You are here
EarthBlog
The President’s “Dominance” Orders: Mine the United States, But Let China Make Electric Vehicles with America’s Minerals
Even though the President supports mining in the US, his policies might send US minerals into foreign-made EVs sold back to Americans. This strategy might lead to mineral dependence rather than the dominance he craves.
President Trump’s call for “mineral dominance” may have the opposite of its intended effect. Last week, the President signed three Executive Orders (EO) on mining. One declares a critical minerals “emergency” (Emergency EO); another speeds mine permits, weakens community voices, and bankrolls the mining industry (Energy EO); and a third opens up tens of millions of Alaska’s protected public lands to oil, gas, and mining (Alaska EO).
As we know, mining makes minerals, and often demand for certain minerals comes from electric vehicles (EVs). Yet, the President intends for fewer EVs (less supply) to be built in the United States. This is because the Energy EO directed the Environmental Protection Agency to start rescinding its Clean Cars rule. And with the help of Congress, the President hopes to repeal EV incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act.
While the Clean Cars rule does not care how cars are made, it does encourage EVs by limiting vehicle tailpipe pollution. The IRA helps customers purchase EVs with batteries made without Chinese minerals, but instead made with minerals from the US and its allies. Changing these IRA mineral sourcing provisions may open our markets to more foreign battery mineral imports. China already builds more and cheaper EVs than the US. Without the Clean Cars rule and the IRA benefits, US-made EVs may become less competitive.
While the President wants fewer US-made EVs, he simultaneously wants to increase subsidies for domestic mining of public minerals. If the US builds more mines, but fewer EVs, where will our minerals go? Some may go to the military, but many will also go into EVs built elsewhere, potentially including China. The Energy EO does direct the Commerce Department to consider trade actions, but says nothing about export controls for domestically mined minerals.
More domestic mining has implications for mineral supply chain commerce because foreign mining companies frequently claim public lands as their own. Under the 1872 Mining Law, public lands may be claimed for mining by anyone—foreign or domestic—almost entirely for free. The government has almost no power to deny a valid mine claim.
A policy of more US mining, coupled with fewer US-made EVs, equals more plundering public lands for free, then shipping our minerals abroad. Some of those minerals may return to US markets in the form of EVs for purchase by American customers. In the President’s vision of mineral dominance, Americans buy EVs built from our own minerals we gave away for free, sometimes to foreign adversaries.
Rather than dominance, this policy results in mineral submission.
It’s not yet clear how much of this strategy the President can actually accomplish. If the President truly wants mineral supply chain strength, he would ask Congress to modernize our 1872 Mining Law to lease minerals, generate taxpayer revenue, and balance our land use needs. He would create more circular supply chains that reduce demand for new mines through mineral reuse and recycling. He would craft trade policies that require due diligence to avoid or remedy violations of environmental, human rights, and labor protections throughout the mineral supply chain. He would make a case for cooperation through stronger standards across the world, rather than surrender to the lowest common denominator. The President’s mineral policy so far does not build supply chain strength. It’s all a projection.
The post The President’s “Dominance” Orders: Mine the United States, But Let China Make Electric Vehicles with America’s Minerals appeared first on Earthworks.
What Do Trump’s Executive Orders Mean for Climate and Communities?
People across the political spectrum want policies that improve their lives and communities and keep their families safe and healthy. Trump’s first Executive Orders—made just hours into his second term—delivered none of those priorities for the American people.
What is an Executive Order?An executive order (EO) is a directive from the President of the United States to one or more federal agencies. EOs allow the president to set policies for the Executive Branch, guide federal agencies, and clarify how laws passed by Congress should be enforced.
EOs cannot change court decisions, create new laws, override current laws, or contradict existing laws passed by Congress.
What can be done to fight against Executive Orders:Some of the actions described in Executive Orders can be challenged in federal courts. It is up to the courts to review and invalidate executive orders that exceed the president’s authority.
