SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
roishetta ozane
Dems Urged to Oppose Ex-Manchin Staffer for Top Environmental Post
"David Rosner was a paid cheerleader for the LNG boom before it was fashionable," said Friends of the Earth campaigner Lukas Ross.
Mar 20, 2024
The environmental group Friends of the Earth on Wednesday called on U.S. senators to oppose one of President Joe Biden's regulatory nominees, citing his "disturbing pattern of dirty energy advocacy."
Last month, Biden nominated West Virginia Solicitor-General Lindsay See, energy economics and policy expert Judy Chang, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission analyst David Rosner to serve on FERC's five-member executive body. Chang and Rosner are Democrats. See is a Republican, as there can be no more than three commissioners from the same party.
Friends of the Earth (FOE)—which will publish an online ad urging senators to reject Rosner—noted that the nominee is a former staffer for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), one of the most fossil fuel-friendly members of Congress, and that he previously worked at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), "where he sided with industry over consumers and the climate on multiple energy issues. BPC
funders include BP, Chevron, Conoco, and Shell."
"David Rosner was a paid cheerleader for the LNG boom before it was fashionable," said Lukas Ross, FOE's deputy climate and energy director, referring to the nominee's support for liquefied natural gas exports. "We're calling on Democrats not named Manchin to reject this nomination."
Noting the senator's decision to not seek reelection this year, Ross added that "letting Joe Manchin control FERC from beyond his political grave should be a nonstarter for every other Democrat in the caucus."
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set to hold a heading for the FERC nominees on Thursday morning. Manchin, who chairs the committee, backs Rosner. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the ranking member on the committee, has voiced support for See, while praising Rosner, who "has worked constructively with my staff."
If See and Rosner are confirmed as commissioners, FERC would have a pro-fossil fuel majority. Democratic Chair Willie Phillips has led a wave of fossil fuel project approvals, while Republican Commissioner Mark Christie is a reliable booster for oil, gas, and coal.
Progressive lawmakers and environmental campaigners have been increasingly critical of FERC, with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) calling it a "completely captured agency."
"The commission is captured by the fossil fuel industry. There is no other explanation for how FERC could approve over 99% of the fossil fuel projects it reviews in the face of climate catastrophe," Merkley said after the body greenlighted TC Energy's proposed expansion of methane gas infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest. "FERC needs fundamental reform."
Roishetta Ozane, founder of Louisiana environmental justice group Vessel Project, wrote in an opinion piece published Wednesday by Common Dreams that "as we transition to a future without fossil fuels, it's clear that major change is needed at FERC."
"While the new commissioners at FERC go through the confirmation process, they must show they are dedicated to more than just the basic criteria of the job," Ozane added. "We hope to see the commissioners eager to pave a new path forward by prioritizing justice: environmental justice and climate justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Activists to Insurance Giants: 'End Your Support for Oil and Gas Now'
"Make no mistake, money made off the extraction of oil and gas is blood money," one frontline Indigenous campaigner said.
Feb 28, 2024
More than 100 frontline community members from Louisiana, Texas, and New York marched on the Manhattan offices of four insurance giants Tuesday, demanding that they stop backing new fossil fuel projects that would intensify the climate crisis.
The march and rally come as part of the Insure Our Future Global Week of Action from February 26 to March 3, as activists in nearly 30 countries and on five continents are staging protests to demand that major insurance companies stop insuring fossil fuels, respect human rights, and support a just transition to renewable energy.
"We have been telling financiers and insurers about the destruction and devastation oil and gas projects are causing to our health, communities, and sacred lands for years, yet they continued to enable its unhinged expansion," Juan Mancias, the tribal chair of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, said in a statement. "Make no mistake, money made off the extraction of oil and gas is blood money. We are tired of empty promises, we want results. End your support for oil and gas now."
"The insurance industry readily covers polluting pipelines as part of routine business, despite potential costs. However, when it comes to insuring our homes, they either refuse or make it prohibitively expensive."
The protest came days after a report from Insure Our Future, Rainforest Action Network, and Public Citizen revealed that at least 35 insurers are underwriting controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) export infrastructure along the U.S. Gulf Coast. The insurers, the names of which were obtained via more than 50 Freedom of Information Act requests, include AIG, Tokio Marine, Chubb, and Sompo, the four companies targeted during Tuesday's action.
For example, Sompo and Chubb are two of the insurers behind Rio Grande LNG, a terminal in Brownsville, Texas, that threatens land and sites sacred to the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe, which has not given its Free, Prior, and Informed Consent to the project. Protesters delivered a petition to Chubb with more than 345,000 signatures asking it and other insurers to withdraw their support.
