Quantcast

200+ Groups Demand Senate Kill Bill That Would Pour 'Fuel on Fire of Climate Crisis'

Politics
A new bill — passed by the House and being considered by the Senate — would provide billions of dollars in support for fossil fuel projects including fracking in Europe. Wendy Shattil / Bob Rozinksi / Creative Commons

By Julia Conley

More than 200 national climate action groups on Thursday demanded that the Senate stop the passage of a bill that would serve to keep both Europe and the U.S. dependent on fossil fuels for decades to come — as millions around the world have marched in recent months to demand that governments rapidly shift away from carbon-emitting energy sources.


Passed by the House in March, the European Energy Security and Diversification Act of 2019 (S. 704) would provide billions of dollars in support for natural gas infrastructure projects, propping up fossil fuel industries and leading to fracking projects in the U.S. — undercutting the goals of climate campaigners who are demanding that all industrialized countries move toward renewable energy systems.

S. 704 would lock "both the United States and Europe into decades of continued fossil fuel dependence under the guise of national security," said Food and Water Watch, which organized the letter signed by groups including the Sunrise Movement, 350.org, Greenpeace, Oil Change U.S. and Friends of the Earth.

"At a time when we should be leading the global mission to rapidly quit fossil fuels, the notion of seeking new and deeper fossil fuel codependence between America and Europe is patently absurd," Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, said.

The legislation is now under consideration in the Senate, with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) sponsoring the bill along with five bipartisan co-sponsors.

Murphy and other proponents say the bill would counter Russia's influence over energy production in Eastern Europe, but climate campaigners warned against using the fossil fuel sector, which releases millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, to push Russian President Vladimir Putin out of European energy markets is a short-sighted solution.

"This bill would undermine its own stated cause," said Collin Rees, senior campaigner at Oil Change U.S., in a statement. "Using fossil fuels for energy diplomacy increases global tensions and decreases our national security by pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Research clearly shows that existing fossil fuel development — including gas development — contains more carbon than the world can afford to burn."

While U.S. funding of fossil fuel projects in Europe may drive down Russian influence for now, the groups wrote, it would also exacerbate water scarcity, food shortages, and rising sea levels — all "geopolitical threats" in their own right.

Contrary to its name, they added, the European Energy Security and Diversification Act would do little to promote the safety and security of the U.S.

"The underlying logic of this legislation is deeply flawed," the letter reads. "Far from securing a more stable world, expanding exports of liquefied natural gas to Europe will lead to a more unstable world."

"Whatever the geopolitics, sending more deadly fossil fuels to Europe or any other part of the world is not the answer," said Bill Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Natural gas is fool's gold and will inevitably lead to further destabilization of any region that relies upon it."

The legislation is being pushed just as children and adults around the world are months into a global climate action campaign which has begun to make strides in the European Union and Great Britain. Eight European countries this week unveiled a proposal to spend a quarter of the EU's budget to combat climate change, fulfilling a commitment European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker made to climate action leader Greta Thunberg earlier this year, while the U.K. Parliament declared a climate emergency last week under pressure from the international movement Extinction Rebellion.

"Climate science is clear: We must begin an aggressive global transition to clean, renewable energy now," said Hauter. "For the Senate to promote the opposite would be a clear abdication of moral duty to current and future generations in this country and every country."

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

smcgee / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0

Several New York City Starbucks exposed customers to a potentially deadly pesticide, two lawsuits filed Tuesday allege.

Read More Show Less
Drinks with plastic straws on sale at London's Borough Market. Susie Adams / Getty Images

The UK government has set a date for a ban on the sale of single use plastics, The Guardian reported Wednesday. From April 2020, the sale of plastic straws, drink stirrers and cotton buds with plastic stems will be prohibited in England.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) speaks during the North American Building Trades Unions Conference at the Washington Hilton April 10, 2019 in Washington, DC. Zach Gibson / Getty Images

Colorado senator and 2020 hopeful Michael Bennet introduced his plan to combat climate change Monday, in the first major policy rollout of his campaign. Bennet's plan calls for the establishment of a "Climate Bank," using $1 trillion in federal spending to "catalyze" $10 trillion in private spending for the U.S. to transition entirely to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Read More Show Less
Foto-Rabe / Pixabay

When Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan in August 2018, its own estimates said the reduced regulations could lead to 1,400 early deaths a year from air pollution by 2030.

Now, the EPA wants to change the way it calculates the risks posed by particulate matter pollution, using a model that would lower the death toll from the new plan, The New York Times reported Monday. Five current or former EPA officials familiar with the plan told The Times that the new method would assume there is no significant health gain by lowering air pollution levels below the legal limit. However, many public health experts say that there is no safe level of particulate matter exposure, which has long been linked to heart and lung disease.

Read More Show Less
A crate carrying one of the 33 lions rescued from circuses in Peru and Columbia is lifted onto the back of a lorry before being transported to a private reserve on April 30, 2016 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Dan Kitwood / Getty Images

By Andrea Germanos

Animal welfare advocates are praising soon-to-be introduced legislation in the U.S. that would ban the use of wild animals in traveling circuses.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
A tornado Monday in Union City, Oklahoma. TicToc by Bloomberg / YouTube screenshot

Extreme weather spawned 18 tornadoes across five states Monday, USA Today reported. Tornadoes were reported in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Arizona, but were not as dangerous as forecasters had initially feared, the Associated Press reported.

Read More Show Less
A woman walks in front of her water-logged home in Sriwulan village, Sayung sub-district of Demak regency, Central Java, Indonesia on Feb. 2, 2018. Siswono Toyudho / Anadolu Agency /Getty Images

A new study has more than doubled the worst-case-scenario projection for sea level rise by the end of the century, BBC News reported Monday.

Read More Show Less
Matt Cardy / Stringer / Getty Images

The Guardian is changing the way it writes about environmental issues.

Read More Show Less