Other decisions in Executive Orders rely on Congress for authorization and funding. Congress can also pass legislation to override or modify an Executive Order. However, with the filibuster in the Senate, any legislation would require 60 votes to move. The president can also veto any legislation. A veto requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate to override.
Public pressure and advocacy can raise awareness of the impacts of an executive order to build opposition. For instance, EOs often call for agencies to create, modify, or revoke environmental safeguards through a public process communities can influence. State and local governments can also issue executive orders that enforce different policies, making it more challenging for the federal government to enforce the order effectively.
Additionally, future presidents can rescind or modify executive orders issued by their predecessors, providing a potential path to undo their impacts.
Trump’s initial executive actions undermine essential environmental protections, disregard frontline voices, and put industry profits above all else. Trump’s Climate Executive Orders Put Polluters Over PeopleTrump’s first executive actions trample basic environmental safeguards, silence frontline voices, and prioritize industry profits.
Mining and Drilling at All Costs: Opens up millions of acres of protected public lands to mining and energy drilling while limiting climate reviews, public engagement, and other safeguards.
Fast-tracking LNG Expansion: Restarts expedited reviews for proposed LNG export terminals, threatening Gulf Coast communities and environments with continued pollution.
Big Oil Giveaways: Undermines clean energy policies to benefit oil and gas CEOs, prioritizing profits over public health and safety.
National Energy Emergency: Declares an “energy and critical mineral emergency” to prioritize fossil fuels and fast-track oil, gas, and mining projects while limiting environmental review and public participation.
Environmental Justice Attacks: Revokes key environmental justice initiatives, including the Justice40 program, disproportionately harming low-income and frontline communities.
Paris Withdrawal: Withdraws the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, jeopardizing global climate efforts.
Earthworks will continue to stand up for communities and the environment. Subscribe to our email list for opportunities to take action.
Safeguarding Public Health and Exposing Corporate Greed Learn MoreThe post What Do Trump’s Executive Orders Mean for Climate and Communities? appeared first on Earthworks.
A Sacrifice Zone in the Push for Copper: Experiences from Bor, Serbia
Srpska verzija se nalazi ispod
The city of Bor, Serbia, lies directly in the shadow of copper and gold mining. The majority of the massive mining operation is owned by Zijin, a Chinese-owned company. The mine has expanded operations significantly in recent years. Residents are experiencing negative health impacts likely linked to air pollution from the mines.
Reduced Air Quality Has Health Impacts
The impacts of high levels of extraction and smelting are felt across the region. Air quality is one of the main concerns. A report from January 2024 revealed frequent spikes in sulfur dioxide (SO₂) levels around Bor, which contribute to acute and chronic respiratory problems, as well as acid rain. The study also found fine particulate matter, PM10, containing heavy metals including lead, cadmium, nickel, and arsenic. These metals can accumulate in the body, causing severe long-term health consequences, including cardiovascular disease, kidney damage, and cancer. Arsenic levels have been particularly concerning. Air quality monitoring between 2019 and 2022 found arsenic levels hundreds and even a thousand times higher than allowed under Serbian regulations.
There has not been a systemic assessment of the health impacts since Zijin took over mining operations, however the Batut Public Health Institute released a study that found higher risk of mortality for the men and women of Bor acrossage groups. Another study found a correlation between air pollution and the exacerbation of cardiovascular issues. Community groups in Bor contend there are over 3,400 active oncology patients from the city and another 1,800 patients who have finished treatment. In a city of 288,000 people that is a staggering number. In Serbia, it is common to post obituaries in public spaces, and bulletin boards around Bor and surrounding areas are packed with pictures of the recently deceased.
Mine Waste Leads to Contamination and Risk
The effects of mine waste have been significant for residents of Bor and nearby communities. There are at least eight tailings dams in the Bor region, and dozens of waste rock piles. In 2010, researchers estimated over 11,000 tons of mine waste per citizen of Bor, which was before Zijin increased production. Studies have found the soils around the mine are heavily contaminated with copper, iron, and arsenic.