"The proposed terminal will support the continued environmental racism in the gulf by perpetuating the displacement, pollution, and physical harm of impacted communities," the petition reads. "It is imperative that the supporting insurance companies listen to Indigenous and impacted communities. And time is running out for transformative action to tackle the climate crisis."
In addition, the new LNG terminals would increase the pollution burden on communities that are already disproportionately exposed to toxins from the region's many petrochemical facilities and harm local ecosystems and wildlife.
"If built, Texas LNG, Rio Grande LNG, and their proposed Rio Bravo Pipeline would destroy our low-income Latine community's way of life," Bekah Hinojosa of South Texas Environmental Justice Network said in the report. "Pollution from these mega LNG/ methane export terminals would destroy the waterways where shrimp lay their eggs and our people fish to feed their families. We're calling on these insurance companies to stop insuring LNG/methane terminals because it's blatant environmental racism."
In terms of global impact, the projects backed by the insurers would emit the same amount of climate-warming emissions every year as 239 coal plants.
"These companies are insuring one of the largest build-outs of fossil fuels in the world, from investment to underwriting, these companies are culpable for providing material support through millions in coverage, while simultaneously abandoning communities in Texas and Louisiana," Mary Lowell of Rainforest Action Network said in a statement.
The report and the protest came after climate and frontline advocates in the U.S. succeeded in persuading the Biden administration to pause Department of Energy approvals for new LNG exports while they reassess their decision-making criteria, including climate impacts. Activists note that these projects also cannot move forward without insurance, which gives these companies a pivotal role. At the same time, many insurance companies internally recognize the risks posed by the climate crisis. On Wednesday, reinsurance company Swiss Re calculated that it already costs the U.S. around $97 billion a year.
Tuesday's march included a rally at AIG. The company, along with Chubb, Liberty Mutual, and SCOR, was featured on a majority of the certificates detailed in the report, including those for Louisiana's Cameron LNG and Sabine Pass LNG. At the same time, AIG has stopped backing Louisiana-based businesses amid extreme weather events fueled by the climate crisis.
Many community members exposed to pollution from petrochemical facilities are also exposed to more dangerous storms. Roishetta Ozane, a Louisiana environmental justice leader who founded the Vessel Project for disaster relief, stood in front of AIG explaining how she had survived Hurricanes Laura and Delta, as well as a winter storm and flood in 2021.
"All of these disasters that happened in my community because of these climate-inducing, climate-causing, climate catastrophe-ensuring projects like LNG terminals that are insured by companies like AIG, Chubb, and Tokio Marine," she said.
Another participant, Donna Simbo of New York Communities for Change, said she had survived Hurricane Sandy only to still be living in temporary housing more than 10 years later, with insurance premiums 70% higher.
"The insurance industry readily covers polluting pipelines as part of routine business, despite potential costs," Simbo said. "However, when it comes to insuring our homes, they either refuse or make it prohibitively expensive. Despite acknowledging the risks of climate change, insurance companies have avoided taking their fair share of responsibility."
Beyond New York, actions this week are also planned across the globe including in Colombia, Costa Rica, Congo, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, South Korea, Switzerland, the U.K., Uganda, and Tanzania.
Uganda-based activist Hilda Flavia Nakabuye wrote for Common Dreams urging insurers to back away from the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, which would threaten local biodiversity and livelihoods and emit 32.3 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. While 28 insurers have promised not to back it, several have not, including AIG, Tokio Marine, Chubb, Hiscox, and Lloyd's of London.
"We need all major (re)insurers to rule out supporting such a dangerous new oil pipeline to make sure that it never gets built," Nakabuye said.
To date, not a single global insurer has a policy in line with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, according to Insure Our Future.
"Insurance companies are supposed to be experts at measuring and mitigating risks, yet their ongoing support for oil, gas, and coal expansion is paving the way to a dangerous and devastating future," Isabelle L'Héritier, senior campaigner and lead organizer of the Insure Our Future Global Week of Action, said in a statement.
"Billions of us are living through the catastrophic impacts of brutal wildfires, storms, floods, heatwaves, and droughts which are getting worse every year," L'Héritier continued. "The effects of the climate crisis, from water shortages to rising food prices, are being felt on every continent. Companies like Zurich, AIG, and Tokio Marine have the power to push for a cleaner, safer world for the next generation if they act now. It's time to insure our future, not destruction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Pause Isn't Enough': Biden to Reportedly Halt LNG Buildout
"Biden is afraid that his climate hypocrisy will cost him the election if he doesn't make real progress on fossil fuels," one campaigner said.
Jan 24, 2024
The Biden administration has paused the approval of the controversial Calcasieu Pass 2 liquefied natural gas export terminal and is asking the Department of Energy to consider how the project would impact the economy, national security, and the climate emergency, The New York Times reported Wednesday.
The news comes as climate advocates and Louisiana residents have been mobilizing against the buildout of LNG infrastructure, with a sit-in planned at the DOE headquarters in Washington, D.C. for February. If approved, activists have noted, CP2 would emit 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions than the controversial Willow oil drilling project, and the more than 20 LNG export facilities planned for the U.S. Gulf Coast would release more climate pollution each year than the European Union.
"Biden's action shows two things," Oil Change International's U.S. Program Manager Allie Rosenbluth said in a statement about the reported delay. "One, the marches, petitions, and grassroots organizing from frontline communities and their allies are working. And two, Biden is afraid that his climate hypocrisy will cost him the election if he doesn't make real progress on fossil fuels."
"Remember, none of us are free until we're all free, until we can halt these permits and get them to sop being approved permanently, until we can kick polluters out of our communities, the fight must continue."
According to The New York Times, the DOE's decision on CP2 could be postponed until after the November election. In addition to determining whether the project is in the "public interest," three sources familiar with the situation told the Times that the administration had ordered the department to also consider its climate impacts.
Climate advocates greeted the news with cautious optimism.
"Um, I think we all just won," Bill McKibben, who brought the LNG fight to national attention with an article in The New Yorker last year, wrote on his Substack.
"If it's true, and I think it is, this is the biggest thing a U.S. president has ever done to stand up to the fossil fuel industry," McKibben said.
Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, told Common Dreams that "if this reporting is correct, it's a major win in the fight against fossil fuels."
"This decision would stop nearly 20 new LNG facilities, representing 675 coal-fired power plants of emissions, dead in their tracks," Henn said.
Jean Su, director of the the Center for Biological Diversity's Energy Justice program said, "We would welcome the Biden administration pausing the monstrous, climate-killing CP2 project, but a pause isn't enough."
"Growing national pressure from youth and frontline communities to end fossil fuel expansion got us here. Now the administration needs to go the full nine yards and reject CP2 and all new oil and gas projects. To preserve a livable planet, we need a public interest test that denies any new project that would drive us further into climate catastrophe and violate U.S. commitments to transition away from fossil fuels."
The Louisiana Bucket Brigade called the move "a huge potential victory for Louisiana" on social media.
"If enacted, this will be a first step toward phasing out gas exports from Louisiana completely," the group wrote. "This industry is already destroying our coast and fishing communities. It should not be allowed to expand, it should not be allowed to continue. Gas exports don't belong here. We do."
In a video posted on social media, frontline environmental justice activist and Vessel Project founder Roishetta Ozane said: "This will be a win for all of us. So many have been fighting so hard to get to this moment."
However, Ozane said that the fight was not over.
"Remember, none of us are free until we're all free, until we can halt these permits and get them to stop being approved permanently, until we can kick polluters out of our communities, the fight must continue."
Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said that the DOE would have to follow through with actually making an environmentally just and climate-friendly decision following the extended review process. The New York Times pointed out that the department has never declined a gas project on environmental grounds.
"We don't need new criteria if they only serve to arrive at the original conclusion, and increased exports are eventually approved," Hauter said in a statement. "President Biden should permanently halt new and existing oil and gas exports, and aggressively ramp down the fossil fuel industry once and for all."
The news came the same day that a new study from Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, and BailoutWatch found that the main beneficiary of new LNG facilities would be oil and gas companies and financial speculators, not U.S. or European consumers. At the same time, just eight facilities considered in the report would emit as much each year as 113 coal plants.
The Times news suggests that the administration is beginning to take heed of the drawbacks of the LNG buildout, yet existing infrastructure such as Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass has already polluted Gulf Coast communities and seriously impacted the livelihoods of shrimpers and fishers in the area.
Travis Dardar, founder of Fishermen Involved in Sustaining our Heritage (FISH), told Common Dreams that fishing in the area had already decreased by 50%.
"They said they were going to pause it, they didn't say they were going to stop it," Dardar said. "There's a big difference there."
His experience with oil and gas companies like Venture Global has taught him to be wary and to continue to fight.
"They've taken so much from us down there," he said. "That's how I know how relentless they can be."
National organizations also emphasized the importance of maintaining pressure.
"Big Oil and Gas knows it is up against the ropes and will put up a fight to continue putting its profits over our collective future," Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said in a statement. "But despite industry fearmongering, it's undeniable that LNG export projects are simply not in the public interest."
"These facilities pollute our communities, make energy more expensive for American families, and exacerbate the climate crisis all for the sake of more gas the world does not need," Jealous continued. "Our movement will not give up, and we will keep working to ensure that this reported groundbreaking step will lead to meaningful change."
Henn said that February's sit-in would go forward unless the administration officially announced the pause in writing.
"Our work is never over, but this will be a win to celebrate and use to stop other projects to come," Henn told Common Dreams.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular