July, 08 2019, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Olivia Alperstein, Media Relations Manager, (202) 587-5232
Barbara Gottlieb, Environment and Health Program Director, (202) 587-5225
"A High Potential for Catastrophe": Physicians for Social Responsibility Calls for Better Government Assessment of Public Health and Safety Risks Associated With Transporting LNG by Rail
The proposed Special Permit SP 20534 would allow Energy Transport Solutions, LLC to transport ''Methane, Refrigerated Liquid'' (UN1972), commonly known as liquefied natural gas (LNG), by rail tank cars via unit train or manifest train service.
WASHINGTON
The proposed Special Permit SP 20534 would allow Energy Transport Solutions, LLC to transport ''Methane, Refrigerated Liquid'' (UN1972), commonly known as liquefied natural gas (LNG), by rail tank cars via unit train or manifest train service.
As an organization that mobilizes medical and health professionals on environmental hazards to health, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) is gravely concerned about the severe potential fire, health and safety risks to communities with LNG transport by train. Sadly, we don't have to imagine what LNG train derailments, fires, explosions, and other hazards could look like. Given recent disastrous events, it is striking that there is such a paucity of data and analysis provided on health and safety concerns in the Environmental Assessment Special associated with the Special Permit.
Recent oil train derailments that have impacted Lac Megantic, Quebec, Mosier, Oregon, and over a dozen other communities show that rail-related accidents can and do lead to health hazards, public safety risks, environmental damage, and even fatalities.
In the case of an LNG train derailment and release of LNG, the LNG would likely return to vapor form, quickly forming a vapor cloud that could ignite and cause an intense fire, potentially affecting people, property, and natural resources. If the LNG failed to ignite initially, the unignited LNG vapor cloud could move over a large distance, find an ignition source, and burn back to the point of the LNG release. The consequences could be deadly.
"If enacted, this proposal would carry a high potential for catastrophe," said Barbara Gottlieb, Environment and Health Program Director at Physicians for Social Responsibility. "A derailment, a malfunction or a terrorist attack could result in release of LNG, which could lead to an explosion and a fire that first responders could probably not control. The risk of severe harm, including loss of life, is too high."
"We have seen trains carrying crude oil derail and go up in flames. The Lac-Megantic, Quebec oil-by-train disaster burned for four days and left 47 people dead. Transporting liquefied methane- which we value precisely because it burns so intensely- by rail, could risk accidental release and catastrophic fire. Our government owes it to the public to better assess the risks to public health and safety before approving this Special Permit to transport LNG by rail," she added.
The comment period for the Environmental Assessment is currently set to close on July 8. Given the potential for grave impacts on human health potentially associated with LNG transport by rail, PSR and other leading organizations have requested an extension of the comment period to 90 days so that we and other interested parties can gather the information necessary for informed comments and submit our comments in a timely fashion.
Physicians for Social Responsibility mobilizes physicians and health professionals to advocate for climate solutions and a nuclear weapons-free world. PSR's health advocates contribute a health voice to energy, environmental health and nuclear weapons policy at the local, federal and international level.
LATEST NEWS
Don't Say 'Climate': DeSantis Signs Bill Removing References From State Law
"This purposeful act of cognitive dissonance is proof that the governor and state Legislature are not acting in the best interests of Floridians, but rather to protect profits for the fossil fuel industry," one climate advocate said.
May 16, 2024
Forida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday signed a bill that erases most references to climate change in state law, deprioritizes it in policy decisions, and eases regulations for natural gas pipelines while banning offshore wind installations in state waters.
DeSantis signed the bill despite the fact that Florida is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to the climate crisis—both from sea-level rise and extreme weather such as heatwaves and hurricanes. Indeed, on the day of the signing, Key West tied for its highest heat index on record at 115°C, heat that was made at least five times more likely because of the burning of fossil fuels.
"This purposeful act of cognitive dissonance is proof that the governor and state Legislature are not acting in the best interests of Floridians, but rather to protect profits for the fossil fuel industry," Yoca Arditi-Rocha, executive director of climate education nonprofit the Cleo Institute, toldThe Associated Press.