A series of accidents and tailings dam failures over the decades have led to damages and degradation of about 60% of the agricultural land in the municipality. At one point, the Bor River and its banks were flooded with tailings up to 50 cm thick, destroying all flora and fauna, which did not revegetate for at least 40 years. This contamination continues, and as one study notes the “Bor River is constantly polluted by waste water resulting from draining through the flotation tailings and open pit overburden.” Because the Bor River is part of the Timok River basin which flows into the Danube, the contamination is far reaching.
The locations of tailings dams are extremely concerning. In at least two instances, multiple dams are constructed in a line one after another, where the failure of the first dam would flow into a second dam, which could in turn fail into a third. The cumulative impacts of a dam failure would be extreme. There are communities in the flow path of a possible failure for many of the dams. According to community members from Krivelj, a small town on the outskirts of Bor, they have been told they will have only 20 minutes to evacuate in the event of a tailings failure, despite a lack of sirens or warning systems. They report they have never been trained where or how to safely evacuate. There is also mining infrastructure where workers are present directly below some of these tailings dams. This is concerning given that most of the 272 people killed in the tragic Brumadinho tailings dam failure in Brazil were workers doing their jobs.
Expanding Footprint Threatens Communities and Farms
As Zijin pushes to increase production it also expands the footprint of the mining operations. These new facilities will require the removal of communities to store tailings or to build new infrastructure. Community members in Krivelj have been fighting for years to protect their ancestral homes. According to community members I spoke with in October, 2024, instead of presenting a plan to relocate the entire community, including churches, the graveyard, and other public infrastructure, Zijin has begun buying land and/or houses in Krivelj one at a time directly from residents. Residents report feeling pressured to sell their assets at a price below market value. Last spring women from Krivelj set up a blockade on the local bridge to push back against the informal resettlement process.
Residents of the mostly farming community of Slatina report that Zijin has taken farmland for expanding operations or blocked their access to agricultural land. One farmer told me he had seven acres of land “expropriated” by the company and was never compensated. He says has taken the company to court, as have many of the 20 families that have had their land taken, but his case has not been resolved. He used to grow corn and wheat, and raise livestock on his land. He has lost that income. He said the water in the three wells on his property is polluted and showed us a communal spring with drinking water that had been destroyed by mining infrastructure.
The residents of Slatina and Krivelj are mostly from the Indigenous Vlach ethnic minority, and consider the government’s acceptance of the mining company’s actions a form of discrimination. The Slatina resident I visited said the mining companies’ actions and the government’s support is an “insult to the people living here.”
Oversight is Urgently Needed
The Serbian government seems unwilling or unable to effectively regulate Zijin and their mining operations around Bor. The rampant environmental degradation, the violations of human rights and collective community rights, the apparent disregard for the health impacts from operations, all while allowing the unfettered expansion of mining, indicates that the government institutions charged with protecting citizens and the environment are ineffective and/or negligent. This is particularly worrisome in light of a proposed mine in western Serbia that, if permitted, will produce 2.3 million tonnes of lithium.
Foreign governments like Germany, the EU and the U.S. have chimed in to support the project without acknowledging the institutional weaknesses in the Serbian regulations, as shown by the situation in Bor. Before pushing ahead to expand mining in the country, meaningful steps must be taken to address the social and environmental harms the industry is already causing, both in Serbia and in the EU. Legal analysis of the 2006 EU Extractive Waste Directive found the need for stronger regulation as new laws come into effect, a failure to mandate best available techniques, and insufficient protection of the environment and local communities. This has led civil society organizations to call on the EU to commit to a revision of the key provisions of the Directive. Revising the Directive could make a big difference for communities throughout the EU, and serve as a model for Bor.
Zona žrtvovanja u trci za bakrom: Iskustva iz Bora, Srbija
Grad Bor, Srbija, leži direktno u senci vađenja bakra i zlata. Većina velikih rudarskih operacija je u vlasništvu Zijin, kompanije u kineskom vlasništvu. Rudnik je poslednjih godina značajno proširio poslovanje. Stanovnici doživljavaju negativne uticaje na zdravlje verovatno povezane sa zagađenjem vazduha iz rudnika.
