How Pacific Island Nations Took on Big Polluters and Won
The students wanted answers to two important questions: what responsibility do countries have to stop climate change? And if countries don't stop polluting, will they have to pay for the damages?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
Charleston's Climate Lawsuit Against Oil Giants Is Dismissed
A judge in Charleston, S.C., dismissed on Wednesday the city's lawsuit against oil and gas companies over their role in climate change, ruling that the case raised questions that were far beyond the bounds of state laws. During two days of hearings in May, lawyers for the city argued that the companies, ranging from giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron to local firms, had covered up what they knew about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions. They accused the companies of mounting a disinformation campaign to cast doubt on climate science and failing to warn the public about the dangers ahead. Those actions increased demand for fossil fuels, which led to emissions and the grave risks linked to climate change that the historic coastal city now faces, including flooding and sea-level rise, they argued. The case cited state tort laws and the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act and sought funds for adaptation and mitigation projects. In his 45-page decision, Judge Roger M. Young wrote that while the lawyers argued the claims were about deception, 'they are premised on, and seek redress for, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.' He said that those issues fall squarely under federal and not state law, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over out-of-state companies. He cited a 2021 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a similar lawsuit filed by New York City against oil companies. In that case, Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the Circuit Court addressed whether the municipalities could use state tort laws to hold multinational companies liable for damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions. 'Given the nature of the harm and the existence of a complex web of federal and international environmental law regulating such emissions, we hold that the answer is 'no,'' Judge Sullivan wrote. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Associated Press
39 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump administration reverses Biden approval of major wind farm in Idaho
SEATTLE (AP) — The Trump administration on Wednesday canceled a major wind farm development in Idaho, a project approved late in former President Joe Biden's term that had drawn criticism for its proximity to a historic site where Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II. The Bureau of Land Management in December signed off on a scaled-down plan for the Lava Ridge Wind Project northeast of Twin Falls, with 241 wind turbines instead of 400. But the development had been on hold since the first day of President Donald Trump's second term, when he issued an executive order halting the permitting of wind power projects across the country and telling the Interior Department to review the Lava Ridge decision. 'By reversing the Biden administration's thoughtless approval of the Lava Ridge Wind Project, we are protecting tens of thousands of acres from harmful wind policy while shielding the interests of rural Idaho communities,' Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. 'This decisive action defends the American taxpayer, safeguards our land, and averts what would have been one of the largest, most irresponsible wind projects in the nation.' The project, five years in the works, faced opposition from local residents concerned about the height of the turbines — up to 660 feet (201 meters), or more than twice the height of the Statue of Liberty. It also drew concerns it would spoil views from the Minidoka National Historic Site, where thousands of Japanese Americans were imprisoned during World War II. Under the plan, the closest turbine to the historic site would have been 9 miles (14 kilometers) away. Robyn Achilles, executive director of the nonprofit Friends of Minidoka, said in a text message her organization was reviewing the announcement. 'We must protect Minidoka from future development, so we continue to seek long term protections for the BLM land in Minidoka's cultural viewshed,' Achilles wrote. The Interior Department's statement rescinding Lava Ridge's approval did not mention Minidoka. A spokeswoman for the company that proposed the development, Magic Valley Energy, did not immediately return messages seeking comment. The Bureau of Land Management said when it approved the project that it could power up to 500,000 homes and that its decision reflected 'a careful balance of clean energy development with the protection of natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources on this historically significant landscape.' Onshore wind is one of the cheapest sources of electricity generation. New wind farms cost less to build and operate than new natural gas plants on average in most regions of the United States, even without tax credits. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have targeted wind and solar projects as expensive and unreliable while taking steps to support the burning of fossil fuels, which is dangerously heating the planet. Renewable energies such as wind and solar provide an intermittent supply of electricity when it is windy or sunny. Increasingly, batteries are getting paired with solar and wind projects to allow renewables to replace fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal, while keeping a steady flow of power when sources such as wind and solar are not producing. The tax-and-spending legislation signed by Trump last month phases out tax credits and other subsidies for clean energy, and an executive order issued by Trump a few days later further restricts subsidies for what he calls 'the Green New Scam.' Since then, Burgum has issued a series of memos targeting wind and solar power, including a July 17 memo that requires his personal approval of all solar and wind energy projects on federal lands and waters. The order authorizes Burgum to conduct 'elevated review' of activities ranging from leases to rights of way, construction and operational plans, grants and biological opinions. The restrictions on clean-energy projects are aimed at 'ending preferential treatment for unreliable, subsidy-dependent wind and solar energy,' the Interior Department said in a statement. Late last month, Burgum canceled plans to use millions of acres of federal waters for new offshore wind development. And earlier this week, he issued a new secretarial order requiring that Interior agencies evaluating new wind and solar consider 'capacity density,' or how much area the projects cover. Commercial-scale solar and wind projects typically require a much greater amount of land and water than other energy sources such as oil and natural gas. 'This isn't oversight,' said Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, which represents the renewable industry. 'It's obstruction that will needlessly harm the fastest growing sources of electric power.' ___ Matthew Daly in Washington and Jennifer McDermott in Providence, Rhode Island, contributed.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Judges Press for Answers on Federal Involvement in Florida's ‘Alligator Alcatraz'