The bill's opponents told AP that it exes out nine references to climate currently on the books. It also takes steps to promote fossil gas—which already provides nearly three-quarters of Florida's electricity—and makes it harder to ban gas stoves and other appliances.
Further, AP reported:
The legislation also eliminates requirements that government agencies hold conferences and meetings in hotels certified by the state's environmental agency as "green lodging" and that government agencies make fuel efficiency the top priority in buying new vehicles. It also ends a requirement that Florida state agencies look at a list of "climate-friendly" products before making purchases.
The law, which goes into effect July 1, "is very much out of line with public opinion," Greg Knecht, director of the Nature Conservancy in Florida, toldThe Washington Post. A full 90% of Floridians believe climate change is occurring, 69% of them want the state government to act on it, a Florida Atlantic University survey found.
Florida is already seeing the impacts of the climate crisis from Wednesday's high heat and humidity in the Keys to last year's Hurricane Idalia. Moving forward, Florida was ranked 10th in a list of states or provinces with the most physical infrastructure at risk from climate impacts by 2050.
"This feels like Act 1 of a Greek tragedy," the Environmental Voter Project wrote on social media in response to the signing.
Knecht told the Post that DeSantis and Florida's Republican-controlled Legislature were willing to address the effects of the climate crisis—the governor earmarked more than $28 million to study flooding vulnerability in each county last year—but would not acknowledge the cause of the problem or discuss solutions that involved reducing emissions.
"On one hand, we recognize that we're seeing flooding and we're seeing property damage and we're seeing hurricanes, and we're conveying to the public that we can build our way out of these problems," Knecht said. "And then on the other hand, we're turning around and saying, 'Yeah, but climate change isn't really real, and we don't need to do anything about it.'"
This may partly be because, as green advocates told Post, the climate crisis has become a culture war issue that DeSantis can use to attract media attention and right-wing voters, as he has done with high-profile attacks on abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights.
Others blamed the influence of the fossil fuel industry.
"Fossil fuel companies don't like competing with clean energy," Democratic Florida Senate candidate Carlos Guillermo Smith wrote on social media. "So they donated to Ron DeSantis who signed a law that bans offshore wind, eliminates energy efficiency grant programs, and deletes any reference to 'climate change' from state statute."
"GOP = Profits over people always," Smith said.
Progress Florida wrote: "While Gov. Ron DeSantis does the dirty work of corporate polluters, Floridians are left to suffer as the state becomes more unaffordable and the natural treasures of the people who have farmed, hunted, and worshipped here for generations are destroyed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Consumers Win' as Supreme Court Rejects 'Radical' Attack on CFPB
Amid celebrations over the ruling, one legal expert warned, "Don't confuse 'SCOTUS slaps down a wackadoodle 5th Circuit decision' with 'SCOTUS is more moderate than its critics claim.'"
May 16, 2024
Legal experts and progressive advocates on Thursday applauded the U.S. Supreme Court's 7-2 decision to uphold the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism but also cautioned against praising the far-right justices.
While Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, fellow right-winger Clarence Thomas penned the opinion in CFPB v. Consumer Financial Services Association of America, joined by the other three conservatives and three liberals—two of whom wrote concurring opinions.
In the majority opinion, the court held that "Congress' statutory authorization allowing the bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the bureau's duties satisfies the appropriations clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
In a statement welcoming the ruling, the CFPB said that "for years, lawbreaking companies and Wall Street lobbyists have been scheming to defund essential consumer protection enforcement. The Supreme Court has rejected their radical theory that would have devastated the American financial markets. The court repudiated the arguments of the payday loan lobby and made it clear that the CFPB is here to stay."
The bureau continued:
Congress created the CFPB to be the primary federal watchdog protecting consumers from predatory and abusive practices in the financial sector. Since the CFPB opened its doors in 2011, it has delivered more than $20 billion in consumer relief to hundreds of millions of consumers and has handled more than 4 million consumer complaints.
Today's decision is a resounding victory for American families and honest businesses alike, ensuring that consumers are protected from predatory corporations and that markets are fair, transparent, and competitive.
This ruling upholds the fact that the CFPB's funding structure is not novel or unusual, but in fact an essential part of the nation's financial regulatory system, providing stability and continuity for the agencies and the system as a whole. As we have done since our inception, the CFPB will continue carrying out the vital consumer protection work Congress charged us to perform for the American people.
The CFPB was far from alone in cheering the court's decision in the case, which Demand Progress corporate power director Emily Peterson-Cassin said "was nothing more than a cynical attempt by payday lenders to sabotage the CFPB, so they could continue to prey on American consumers."
"This case was simple: the Constitution requires Congress to pass a law authorizing funds for the CFPB, and Congress did that," she explained. "Today's decision will preserve stability in the financial markets and ensure the CFPB can continue its important work protecting the American people."
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a key architect of the agency, agreed that "this is a big win for working people."
Devon Ombres, senior director for courts and legal policy at the Center for American Progress, also celebrated a ruling he said would allow the agency "to continue fighting to protect the American people from corporate bad actors, fraudsters, and scammers."
While praising the decision, Ombres pointed out that "the justices reversed yet another extreme opinion from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that could have placed the entire financial regulatory system at risk and roiled financial markets."
Accountable.US similarly declared that in this case, "consumers win," and blasted the far-right appellate court.
"The reason the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is so effective at making wronged consumers whole is because of its independence, which is why shady industry CEOs and lawmakers in their pocket wanted to jam up the agency's funding with politics and lobbyist money," said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone.
"Among the biggest losers in this decision is the conservative 5th Circuit that gleefully advanced this lawsuit from predatory lenders and has sided with industry over consumers in a number of cases citing the same baseless arguments," Ciccone added. "The 5th Circuit's credibility continues to suffer as it willingly plays along with industry judge and venue shopping schemes that corrupt our judicial system."
Legal experts took aim at not only the appellate court but also right-wingers on the country's top court. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern said that "today's decision is a HUGE victory for the CFPB and a major defeat not only for the corporate lobby, but for the 5th Circuit, which embraced a theory so radically anti-historical and atextual that JUSTICE THOMAS wrote the opinion emphatically reversing it."
"Today's CFPB decision has a lot in common with the last Obamacare case: The 5th Circuit went so far off the tracks that it got a spanking in the form [of] a vehement 7-2 reversal by SCOTUS, with even Justice Thomas concluding that the 5th Circuit's nihilistic arsonists lost the plot," he added. "That said, no one should interpret today's CFPB decision as proof that the Supreme Court is 'moderating' or 'compromising' or 'shifting to the center.' Not at all. The decision is evidence of how totally lawless the 5th Circuit has become—because this case shouldn't even exist!"
CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck warned: "Don't confuse 'SCOTUS slaps down a wackadoodle 5th Circuit decision' with 'SCOTUS is more moderate than its critics claim.' 'Not as radical as the 5th Circuit' is not the same as 'moderate.'"
Supporters of Thursday's decision also warned that the fight isn't over. Groundwork Collaborative chief economist Rakeen Mabud said that "today's Supreme Court decision was decisively in favor of federal oversight on consumer protection, but we know that big business and their lobbyists won't stop trying to dismantle an agency dedicated to protecting everyday Americans."
"This makes it all the more important that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau continues its critical work," Mabud added of an agency that has recently cracked down on credit card and overdraft fees.
U.S. PIRG consumer campaign director Mike Litt suggested that "all Americans should still breathe a sigh of relief now that the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding is a settled matter. The CFPB extending its nearly 13-year run of protecting consumers no longer hangs in the balance."
"That said, we know those who oppose the CFPB and its work will keep attacking this crucial agency," he added. "Congress must reject efforts to change the CFPB's reliable and constitutional source of funding, which has enabled it to return $19 billion to consumers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Enough Is Enough': South Africa Urges ICJ to Halt Israeli Assault on Rafah
Israel's assault on Rafah provides "evidence of the crime of genocide," one legal expert said. "This attack is the final blow that is intended to destroy the Palestinian group in Gaza."
