On June 1st, President Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. This decision threatens our security, our public health and welfare, our economic prosperity, and our clean energy industry, which supports millions of U.S. jobs. It threatens the air we breathe and the water we drink. It threatens our ecosystems and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable people on our planet. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement does not represent the will of the American people.
New Mexico’s public lands are in danger. The Trump administration seems to believe these culturally rich pieces of land are commodities rather than treasures. Senator Martin Heinrich strongly disagrees.
What now? Where does it go from here? Will we see a call for the impeachment of our 45th President? Will the testimony of James Comey finally bring this administration to the screeching halt it has been flirting with since day one?
Facing an increasingly determined and growing community of protestors and pressure from federal legislators and community groups, the federal Army Corps of Engineers announced late Sunday that it would deny the permit for the last leg of the DAPL, a controversial federal oil pipeline through sacred tribal areas in North Dakota. New Mexicans have made high-profile efforts to join the opposition in recent months. State Democratic Party Chair Deb Haaland, herself the only Native party chair in the country, traveled there last month.
Senators Udall and Heinrich also issued letters to President Obama called for the permit denial.
Heinrich calls on Obama to move Dakota Access Pipeline | NM Political Report
Heinrich concerned over violence against Standing Rock protesters | NM Political Report
Udall also wants Dakota Access Pipeline moved, denounces violence | NM Political Report
From the New York Times:
“Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do,” Ms. Darcy said. “The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.”
The administration also signaled its intent to require a full environmental impact report and public input. Both were deemed unnecessary by the applicants but were seen as critical components to future opposition plans.
Again, The Times:
The consideration of alternative routes “would be best accomplished through an Environmental Impact Statement with full public input and analysis,” Ms Darcy said in a statement.