An immigration detention center built in the Florida Everglades threatens protected lands and wildlife, and violated federal laws when the government failed to study potential harms before construction, environmentalists argued in federal court in Miami on Wednesday. Witnesses testified that they worried that the detention center known as 'Alligator Alcatraz' would pollute environmentally sensitive wetlands, hurt endangered species and undo decades of Everglades restoration. 'We are very concerned about potential impacts of runoff,' said Eve Samples, the executive director of Friends of the Everglades, a nonprofit group and one of the plaintiffs. The suit is one of two federal cases filed against the remote detention center, which Florida erected last month to house federal immigration detainees. The environmental suit argues that the federal and state governments failed to conduct a review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which would have allowed for some public input before any construction. Environmentalists are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop operations and any additional construction while their lawsuit moves forward. State officials have tried to portray the environmental impact as minimal. They have said the detention center was necessary to assist the Trump administration with illegal immigration enforcement, because federal authorities did not have enough capacity in existing facilities to hold detainees. Florida has taken an especially aggressive stance in assisting with the illegal immigration crackdown, and is considering erecting a second detention center in North Florida. In legal filings, Florida has also suggested that the detention center is not subject to federal environmental regulations because it is state-run. But what was perhaps most striking during the daylong hearing was how many significant questions remained unanswered about the Everglades detention center, more than a month after the first detainees began to arrive there. Among those questions was the relationship of authority between the Florida Division of Emergency Management, which is in charge of the detention center, and the Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of immigration detainees. The judge presiding over the environmental case, Kathleen M. Williams of the Federal District Court in Miami, asked the state and federal defendants last week to provide any legal agreement related to the detention center's operations. No such document was provided during Wednesday's hearing or in the days leading up to it. One of the witnesses for the environmental groups, State Representative Anna V. Eskamani, an Orlando Democrat, testified on Wednesday that she had requested a copy of any agreement between the state and federal government but had not been provided with one. Agreements known as 287(g) typically authorize state or municipal authorities to help with immigration enforcement. State officials have also not responded to repeated requests from The New York Times requesting such an agreement, if one exists. The judge presiding over the second federal case, which relates to immigration lawyers' access to their clients inside the detention center, has ordered the state and federal governments to clarify their relationships to the facility by Thursday. 'We need to get to the bottom of the interplay between the federal and state authorities on who's running this thing,' Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II of the Federal District Court in Miami said last week. The Everglades detention center has come under much criticism since state and federal officials announced in June that Florida would become the first state to erect such a facility for immigration detainees. In addition to environmental and legal concerns, detainees, their relatives and their lawyers have denounced troubling conditions, many related to the center's unusual location. State officials built the detention center on an old airfield with little existing infrastructure. Most services — potable water, sewage, electricity — have to be trucked in or out, or provided by temporary facilities, such as power generators. Detainees have complained about flooding, mosquitoes, lack of showers and floodlights around the clock. In recent weeks, several relatives have said that some detainees have resorted to going on a hunger strike in protest. A spokeswoman for the Division of Emergency Management did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. During Wednesday's hearing in the environmental case, lawyers for Homeland Security tried to distance federal authorities' involvement in selecting the Everglades site. Dr. Eskamani testified that Kevin Guthrie, the executive director of the Division of Emergency Management, told elected officials last month that the state had received an email from Homeland Security requesting the construction of the facility. A lawyer for Homeland Security suggested in court that federal authorities might have asked for 'a' facility, without saying where it should be. Judge Williams interjected that she knew how the government could clear things up: 'Get the email for all of us.' Ms. Samples, of Friends of the Everglades, testified that the detention center was initially envisioned as a large and busy jetport in 1969. Opposition to the project led the famed environmentalist Marjory Stoneman Douglas to found Friends of the Everglades that same year — and led to the strengthening of environmental laws. Only one runway was built for the jetport before activists successfully shut it down. That runway now serves the detention center. 'Victories are sometimes imperfect,' Ms. Samples said.