May 16, 2024
South African officials on Thursday made their case before the International Court of Justice to stop Israel's brutal invasion of Rafah, warning once again that Israeli officials have displayed clear "genocidal intent" and "genocidal conduct" in their military campaign in Gaza.
The case for the ICJ to stop the attack on Rafah was made by a number of lawyers, legal experts, and ambassadors, with the South African representatives outlining the bare facts of Israel's military campaign, blocking of humanitarian aid, and statements of intent, just as they did when the court heard South Africa's original claim that Israel is committing genocide.
That case, argued in January, resulted in a preliminary ruling in which the court said South Africa had made a "plausible" case and ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
On Thursday, South Africa urged the ICJ to see that Israel has not followed that order.
"It is difficult to imagine that the situation could get worse" than it was in January, international law professor John Dugard told the court. "But unfortunately, it has... Israel has now commenced its long-threatened assault on Rafah. It has ordered the evacuation of Palestinians in Rafah to the barren sand dunes of Al-Mawasi. It has closed critical border crossings to humanitarian aid, medical supplies, goods, and fuel, upon which the population depends."
"Israel's actions are in violation of fundamental international humanitarian law, but in addition, they provide evidence of the crime of genocide," Dugard continued. "This attack is the final blow that is intended to destroy the Palestinian group in Gaza."
Watch the livestream of the ICJ hearing below:
The South Africans made their case as the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said Thursday that an estimated 600,000 people have now been forcibly displaced from Rafah by Israel.
Despite tepid warnings from the U.S.—the biggest international funder of the IDF—for Israel to avoid attacking "population centers," the IDF this week has moved into dense residential neighborhoods in central Rafah.
The U.S. has also called for Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, but the IDF's seizure of the Rafah crossing between the enclave and Egypt last week led the World Food Program (WFP) on Thursday to warn that food and fuel rations "will run out in a matter of days." Dozens of Palestinians have been starved to death so far by Israel's blocking of relief shipments.
"The threat of famine in Gaza never loomed larger," said the WFP as South Africa made its case in The Hague.
Three months after giving a 22-minute speech detailing the numerous statements of genocidal intent made by top Israeli officials since the Gaza assault began in October, South African lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi during Thursday's hearing, used the more recent words of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who publicly described the aim of the Rafah invasion as "total annihilation."
In his presentation before the court, Ngcukaitobi invoked Smotrich's language by arguing that the Rafah incursion "is the last stage of 'total annihilation' of Palestinian life."
"For Palestinians to be able to continue to exist as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, they need a place from which to rebuild," he continued. "Rafah is that place, the last stand... Without Rafah, the possibility to rebuild will be lost forever."
In her speech, Irish lawyer Blinne Ni Ghralaigh outlined other developments in Gaza since the ICJ issued its preliminary ruling that illustrate the need for the court's "invaluable intervention."
Ni Ghralaigh detailed the destruction of hospitals like Al-Shifa, where mass graves have been found with the remains of women, children, and medical workers, and warned that "the same fate now awaits Rafah's remaining hospitals, doctors, and medics."
She also pointed to evidence that the IDF is treating evacuated areas as "extermination zones," where soldiers are ordered to kill any remaining people, and its use of an error-prone AI system to target Palestinians.
The South African legal team said the court must order Israel "to immediately take all effective measures to ensure the access of persons able to investigate ongoing atrocities," and called on the ICJ to "at least modify its provisional measures" from March, when it demanded that Israel allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.
"The court has the power to modify or make an explicit order for Israel to cease its military operations in Rafah, Gaza, and to withdraw from the Gaza Strip," said Ni Ghralaigh, pointing out that the provisional measure from March could only take full effect if a cease-fire agreement was reached.
"No such resolution is in place. The court must itself, therefore, create the circumstances necessary for its provisional measures to take full effect. It must order Israel to cease its military operations system finally," she said. "Enough is enough."
Israel is expected to address the ICJ at a second day of hearings on Friday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular