With the Port of Baltimore nearing a return to full commercial operations, advocates are renewing their call for an executive order to address maritime shipping emissions.

Last year, 45 environmental groups sent a letter calling on the Biden administration to decarbonize the maritime shipping sector. Among their recommendations was eliminating in-port ship emissions by 2030, with one approach to connect ships to shore power while docked.

Antonio Santos, federal climate policy director for the nonprofit Pacific Environment, said reducing emissions is not just about climate change.

"As you're reducing emissions, you're also protecting those directly impacted," Santos pointed out. "When we talk about where these ships tend to congregate, it is port workers and those frontline communities, those port adjacent communities that are directly affected."

Since the collapse of the Key Bridge, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Lab have been taking samples in the Curtis Bay neighborhood to eventually assess the effect of the closure of the Port of Baltimore on local air quality.

The letter also called on the administration to fund the electrification and quieting of the U.S. federal ferry and harbor craft fleets, as well as supporting domestic shipbuilders to build low and zero emission marine vessels. Advocates are also making the case the administration can use existing Clean Air Act authority to establish a goal-based fuel standard for ships entering U.S. ports.

Santos acknowledged advocates recognize ports are hubs of economic activity and attempting to protect the environment does not mean ignoring economic considerations.

"We can have a good economy, and we can also protect the environment," Santos contended. "A lot of these recommendations that were in our letter put in front of the White House include provisions that will create good paying union jobs."

Estimates indicate if shipping were a country, it would be the world's sixth-largest greenhouse gas emitter.


get more stories like this via email

A controversial oil drilling proposal near Florida's Apalachicola River is drawing sharp criticism ahead of a key administrative hearing next week.

Environmental advocates and local lawmakers are challenging the decision by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to permit exploratory drilling in the floodplain of one of the state's most ecologically significant waterways.

The company, Clearwater Land & Minerals of Florida, proposes drilling through a lime rock pad just north of Dead Lakes in Calhoun County, approximately 60 miles west of Tallahassee.

Susan Anderson, executive director of Apalachicola Riverkeeper, says 'no' to that.

"To put what is considered a treasure for the entire world at risk for a very limited potential economic return to a small number of individuals is something that our organization must stand up and oppose," Anderson said.

The company's permit application includes well-control procedures, preventive measures and contingency plans for potential accidents and spills. While the Calhoun County Commission supports the project, it faces widespread opposition from state leaders, local officials, the public and residents who've voiced their opposition.

The proposed site lies within a 144,000-acre floodplain vital to biodiversity and the recovery of Apalachicola Bay, which suffered a collapse of its oyster fisheries in 2012.

Anderson said she is alarmed over the environmental precedent this project could set, highlighting the ecological risks and interconnected ecosystems. She pointed out that about 90% of Gulf of Mexico species spend some part of their lifecycle in Apalachicola Bay.

"And the river itself is connected through multiple creeks, backwaters and wetland," she said. "It is in the vicinity of the Chipola River and the Dead Lakes, which are extraordinary resources."

A five-day administrative hearing begins Monday in Tallahassee.


get more stories like this via email

The Town of Carrboro is leveraging state law to combat climate change, announcing a lawsuit aimed at Duke Energy.

Barbara Foushee, mayor of Carrboro, revealed the case Wednesday, filed in Orange County Superior Court, alleging the company misled the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and delayed its transition to renewable-energy sources. Foushee said the town wants accountability for the damage caused by the delays and the harmful effects of the company's continued reliance on coal and gas.

"For years, Duke Energy Corp. has been working against our public safety," Foushee alleged. "As our town has been working hard to use every tool at our disposal to mitigate the devastating effects of climate change."

Foushee argued the climate crisis has taken a toll on Carrboro's public health and well-being and cost the town millions of dollars. She added while fossil fuels have caused measurable harm, Duke Energy has doubled down on coal and gas use, even constructing new coal plants in North Carolina.

Danny Nowell, mayor pro tem of Carrboro, underscored what he called the depth of Duke Energy's climate deception and the effects it has had on communities.

"Because of their monopoly, North Carolinians had no choice but to trust their deceptions," Nowell contended. "Our trust has been violated, and we have paid for it. We have paid for excess road repairs. We have faced the effects of stormwater, and we will continue to pay for even further expenses as we uncover them."

The Center for Biological Diversity and the nonprofit climate justice group NC WARN are assisting Carrboro with its case.

Jim Warren, executive director of NC WARN, said Duke Energy's leadership needs to be held accountable for what he called its long history of misleading the public and the widespread harm caused by its practices, comparing them to the tobacco industry. He is optimistic the lawsuit could provide relief and accountability for others who have suffered from the harmful effects allegedly caused by the company.

"We all hope this lawsuit can help the many communities down east North Carolina, in the mountains, around the world that have been hurt already by climate disasters," Warren emphasized.

Duke Energy responded to the lawsuit by stating it is reviewing the complaint and remains committed to its customers and communities. The company added it plans to continue collaborating with policymakers and regulators to provide reliable, increasingly clean energy while keeping rates affordable.

Oil and Water Don't Mix, a nonprofit group opposing Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, is leading student efforts across the Upper Great Lakes to advocate for its shutdown.

The campaign includes eight Michigan universities, with schools in Wisconsin, Illinois and Canada. Opponents argued the aging pipeline, running through the Straits of Mackinac, poses a catastrophic environmental risk if a spill occurs.

Calvin Floyd, a graduate student at the University of Michigan and volunteer student organizer, joined the Line 5 student campaign after first learning about the issue in high school.

"I remember the Kalamazoo oil spill," Floyd noted. "I became aware of the same company is operating a ticking time bomb underneath the Straits of Mackinac and that it had to be stopped."

Enbridge defends Line 5 by citing its economic importance and safety measures, including a proposed tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac and continuous monitoring.

Last month, Oakland University hosted "Bad River," a documentary about the Bad River Band's fight against the Line 5 pipeline, while the University of Michigan screened "Troubled Water," focusing on environmental and social justice.

Floyd pointed out student support for shutting down Line 5 is strong, with a diverse group leading the effort at the University of Michigan.

"It's both in-state students who have a connection to the Great Lakes and to the region and they know the weight of this issue, and it's also folks who come from all over the world who realize both the importance of this resource and how it's under threat," Floyd outlined.

In November, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources approved permits for Enbridge's 41-mile reroute of the Line 5 pipeline, bypassing the Bad River Band's reservation. The project faces opposition from the tribe and environmentalists.