Smanjen kvalitet vazduha ima uticaj na zdravlje
Uticaji tako visokih nivoa eksploatacije i topljenja metala osećaju se širom regiona. Kvalitet vazduha je jedan od glavnih problema. Izveštaj iz januara 2024. godine otkrio je česta prekoračenja nivoa sumpor-dioksida (SO₂) u okolini Bora, što doprinosi akutnim i hroničnim respiratornim problemima, kao i kiselim kišama. Studija je takođe utvrdila prisustvo finih čestica PM10 koje sadrže teške metale, uključujući olovo, kadmijum, nikal i arsen. Ovi metali mogu se akumulirati u organizmu, izazivajući ozbiljne dugoročne zdravstvene posledice, uključujući kardiovaskularne bolesti, oštećenje bubrega i rak. Nivoi arsena su posebno zabrinjavajući. Monitoring kvaliteta vazduha između 2019. i 2022. godine pokazao je da su nivoi arsena stotine, pa čak i hiljadu puta viši od dozvoljenih prema srpskim propisima.
Sistemska procena zdravstvenih posledica nije sprovedena otkako je Zijin preuzeo rudarske operacije. Međutim, Institut za javno zdravlje “Batut” objavio je studiju koja je pokazala povećan rizik smrtnosti u Boru za gotovo sve starosne grupe, i kod muškaraca i kod žena. Druga studija je pronašla povezanost između zagađenja vazduha i pogoršanja kardiovaskularnih problema. Aktivisti iz zajednice u Boru tvrde da u gradu ima preko 3.400 aktivnih onkoloških pacijenata, dok je još 1.800 ljudi završilo lečenje. U gradu sa 24.000 stanovnika, ovo su alarmantne brojke. U Srbiji je uobičajeno da se umrlice objavljuju na javnim mestima, a oglasne table u Boru i okolini preplavljene su slikama preminulih.
Rudnički otpad dovodi do kontaminacije i rizika
Uticaji rudarskog otpada takođe su značajni. U regionu Bora postoji najmanje osam jalovišta i desetine gomila rudarskog otpada. Godine 2010. istraživači su procenili da na svakog građanina Bora dolazi preko 11.000 tona rudarskog otpada, što je bilo pre nego što je Zijin povećao proizvodnju. Studije su pokazale da su zemljišta oko rudnika jako kontaminirana bakrom, gvožđem, i arsenom.
Serija nesreća i puknuća jalovišta tokom decenija dovela je do štete i degradacije oko 60% poljoprivrednog zemljišta u opštini. U jednom trenutku, reka Bor i njene obale bile su prekrivene jalovinom debljine do 50 cm, uništavajući svu floru i faunu. Vegetacija se nije obnovila najmanje 40 godina. Ovo zagađenje se nastavlja, a jedna studija navodi da je “reka Bor konstantno zagađena otpadnim vodama koje nastaju drenažom kroz jalovišta i prekrivku otvorenog kopa”. Pošto reka Bor pripada slivu reke Timok, koja se uliva u Dunav, zagađenje ima dalekosežne posledice.
Lokacije jalovišta izazivaju veliku zabrinutost. U najmanje dva slučaja, više jalovišta je izgrađeno u nizu, jedno iza drugog, gde bi pucanje prvog jalovišta izazvalo lančano pucanje drugog, koje bi potom moglo izazvati pucanje trećeg. Kumultativni efekti pucanja jalovišta bili bi katastrofalni. Postoje zajednice koje se nalaze na putanji mogućeg toka jalovine u slučaju pucanja mnogih jalovišta. Prema rečima stanovnika Krivelja, malog sela Bora, rečeno im je da bi imali samo 20 minuta za evakuaciju u slučaju pucanja jalovišta, uprkos nedostatku sirena ili sistema za upozoravanje. Meštani tvrde da nikada nisu obučeni gde i kako bezbedno da se evakuišu. Pored toga, rudarska infrastruktura se nalazi direktno ispod nekih od tih jalovišta, gde radnici svakodnevno obavljaju svoje poslove. Ovo je posebno zabrinjavajuće, s obzirom na to da je većina od 272 osobe poginule u tragičnom pucanju jalovišta Brumadinjo u Brazilu bila radnici.
Širenje uticaja ugrožava zajednice i farme
Kako Zijin nastavlja da povećava proizvodnju, tako i širi površinu rudarskih operacija. Ove nove infrastrukturne potrebe zahtevaju uklanjanje zajednica radi skladištenja jalovine ili izgradnje novih postrojenja. Stanovnici Krivelja godinama se bore da zaštite svoje porodične domove. Prema rečima meštana s kojima sam razgovarao u oktobru 2024. godine, umesto da predstavi plan za preseljenje cele zajednice, uključujući crkve, groblja, i drugu javnu infrastrukturu, Zijin je počeo da kupuje zemljište i/ili kuće u Krivelju jednu po jednu direktno od stanovnika. Meštani navode da osećaju pritisak da prodaju svoju imovinu po cenama nižim od tržišne vrednosti. Prošlog proleća, žene iz Krivelja su organizovale blokadu na lokalnom mostu kako bi se usprotivile ovom neformalnom procesu preseljenja.
Stanovnici pretežno poljoprivredne zajednice Slatina prijavljuju da im je Zijin oduzeo poljoprivredno zemljište radi proširenja operacija ili im blokirao pristup poljima. Jedan poljoprivrednik rekao je da mu je kompanija “eksproprisala” sedam hektara zemlje i da nikada nije dobio naknadu. Naveo je da je kompaniju tužio, kao i mnogi od 20 porodica koje su ostale bez zemlje, ali njegov slučaj još nije rešen. Na toj zemlji je uzgajao kukuruz i pšenicu, kao i stoku. Izgubio je taj izvor prihoda. Rekao je da je voda iz tri bunara na njegovom imanju zagađena i pokazao nam zajednički izvor pijaće vode koji je uništen rudarskom infrastrukturom.
Stanovnici Slatine i Krivelja su većinom pripadnici autohtone vlaške etničke manjine i smatraju da je prihvatanje delovanja rudarskih kompanija od strane vlasti oblik diskriminacije. Jedan od stanovnika Slatine s kojim sam razgovarao rekao je da su postupci rudarskih kompanija i podrška vlade “uvreda za ljude koji ovde žive.”
Hitno je potreban nadzor
Čini se da je srpska vlada nesposobna ili nespremna da efektivno reguliše Zijin i njihove rudarske operacije okolina Bora. Ogromna degradacija životne sredine, kršenje ljudskih i kolektivnih prava zajednica, očigledno zanemarivanje zdravstvenih posledica ovih operacija, a sve to uz omogućavanje nekontrolisanog širenja rudarenja, ukazuje na to da su institucije zadužene za zaštitu građana i životne sredine neefikasne i/ili nemarne. Ovo je posebno zabrinjavajuće u svetlu predloženog rudnika u zapadnoj Srbiji koji bi, ako dobije dozvolu, trebalo da proizvodi 2,3 miliona tona litijuma.
Strane vlade, poput Nemačke, EU i SAD, podržavaju ovaj projekat, ne uzimajući u obzir institucionalne slabosti srpskih regulacija, što je jasno iz situacije u Boru. Pre nego što se krene u dalju ekspanziju rudarenja u zemlji, potrebno je preduzeti značajne korake kako bi se rešile društvene i ekološke štete koje industrija već prouzrokuje, kako u Srbiji tako i u EU. Pravna analiza Direktive EU o ekstraktivnom otpadu iz 2006. godine pokazala je potrebu za jačom regulativom kako novi zakoni stupaju na snagu, propust da se propisuju najbolje dostupne tehnike i nedovoljna zaštita životne sredine i lokalnih zajednica. Ovo je navelo organizacije civilnog društva da pozovu EU da se obaveže na reviziju ključnih odredbi Direktive. Revizija Direktive mogla bi da napravi veliku razliku za zajednice širom EU i posluži kao model za Bor.
The post A Sacrifice Zone in the Push for Copper: Experiences from Bor, Serbia appeared first on Earthworks.
Ted Cruz Wrongly Accuses Biden Administration of ‘Slow Walking’ LNG Project Application Review
At this week’s Transportation Secretary hearing, Senator Ted Cruz accused the Biden Administration of “thoughtlessly and needlessly” forcing the Delfin LNG project to restart its application from scratch, “after slow-walking it for more than five years.”
But Cruz has it wrong. Delfin made major changes to their application that didn’t align with what was originally approved, wasting valuable federal resources and taxpayer money—and they’re not the only ones struggling to prove new offshore LNG export terminals are in the public’s best interest.
At this week’s Transportation Secretary hearing, Senator Ted Cruz accused the Biden Administration of “thoughtlessly and needlessly” forcing the Delfin LNG project to restart its application from scratch. But Cruz has it wrong. Read more in our blog: https://t.co/XVraWaRKuK pic.twitter.com/fcJLcY5VkT
— Earthworks (@Earthworks) January 17, 2025 What is the Delfin LNG ProjectDelfin LNG is one of many new and expanding LNG projects concentrated in Texas and Louisiana that are facing widespread opposition due to the harmful impacts fracking and LNG exports have on air and water quality, as well as their contribution to the climate crisis. Despite these concerns, Senator Cruz has been a vocal advocate for expanding LNG export capacity through projects like Delfin. This push comes even as the U.S. already holds the title of the world’s largest LNG exporter and global demand for U.S. LNG declines.
Texas-based Delfin Midstream is heavily invested in exporting domestically fracked gas from “floating” LNG export terminals to international buyers. The Delfin LNG project was their flagship effort to get into the export game with an LNG export terminal located off the coast of Cameron Parish, Louisiana that would receive gas from onshore pipelines, liquefy it on-site, and then load it onto LNG carriers for global distribution. Delfin could make record-breaking profits at the expense of the marine environment and frontline communities—including Cruz’s own constituents. Delfin Midstream has already invested millions in pipelines, compressor stations and tankers for the project, so they are pushing hard for federal approval of their offshore port.
Delfin LNG is one of many new and expanding LNG projects concentrated in Texas and Louisiana that are facing widespread opposition The Truth Behind Delfin’s Application DenialOn March 13, 2017, two years after the application was received, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) approved the Delfin LNG project with certain conditions outlined in a Record of Decision (ROD). However, Delfin LNG failed to comply with the original conditions of the ROD and made significant changes without the required review, ultimately causing the project to fall out of compliance. If Delfin LNG wants to pursue the project, they will have to reapply.
“In the seven years since the ROD was issued, widespread changes were made to the project, including to the project ownership, design, financing, and operations,” MARAD said in their decision. “These changes resulted in a revised proposal that is not the same as that approved under the ROD, and as noted below, will require a thorough, statutorily required, interagency and public review.”
An article in Trade Winds publicizes the application denial. Exporting More LNG Can Jeopardize Energy IndependenceContrary to Cruz’s and Trump’s stated values, increasing LNG exports risks undermining energy security and affordability. Exporting large quantities of LNG threatens energy independence by straining domestic reserves, leaving the U.S. more vulnerable to supply shortages during extreme weather events, geopolitical conflicts, or unexpected demand spikes. Expanding LNG exports further embeds the U.S. in volatile global energy markets, making domestic energy prices more susceptible to international events and competition.
Sen. Ted Cruz speaks at the nomination hearing for the Transportation Secretary on January 15, 2025. Other Offshore Applications Highlight Issues Facing the LNG IndustryDelfin LNG is not the only company struggling to prove their proposals for new offshore LNG export terminals are in the public’s best interest.
