RALEIGH, N.C. – A Wake County Superior Court will hear a request Tuesday from Clean Air Carolina, Forward Justice and the North Carolina NAACP to prevent the state Legislature from placing four constitutional amendments on the November ballot.
The Southern Environmental Law Center is representing the groups in the lawsuit filed Monday. Their case argues that the amendments would impact voting rights, restructure the government and reduce the separation of state powers.
June Blotnick, the executive director of Clean Air Carolina, says the changes could further reduce environmental protections.
"For the last six or seven years, we've had to defend longstanding clean-air safeguards and the gutting of funding for state environmental programs," she says. "We filed this lawsuit to stop the supermajority in the Legislature from consolidating more power."
If the ballot measures are allowed and approved by voters this November, the power to fill judicial vacancies would shift from the governor to the Legislature and take away the governor's power to appoint people to executive office and determine their roles.
In a statement, Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, called this lawsuit "the most frivolous lawsuit of them all. These groups are advancing a completely spurious argument already rejected by the courts simply to score points against overwhelmingly popular amendments."
Supporters of the amendments say they're intended to improve the process of judicial vacancies and address voter fraud with the voter ID requirement.
State ballots for the November election are set to be finalized Wednesday. Blotnick says the language used in these proposed amendments could easily mislead voters.
"The ballot measures are something a lot of people don't even pay attention to," she warns. "The language that's proposed for these ballot measures is not very clear."
If additional power is shifted to the Legislature, critics say it could further reduce protections for offshore drilling, fracking and water contamination.
Groups such as the NC NAACP are concerned the constitutional changes could impact voting rights and reduce civil-rights protections in the state.
get more stories like this via email
Dana Nessel, Michigan's Attorney General, joined Indigenous and conservation groups at a demonstration Thursday in Cincinnati, highlighting what they said are the risks to their region from the Line 5 oil pipeline.
In the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Nessel's office delivered oral arguments in a lawsuit asking to decommission the aging pipeline owned by Canadian company Enbridge.
Nessel argued the company puts its own profits above the state's natural resources. She told the crowd the case has been in limbo while Enbridge has requested it be moved from court to court.
"This is a Michigan case, brought under Michigan law, by Michigan's Chief Law Enforcement Officer on behalf of the people of the State of Michigan -- on behalf of our Great Lakes -- and it belongs in a Michigan court," Nessel asserted.
More than 60 tribal nations support the motion to bring the case back to Michigan. They contend the pipeline operates "illegally" through the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa's reservation in northern Wisconsin. Enbridge acknowledged Line 5 was built in the 1950s but said it is monitored 24/7.
The dual pipeline continues under the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan.
David Holtz, a member of the board of directors of the Sierra Club, said the prospect of an oil pipeline rupturing in the Great Lakes would be catastrophic to Michigan, the region and the entire country.
"This over 70-year-old pipeline that has deteriorated and is being held up by anchor supports in currents in the Strait lakes that have the power of the Niagara Falls," Holtz pointed out. "It's a really, really risky proposition."
He added President Joe Biden has the power today to step in and revoke a permit, which would shut the pipeline down.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Advocates are asking Maryland lawmakers to establish a superfund to help hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the costs of climate change.
Both houses of the General Assembly are debating the "Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather Act." It would establish a Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Fund, targeting the 40 largest companies extracting or refining gas and oil with a fee totaling $9 billion over 10 years.
Sen. Katie Fry Hester, D-Howard, citing the expense of infrastructure upgrades, said the state needs help paying these costs.
"Unfortunately, it has become the responsibility of the Maryland taxpayer to foot the bill for the costs of climate mitigation, adaptation and recovery measures," Hester pointed out. "Not anymore. It's time to ensure that the polluters pay."
The bill would enable the Department of the Environment to use the fund for stormwater and sewer system improvements, bridges and rail infrastructure, flood recovery, clean energy projects and more. In a recent Senate committee hearing, some lawmakers expressed concern about the targeted businesses passing the cost on to consumers.
The Center for Climate Integrity estimated by 2040, Maryland will have to spend more than $27 billion to protect against the possibility of moderate sea-level rise.
Jamie DeMarco, Maryland director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said climate change mitigation is already costing the state hundreds of millions.
"Howard County is spending $228 million to bore an 18-foot diameter drainage tunnel through granite bedrock to prevent flooding," DeMarco noted. "It's the biggest capital expenditure in the history of the county. Annapolis is spending $50 million renovating their dock from nuisance flooding. The same thing is happening everywhere across the state."
Recent polling by Data for Progress found 73% of likely voters support assessing a fee on big oil and gas companies to pay part of the cost of climate change mitigation. Either version of the measure needs to pass one chamber by March 18 in order to have a future in the current session.
Disclosure: The Chesapeake Climate Action Network contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, and Sustainable Agriculture. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
The founder of the Baltimore Compost Collective wants Baltimore to ditch trash incineration, fight climate change and grow healthier food.
Marvin Hayes began composting in Baltimore more than a decade ago and has grown the operation into a collection service picking up around 1,500 pounds of food waste each week. Hayes operates a composting facility at the nonprofit Filbert Street Garden, where the organic material is turned into rich soil for use at the urban garden.
Hayes sees a revolution, a better way of life for Baltimore's Black community to help fight what he calls "food apartheid" and end the city's reliance on a giant, polluting waste-to-energy incinerator and fight climate change.
"People didn't know that the incinerator was causing $55 million in health damages, or they didn't know what the incinerator was," Hayes recounted. "People didn't know that Baltimore County trash gets brought here and burned. Howard County's trash gets brought here and burned."
In September the Environmental Protection Agency announced a $4 million grant as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill to build a solar-powered composting facility in south Baltimore to accept food scraps and other organic material. The agency estimates the facility will keep 12,000 tons of waste out of the city's incinerator.
Incinerators release large quantities of lead, mercury and other harmful pollutants into the air. In late 2020 Baltimore signed a 10-year contract to continue incineration, much to the chagrin of environmental advocates such as Hayes, who have long advocated for composting as a viable alternative to toxic trash incineration.
A 2018 study by the Baltimore Office of Sustainability noted compost-amended soil can reduce contamination of urban pollutants by 60% to 95%, and protects against the danger associated with lead in urban soils.
Hayes' composting facility has a limited capacity. When it is full, he transports the rest of his food scraps to a bigger organic compost facility in Upper Marlboro in Prince George's County.
"If PG County is doing it, why shouldn't Baltimore be following the same practices?" Hayes asked. "Make a large scale composting facility, so when the residents put their recycling out, they'll put their composting out, it'll go to a large-scale composting facility, create four times more jobs than incinerators, two times more jobs than the landfill."
This story was produced based on original reporting by Aman Azhar for Inside Climate News.
get more stories like this via email