2021 that new oil and gas infrastructure has no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
Despite the stark warning, last year at least 20 oil and gas fields worldwide reached "final investment decision," the point at which companies decide to move ahead with construction and development. Those approvals paved the way for the extraction of 8 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe).
By the end of the decade, companies aim to sanction nearly four times that amount, producing 31.2 billion boe from 64 oil and gas fields.
The U.S. led the way in approving new oil and gas projects over the past two years, GEM's analysis found.
An analysis by Carbon Brief of GEM's findings shows that burning all the oil and gas from newly discovered fields and approved projects would emit at least 14.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
"This is equivalent to more than one-third of the CO2 emissions from global energy use in 2022, or all the emissions from burning oil that year," said Carbon Brief.
GEM noted in its analysis that oil companies and the policymakers who continue to support their planet-heating activities have come up with numerous "extraction justifications" even as the IEA has been clear that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with avoiding catastrophic planetary heating.
The report notes that U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) "supported ConocoPhillips' Willow oil field, arguing that the Alaskan oil and gas industry has a 'better environmental track record,' and not approving the project 'impoverish[es] Alaska Natives and blame[s] them for changes in the climate that they did not cause.'"
Carbon Brief reported that oil executives have claimed they are powerless to stop extracting fossil fuels since demand for oil and gas exists for people's energy needs, with ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods tellingFortune last month that members of the public "aren't willing to spend the money" on renewable energy sources.
A poll by Pew Research Center last year found 67% of Americans supported the development of alternative energy sources. Another recent survey by Eligo Energy showed that 65% of U.S. consumers were willing to pay more for renewable energy.
"Oil and gas producers have given all kinds of reasons for continuing to discover and develop new fields, but none of these hold water," said Scott Zimmerman, project manager for the Global Oil and Gas Extraction Tracker at GEM. "The science is clear: No new oil and gas fields, or the planet gets pushed past what it can handle."
Climate scientist and writer Bill McGuire summarized the viewpoint of oil and gas executives and pro-fossil fuel lawmakers: "Climate emergency? What climate emergency?"
The continued development of new oil and gas fields, he added, amounts to "pure insanity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Just ‘Stop Drilling,’ Critics Say After Biden Admin Finalizes Methane Limits
The new Biden administration rule will limit methane emissions, but critics say it's time to stop drilling for fossil fuels.
Mar 28, 2024
The Biden administration on Tuesday finalized rules that will force oil and gas companies to reduce their methane emissions, but critics say the administration needs to do more to curb a key driver of the planet-warming pollution: fossil fuel drilling.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and the Bureau of Land Management's new rules will require that fossil fuel companies contain methane leaks at oil and natural gas wells that are on federal land, and they will also have to limit how much methane they burn off.
Critics say the only solution that will truly address the climate crisis is to stop drilling entirely. Recently released Interior Department data shows that the Biden administration has approved close to 50% more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands than the Trump administration did during its first three years.
"The best way to eliminate methane pollution from public lands is to stop fossil fuel drilling, period. In the midst of a climate emergency, we need to take the actions necessary to stop pollution once and for all," Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh said in a statement. "We look forward to working with climate champions in Congress like Rep. Jan Schakowsky to pass the Future Generations Protection Act to ban fracking on public lands and everywhere else."
Some praised the new rules as needed progress, including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
America’s public lands should be sources of inspiration and joy, not pollution and waste. I applaud @Interior for working to stop releases of methane, a major climate pollutant, on our public lands—something I've been demanding for years with my FLARE Act. https://t.co/D1o26GEc55
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 27, 2024
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement Tuesday that “this final rule, which updates 40-year-old regulations, furthers the Biden-Harris administration’s goals to prevent [methane] waste, protect our environment and ensure a fair return to American taxpayers.”
Methane can trap far more heat than CO2, so limiting emissions is a critical part of addressing the climate crisis. Despite pledging to cut methane emissions, oil and gas companies have not significantly reduced emissions in recent years. The U.S. is currently the largest emitter of methane from oil and gas in the world.
The International Energy Agency says major reductions in methane emissions need to be made if the world is going to avert catastrophic global warming.