- West Delta LNG: on hold for six years because applicants can’t demonstrate financial capability, compliance with navigation and high-seas use, and use of best technology to minimize environmental impact. In a recent letter, LNG 21’s CEO cited “broader challenges in the LNG industry” as reasons for needing more time.
- New Fortress Energy FLNG: Since October 2022, MARAD has been waiting for an updated, safer design of the project that the applicant has yet to provide. This setback is particularly damaging to New Fortress, which had planned eight more projects in Texas and Louisiana and invested hundreds of millions in old platforms.
Delfin LNG and other company’s inability to support their project plans undermines the crucial review process that federal agencies like MARAD use to assess a project’s impact on communities, the environment, and the economy. Our senators should support a review process that prioritizes the public’s interest, not align with corporate interests that undermine responsible decision-making for the benefit of fossil fuel executives.
The post Ted Cruz Wrongly Accuses Biden Administration of ‘Slow Walking’ LNG Project Application Review appeared first on Earthworks.
Biden-Harris Administration Leaves Mining Reform Largely Untouched, Despite Promising Steps Forward
The Biden-Harris Administration ends without significant changes to our public lands mining policies. Despite proposing comprehensive changes to statute, regulation, and policy, the Administration finalized only a few. They were primarily about early outreach to Tribes and the public before mining occurred. To be sure, the Trump Administration may ignore or repeal these new instructions. However, honoring these steps forward can help avoid conflicts around permitting new mines.
For a quick refresher of the President’s term on mining reform:
- Feb 2021. Executive Order (EO) 14017 America’s Supply Chains directed all federal agencies to report within 100 days on how to improve ways to source metals, including from public land mines.
- June 2021. One hundred days later, as directed, the public lands agencies recommended updating their mining regulations. The report stated: “Congress should enact comprehensive reform of the GML (General Mining Law) of 1872 and USDA (Agriculture Department) and DOI (Interior Department) should strengthen the regulations governing mining on public lands.”
- Sept. 2021. Earthworks, along with a coalition of Tribes, Indigenous-led organizations, and conservation groups, petitioned the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management for better mining rules.
- Sept 2021. Congress passed Section 40206 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directing our public lands agencies to 1) calculate the time spent permitting hardrock mines, 2) develop mine permitting metrics, and 3) measure performance against those metrics to achieve better environmental outcomes.
- May 2022. In response to Congress and our petition, the Administration convened a meeting of stakeholders, including Earthworks, to announce an Interagency Working Group to deliver mining reform recommendations.
- Nov. 2022. At the annual Tribal Nations Summit, the Interior and Agriculture Secretaries announced mining reforms specifically to empower Tribal communities and improve consultation processes. The Administration chose these reforms to build upon their Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation.
- Sept 2023. The Interagency Working Group delivered its final report. It contained more than 60 recommendations for updates to the 1872 Mining Law, regulation, policy, and permitting. Notably, the Government determined that the average and median times to permit public land mines is only three years. Further, they found the primary cause of permit delays stems from mining companies providing incomplete, inaccurate, and/or untimely information to under-resourced agencies. The Government also specifically refuted often-cited mining industry estimates that mine permit times span 7-10 years or longer- labeling the data “unsubstantiated.” These conclusions help bolster the advocacy from mining-impacted communities, raising fierce opposition against “sham permitting reform,” weakening the 1872 Mining law and limiting environmental reviews.
- Sept. 2024. Building upon the Tribal Nations Summit and IWG report, the BLM finalized the Instruction Memorandum, IM 2024-048. It directs field offices to notify neighboring Tribes when the BLM receives a notice for mine exploration. Before, mining companies could begin constructing roads, drilling, blasting, and conducting other exploration activities without any notice to Tribes. This memorandum invites Tribes to meet with BLM before exploration begins to confidentiality and share information that may help BLM preserve sacred sites or prevent mining in some areas. It also allows Tribes to withhold certain sensitive information.
- Nov. 2024. The BLM finalized their Information Bulletin, IB 2025-0013, notifying field offices of the Infrastructure Law’s permitting metrics for public participation and interagency coordination. These metrics include conducting Tribal outreach before exploration begins (IM 2024-048) and receiving input from other communities before the environmental reviews begin.
The government should put into practice its ongoing commitment—before and during environmental reviews and Tribal consultations—to listen, respect, and incorporate traditional knowledge and community input in mine plans if only to avoid or mitigate potential mine permitting conflicts early on. Now is the time to build power and organize for future Administrations, when more lasting reforms—including dozens more from the Interagency Working Group—can become law.
The post Biden-Harris Administration Leaves Mining Reform Largely Untouched, Despite Promising Steps Forward appeared first on Earthworks.
Undermining Environmental Justice Protections
Late last year, the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted a new set of rules intended to reduce emissions from the midstream oil and gas sector, which includes facilities such as gas plants and compressor stations. The state of Colorado lauded the rules as “groundbreaking” because they rely on a novel (but unproven) cap and trade program that offers flexibility for operators and a lot of uncertainty for communities. Unfortunately, there is nothing new about prioritizing the interests of industry over those of communities in Colorado.
Under this new program, midstream operators will have to reduce their emissions to meet an emissions cap, which will represent the total amount of emissions they are allowed to emit from all of their facilities. If they reduce emissions below what they are allowed by their cap, they will generate credits that can be sold to other operators who are still emitting more than what is allowed by their caps.
This program offers flexibility to operators because it allows them to decide where and how they will achieve their required emissions reductions. Without any guardrails, a program like this would fail to uphold the principles of Colorado’s Environmental Justice Act because it would not require operators to specifically reduce emissions at facilities located in communities where the burden from pollution is greatest.
In an attempt to address this issue, the rules state that before operators can buy credits from other operators, they must first achieve at least 45% of their required emissions reductions by reducing emissions at facilities located in either:
1) Disproportionately impacted communities (DICs), which are communities that have a higher proportion of vulnerable populations exposed to environmental harms than other communities across the state.
OR
2) Counties located in the Front Range nonattainment area, which includes counties in the Denver metropolitan area and in Northern Colorado along the I-25 corridor that are failing to achieve federal standards for ozone, a dangerous air pollutant.
The problem with this framework should be immediately obvious: an operator could comply with these rules and not actually reduce emissions at any facilities located in DICs if they instead opted to reduce emissions only at facilities in the Front Range and not in DICs. Not only that, they could actually increase emissions at facilities located in DICs so long as they offset them elsewhere.
Two different angles on a plume of uncontrolled pollutants (black, unheated cloud of gas) being released from a compressor station located in a DIC in Weld County.
Colorado’s explanation for allowing operators to substitute emissions reductions at facilities in DICs for reductions at facilities in the nonattainment area is as follows: reducing emissions that contribute to ozone formation in the Front Range benefits air quality in all DICs located in the Front Range, even if emissions reductions are not occurring directly at facilities located in DICs.
A less generous take on why the state structured the program this way is because it prioritizes flexibility for operators over strict requirements to target emissions reductions at specific facilities in vulnerable communities which may be costly or difficult. In this way, the state is also deemphasizing the importance of reducing localized pollution in these communities, which should be a top priority given our observations of midstream emission in DICs.
Improving regional air quality in the Front Range is an important goal, and one that the state of Colorado should take seriously. However, positioning benefits to regional air quality as a substitute for measures that will directly address localized pollution in DICs is not an approach that prioritizes the health and safety of communities or that honors the spirit of the EJ Act.
Sadly, community members in DICs are accustomed to the state of Colorado incentivizing trade-offs like this, and it is precisely how sacrifice zones are created and maintained.
With these rules, Colorado takes another step forward in attempting to reduce harmful pollution from oil and gas. And, another step backward from a stated commitment to prioritizing environmental justice.
The post Undermining Environmental Justice Protections appeared first on Earthworks.
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.