The environment is on a roll in court these days. Not only did a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island become the third federal court to toss out the auto industry’s legal attack on California’s greenhouse gas emission standards, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) illegally approved plans by Shell Offshore Inc. to drill for oil in the Beaufort Sea off the north coast of Alaska in a suit brought by Alaska Native organizations and conservation groups.

The parties challenging the permits in that case included the Alaska Wilderness League, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Environment, Center for Biological Diversity, and Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL). They were represented by Earthjustice lawyers who successfully argued that the drilling would threaten endangered bowhead whales, polar bears and other marine animals in coastal waters just off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"Today's decision shows that our system works. MMS is now required to complete environmental review, as required by the law," said Betsy Beardsley of the Alaska Wilderness League. "This review is essential. New data shows that a large portion of Alaska's bowhead population, currently listed as endangered, uses the area Shell wants to drill."

While MMS must now comply with existing law and complete an environmental review, this is far from over. "This is yet another signal that the Obama Administration needs to revisit the nation's energy policy," said Whit Sheard, Alaska Program Director for Pacific Environment.

So while environmental groups have demonstrated that they can win in court, they must also win in policy debates. And perhaps as importantly, they must win over the public. Perhaps it was a belief that reason would trump rhetoric during the incredibly cynical "drill, baby, drill" chanting frenzy. After all, according to the Energy Information Administration, drilling the outer continental shelf at maximum production in 2030 would produce 0.9 percent of total petroleum consumption (the data is broken down in a nifty graphic by Architecture 2030). But reason took a back seat to an easy meme wrapped up in a perverse kind of jingoism and people became convinced that opening up more drilling was the answer to our oil needs, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.

With a new administration, environmental groups have an opportunity to be heard in the halls of Congress and not just in a court of law. In the meantime, we need organizations like Earthjustice and the National Resource Defense Council to represent the environment and we need environmental groups to help people better understand just what is at stake.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by canadada, November 27, 2008

.... an 'accidental' methane gas release from the Arctic seabed would destroy all living life on the planet as we know it.

Can we really expect profit-oriented businesses to 'give a damn'?

No. For them it's ALL about 'short term' gain at the expense of the planet.

RESIST CORPORATE GREED with every fibre in your body. RESIST.