Keep ReadingShow Less
State Department Spokesman Urged to Resign Over 'Despicable' Attack on UN Expert
One critic described Matthew Miller's attack on United Nations special rapporteur Francesca Albanese as a "Trumpian smearing of a principled human rights expert."
Mar 28, 2024
U.S. State Department Matthew Miller faced calls to resign Thursday after he accused a United Nations special rapporteur of engaging in antisemitism—an attack that came days after the human rights expert presented a report concluding that Israel's assault on Gaza has met the threshold of genocide.
Asked about the report during a press briefing on Wednesday, Miller said the U.S. has "for a longstanding period of time opposed the mandate of this special rapporteur, which we believe is not productive."
"And when it comes to the individual who holds that position, I can't help but note a history of antisemitic comments that she has made that have been reported," Miller added, pointing to comments that Francesca Albanese—the U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories—"made in December that appeared to justify the attacks of October 7."
A new low by the Biden team.
In response to UN Special Rapporteur @FranceskAlbs new report - Anatomy of a Genocide - concluding that the threshold of genocide has reasonably been met, the State Dep chooses to attack her persona and accuse her of antisemitism :( :( pic.twitter.com/iNpVT3BWQy
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) March 27, 2024
It's not entirely clear which comments Miller was referencing.
In an interview with Jewish News Syndicate in December, Albanese was asked whether Palestinian militants' killing of Israeli soldiers on October 7 was a violation of international law. Albanese, an Italian attorney and academic, said that "killing a soldier is a tragedy under international law, but when there is an armed conflict, like in this case, killing a soldier is not illegal."
But Albanese stressed in the interview that the Hamas-led attacks on Israeli civilians—including the taking of hostages—were "not legitimate resistance."
"These are crimes and cannot be justified," she added.
Miller's attack on Albanese Wednesday—which echoed earlier attacks on the special rapporteur by U.S. officials and lawmakers—sparked immediate backlash and calls for his resignation.
"Matthew Miller should be forced to resign for trying to endanger the life of a U.N. official with falsehoods," Ashish Prashar, a spokesperson for Gaza Voices, said in a statement. Albanese said earlier this week that she has faced threats following the publication of her report accusing Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Rohan Talbot, director of advocacy and campaigns at Medical Aid for Palestinians, called the State Department spokesman's remarks a "truly despicable, Trumpian smearing of a principled human rights expert."
"Note the lack of substantive rebuttals of her careful analysis, and the resort to ad hominem attacks," Talbot wrote on social media. "Not the sign of a confident administration."
"Israel has a long history of weaponizing false charges of antisemitism to attack and undermine those fighting for human rights for Palestinians."
The Israeli government has similarly attempted to cast Albanese as an antisemite, drawing pushback from human rights organizations and academics who say the claim is a baseless attempt to discredit her work.
"Israel has a long history of weaponizing false charges of antisemitism to attack and undermine those fighting for human rights for Palestinians—and U.N. officials and experts have been among the most consistent victims of those attacks," Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams.
"Almost 15 years ago Richard Falk," Bennis added, "an internationally respected Princeton professor of international law who had just been appointed special rapporteur, was not only denied access to the occupied Palestinian territory to carry out the terms of his U.N. mandate, but was also arrested and jailed by Israeli authorities."
"Since then every special rapporteur has been similarly excluded, their mandate and their work undermined, and their commitment to international law and human rights attacked as antisemitic," she said. "Francesca Albanese has been among the bravest of these SRs, maintaining her commitment to calling out all violations of international law relevant to her mandate—including when Israel has violated international covenants against apartheid and now, against genocide."
Albanese's 25-page report, which she delivered to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Tuesday, argues that "the overwhelming nature and scale of Israel's assault on Gaza and the destructive conditions of life it has inflicted reveal an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a group."
"There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the following acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza has been met: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to groups' members; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," the report states. "Genocidal acts were approved and given effect following statements of genocidal intent issued by senior military and government officials."
Amnesty International praised the report as "a crucial body of work that must serve as a vital call to action."
The Biden State Department has publicly rejected genocide accusations against Israel as "meritless" and said it has not found Israel's military to be in violation of international law during its monthslong war on Gaza—an assessment that conflicts with the findings of leading human rights organizations and U.N. experts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular