Tag Archives: action

At least EPA is doing a little something to help bees

At least EPA is doing a little something to help bees

Shutterstock

The U.S. EPA still won’t follow Europe’s lead and suspend or ban the use of neonicotinoid pesticides believed to be killing honeybees and other pollinators — to the horror of beekeepers and environmentalists, who are suing the federal government over its inaction.

But at least the agency is doing something. On Wednesday, EPA announced it was awarding $460,000 in funding for research into integrated pest management, to help reduce the use of pesticides and lower risks to bees — “all while controlling pests and saving money.”

Louisiana State University, one of the grant recipients, will use its share of the funds to investigate how bees can be protected from pesticides used to control mosquitoes. Penn State University researchers will investigate the benefits of growing crops without treating seeds with neonic pesticides.

Margaret Reeves, a scientist at the Pesticide Action Network, one of the groups suing the EPA over neonics, welcomed the research grants. “EPA’s investment in integrated pest management puts the U.S. on the path of sustainable, cutting-edge farming,” Reeves said in an emailed statement.

But she noted that the EPA needs to do much more to protect pollinators from agricultural poisons. “Environmentalists, beekeepers, and farmers alike eagerly await bolder steps by EPA that will restrict the use of bee-harming pesticides,” she said. “Without better protections, and fast, bee declines will continue at an unprecedented rate.”

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Food

Link – 

At least EPA is doing a little something to help bees

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on At least EPA is doing a little something to help bees

Congress Reaches a Budget Deal and Conservatives Already Hate It

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have spent the past several weeks huddled with their staffs in budget negotiations, and Tuesday evening they emerged with the impossible: a deal to keep the government open and avoid another shutdown when current funding expires next month. Their proposal will replace part of sequestration—the automatic cuts to domestic and military spending in the Budget Control Act that averted the 2011 debt-ceiling standoff—for the next two years. Domestic and military spending will be set at $1.012 trillion for fiscal year 2014, higher than the $967 billion called for by sequestration but far less than the $1.058 trillion Murray’s original budget called for. That amounts to $63 billion in reductions to sequestration’s cuts over the next two years, split between defense and other domestic government programs. It’s a positive, but small step, replacing about 33 percent of sequestration for the next two years and allowing agencies to reallocate the across-the-board cuts.

The proposal covers the rise in spending by increasing a few fees—TSA surcharges for example—and cuts in pensions for federal employees and military veterans, among other small changes.* The deal creates a little more than $20 billion in net deficit reduction, though those extra cuts won’t come until 2022 and 2023. The agreement doesn’t close any tax loopholes, as Democrats originally sought, nor does it extend long-term unemployment insurance. It’s no grand bargain, just a puny accord meant to avoid the turmoil of October’s shutdown.

Despite the limited aims of the deal, conservatives—both Tea Party members of the House and outside groups—began complaining before negotiators released the proposal. FreedomWorks denounced the concept behind such a deal on Tuesday. Heritage Action, the outreach arm of the conservative think tank, lambasted the early reports of a deal. The Wall Street Journal op-ed page hammered the “defense hawks and appropriators who want to break the annual spending caps in current law.” A cohort of 18 of House Republicans wrote a letter calling on House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to ignore the potential deal and vote on a “clean” budget resolution.

Why were conservatives so preemptively outraged? All of the sequester offsets will come in 2014 and 2015, but the new revenues are spread out over a ten-year window. So, for example, the $6 billion in savings from federal pensions will be distributed over the next decade, averaging out to $600 million per year. Basically, the proposed deal front loads spending that ameliorates the draconian sequester while pushing much of the deficit reduction off until later. Think of it as a minor jolt of stimulus compared to current law. That’s exactly what liberal economists have called for since the start of the recession: the government should pump more money into the economy while it is still in the doldrums and save deficit reductions for the future when the country will, presumably, be on more stable footing.

Leaders from the two parties should be able to wrangle enough votes for the budget negotiation thanks to the stamp of approval from conservative idol Paul Ryan. “I think we will pass it through the House,” Ryan said at the Tuesday press conference announcing the deal. “I have every reason to expect great support from our caucus.” But there could still be a battle on the right. For most hardcore rightwingers, any effort to change the sequester cuts will be sacrosanct. “Sequester is the big win,” Grover Norquist, the taskmaster of Republicans’ tax agenda, said earlier this year. “It defines the decade.” Any deal that sidelines some of those cuts while shunting deficit reduction off to a later date should count as a win for progressives—and a cause for more conservative-on-Republican sniping.

Update: Here’s a wonky, four-page breakdown of what exactly is included in the budget proposal.

Correction: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the nature of the pension cuts.

Continued:

Congress Reaches a Budget Deal and Conservatives Already Hate It

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congress Reaches a Budget Deal and Conservatives Already Hate It

US Ranks 43rd on Climate Policy (and Canada is Even Worse)

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Recently, there’s been some good news when it comes to US greenhouse gas emissions: They’re actually going down. The bad news, though, is that despite this progress, we still only rank 43rd in the world for the overall effectiveness of our climate policies.

That’s the upshot of a new report by the Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch, a public policy think tank with offices in Bonn and Berlin. The two groups release an annual Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) to assess how much individual countries are contributing to the global carbon problem, and how much they’re trying to do about it. The rankings include the globe’s 58 leading countries for greenhouse gas emissions—countries that, together, account for 90 percent of the globe’s carbon emissions from fossil energy use. Each country is assessed based its emissions trends, its energy efficiency, its progress on renewable energy, and its overall climate policies.

The US ranked 43rd last year and ranks 43rd this year as well, right between New Zealand and Croatia. We get particularly good marks for our 8-percent decrease in carbon emissions from energy sources in the last half decade, but we still fall well short of a stance that could be considered truly progressive or proactive on climate and energy. Still, if we want to gloat then it’s easy to compare ourselves to our northern neighbor, Canada, which was “the worst performer of all industrialised countries” and only fared better than Iran, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia. (For more on Canada’s recent dismal climate performance see here.)

Here are the Climate Change Performance Index rankings for the top ten biggest emitters (most of which have declined in rank since last year):

CCPI ranking and data for the ten largest greenhouse gas emitting countries. CAN Europe/Germanwatch

Based on the new report, here are some other surprising and intriguing facts about the nations of the world and how they’re performing in the uphill battle to save the globe from humans and their energy habits:

* Europe is one of the best performing regions overall, but there’s wide variability, especially among countries hit hard by the Eurozone debt crisis. On the one hand, bailed-out Portugal ranks sixth in the world on the CCPI index, suggesting economic hardship does not necessarily entail regression on climate policy. But on the other hand, bailed-out Greece ranks 47th, having “almost totally abandoned all climate policies” in the wake of its economic crisis.

* Morocco is a surprising success story, ranking 15th overall thanks to its “national solar plan” as well as a “national action plan against global warming.”

* Industrialized countries in the Pacific region have a lot to answer for. Japan slipped to 50th overall from 44th last year. Korea dropped to 53rd from 50th. And Australia plummeted to 57th thanks to its recent change in government.

* Large developing nations (the BRICs) are also lagging. India declined to 30th and Brazil slipped to 36th. Perhaps most important for the planet, China climbed to 46th in the rankings, a turnaround due to the fact that its dramatic rate of emissions growth is slowing somewhat, even as renewable energy investment continues apace. The Russian Federation is the worst of the BRICs, coming in at 56th.

Overall, there isn’t a ton of good news around the world this year when it comes to climate policy. No wonder, then, that the CCPI doesn’t put any country in positions 1, 2, or 3 of its rankings, noting that “no country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change.”

Taken from: 

US Ranks 43rd on Climate Policy (and Canada is Even Worse)

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on US Ranks 43rd on Climate Policy (and Canada is Even Worse)

House Dems Can Block GOP Food Stamp Cuts—by Killing the Farm Bill

Mother Jones

The food stamps program—which helps feed 1 in 7 Americans—is in peril. Republicans in the House have proposed a farm bill—the five-year bill that funds agriculture and nutrition programs—that would slash food stamps by $40 billion. But by taking advantage of House Republicans’ desire to cut food stamps as much as possible, Democrats might be able to prevent cuts from happening at all.

To pull it off, Democrats would have to derail the farm bill entirely, which would maintain food stamp funding at current levels. Here’s how it would work, according to House Democrats who’ve considered the idea.

It’s an idea rooted in the last food stamp fight: In June, the House failed to pass a farm bill that cut $20 billion from the food stamp program. The bill went down because 62 GOP conservatives thought the $20 billion in cuts weren’t deep enough, while 172 Democrats thought they were too drastic. After the bill failed, House conservatives passed a much more draconian food stamps bill with $40 billion in cuts. But that bill was dead-on-arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

CHARTS: The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has vowed to pass a farm bill. To win agreement from the Senate and President Barack Obama, he’s going to have to bring forward a bill with much shallower food stamp cuts. But introducing a farm bill with less than the full $40 billion in food stamp cuts will cost Boehner a lot of Republican votes—especially because conservative groups, including Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity, have been urging House Republicans to vote no.

That means Boehner is going to need some Democratic votes. His problem is the same as it was in June: math. He needs 216 votes to pass a bill. In June, 62 Republicans voted against a bill with $20 billion in cuts. If Boehner loses the same 62 Republicans this time around, he’ll need at least 47 Democrats to vote yes. But just 24 Democrats voted for the June bill. So Boehner will likely have to introduce a bill with lower cuts—costing him more Republican votes. The more Republicans Boehner loses, the more Democrats he’ll need.

And as Boehner saw in June, winning House Democrats’ votes for a bill that slashes food stamps by billions of dollars is a heavy lift—after all, if no farm bill passes, food stamps spending would remain at current levels. Why compromise when you can win by doing nothing at all? “It would make sense,” emails a House Democratic aide, “for progressives to vote against the farm bill. Makes me think of this”:

Some House Democrats are already publicly skittish about voting for any level of food stamp cuts. “Many progressive members of Congress, especially those of us who represent areas with high levels of unemployment and food insecurity, may have a hard time voting for additional cuts to federal nutrition programs,” Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the powerful judiciary committee, explained in an email. A staffer for Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who is part of the farm bill negotiating committee, says the congressman is “willing to compromise,” but “will not vote for a bill that makes hunger worse in America.” A staffer for Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) says that the lawmaker doesn’t want to get into “hypotheticals,” but that DeLauro does not support any further cuts to the food stamp program.

All this leaves Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Democratic minority leader, in the driver’s seat. If she wants to deliver 75 or 80 Democratic votes for a farm bill that cuts food stamps, she probably could. But so far, she hasn’t committed to asking her caucus to vote for a farm bill—even one with lower cuts. And she’s already demonstrated that she can unify her caucus against a farm bill with cuts she thinks are too deep. Without Pelosi pushing for a yes vote, a compromise farm bill could go down again.

Stopping the farm bill could backfire on Dems. If the bill passes, the funding levels it sets for food stamps would be locked in for the next five years. But if the bill doesn’t pass, Republicans on the appropriations committee would have to approve continued funding for food stamps. Usually, appropriators from both parties simply continue funding programs at previously authorized levels unless or until the law changes. However, they do technically have the power to refuse to approve new funding. That scenario “is pretty much unthinkable,” though, argues another Democratic aide.

New legislation could also end up shrinking the food stamp program—without a five-year bill locking in current funding, a future budget deal could more easily include food stamp cuts.

If Dems succeed in piggybacking on Republican opposition, and kill the farm bill, other important programs and key agriculture reforms will be neglected. Funding for conservation programs and for organic and small farms would dry up, for example. Wasteful subsidies to Big Ag would continue. But these things “are not life or death” like food stamps are, argues the second Dem staffer.

Conyers feels the same way. “As much as I support some of the needed reforms to wasteful direct payment programs and subsidized crop insurance,” he says, “I’m not willing to balance our budget by taking food out of the mouths of children.”

Read original article: 

House Dems Can Block GOP Food Stamp Cuts—by Killing the Farm Bill

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on House Dems Can Block GOP Food Stamp Cuts—by Killing the Farm Bill

Here’s the anti-Keystone ad one NBC station doesn’t want you to see

Here’s the anti-Keystone ad one NBC station doesn’t want you to see

NextGen Climate Action, the group founded by billionaire climate-action booster Tom Steyer, had submitted the ad to run on D.C.-area NBC affiliate WRC-TV during Obama’s Tuesday appearance on The Tonight Show, with the aim of reaching the influential inside-the-Beltway crowd. But at the last minute Tuesday evening, the station informed NextGen that the ad wouldn’t run after all, because it violated guidelines as “an attack of a personal nature.”

The ad does feature an actor playing TransCanada CEO Russ Girling as a disingenuous, over-the-top oil baron at his, well, oiliest. But rather than defaming him as a serial sexter or making another such “personal” attack, it skewers farfetched claims Girling and his company have put forward about the Keystone XL pipeline’s economic benefits.

The Hill published a story about the ad Tuesday afternoon, before it was scrapped, that included criticism from Oil Sands Fact Check, a group that supports the pipeline. Now, according to Politico’s Morning Energy , NextGen wants NBC to sign an affidavit swearing it didn’t drop the ad as a result of industry pressure.

This doesn’t mean NBC is staying out of the pipeline fight altogether. The network ran a pro-Keystone ad this past Sunday during Meet the Press. And it’s not like TransCanada’s voice is being drowned out by anti-pipeline advertising; the company launched a multi-platform ad campaign in the capital and around the country a couple weeks ago, and is even sponsoring Politico Playbook this week. And don’t forget that the Canadian government itself is shelling out millions for its own pro-pipeline campaign aimed at the D.C. bubble.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit site:  

Here’s the anti-Keystone ad one NBC station doesn’t want you to see

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the anti-Keystone ad one NBC station doesn’t want you to see

Former Republican EPA chiefs back Obama on climate change

Former Republican EPA chiefs back Obama on climate change

Shutterstock

What do Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush have in common?

Yes, OK, obviously they were all Republican presidents. But now there’s something else that ties them all together.

EPA administrators who worked for all of those presidents have come out in support of stronger actions on climate change, co-signing a powerful op-ed in The New York Times supporting Barack Obama’s climate plan and arguing that “the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change.”

Here are some highlights from the op-ed, which was written by William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman:

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate. …

Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally. …

We can have both a strong economy and a livable climate. All parties know that we need both. The rest of the discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.

Mr. Obama’s plan is just a start. More will be required. But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.

The op-ed also states that there “is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts” of global warming. But, then, nobody should need a bunch of former EPA chiefs to tell them that.

Source

A Republican Case for Climate Action, The New York Times

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

From: 

Former Republican EPA chiefs back Obama on climate change

Posted in alo, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Former Republican EPA chiefs back Obama on climate change

Read our response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee

Read our response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee | Fuels America
Close
About Us
Media
rss twitter facebook youtube
The Issue
Why Renewable Fuel Matters
Standing up to the Oil Industry

The Facts
Take Action
Blog

back

Read our response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee

Posted 27 July 2013 in

National

Fuels America News & Stories

Home
The Issue
The Facts
Take Action
Blog
About Us
Media
rss twitter facebook youtube
© 2013 Fuels America
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use

Fuels
View original – 

Read our response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Read our response to the House Energy & Commerce Committee

Palm oil: Bad for workers as well as orangutans

Palm oil: Bad for workers as well as orangutans

Palm oil has stirred concern among treehuggers and animal lovers for years now. Following its explosion in popularity as a trans-fat-free alternative, we started finding out about the dark side of its production — namely, the destruction of Southeast Asian rainforest, habitat to lovable orangutans. Ecological outrage conflicted with our fondness for favorite snack foods, like Girl Scout cookies, challenging our morals as conscious consumers.

David Gilbert/Rainforest Action Network

Open burning in newly cleared rainforest at Duta Palma’s PT Ledo Lestari palm oil plantation.

But while the environmental sins of the palm oil industry have been well documented, its human-rights abuses have been overlooked — until now. Bloomberg Businessweek reports on the findings of a nine-month investigation:

Among the estimated 3.7 million workers in the industry are thousands of child laborers and workers who face dangerous and abusive conditions. Debt bondage is common, and traffickers who prey on victims face few, if any, sanctions from business or government officials.

Bloomberg relates the story of one 19-year-old Indonesian called “Adam” (a pseudonym) and his cousin, who left their rural island home with the foreman of a palm oil plantation who promised to pay them $6 a day (approximately the minimum wage in Borneo, where they were headed) to drive trucks. Along the way, he coerced them into signing a contract that obliged them to do any kind of work their boss asked for only $5 a day — but only after two years’ unpaid work, during which they were “loaned” $16 a month for basic necessities. Workers at the plantation, owned by major palm oil supplier Kuala Lumpur Kepong, told of not being allowed to leave without permission, and of a policy that no “reason/excuse whatsoever” would be accepted for a worker to go home during the first two years. They had essentially become slaves, trapped in miserable conditions 2,000 miles from home:

At PT 198, a plantation near Berau owned by top KLK shareholder Batu Kawan, workers entered a system of tightly controlled forced labor, according to Adam and other alleged victims. At least 95 workers were held at the plantation for up to two years. At night they were locked in stifling, windowless barracks. An environmental NGO, Menapak, later reported that they were fed small portions of salted fish and rice, which several said were often weevil-infested. A truck with fresh water came once a month, but that supply would last no more than a week; workers pulled most water for cooking, cleaning, and drinking from a stagnant ditch that ran alongside the barracks. Adam says [their boss] confiscated their national identity cards and school certificates, along with a deed to a home, which his village collectively owned.

Instead of working as drivers or low-level administrators, the workers were ordered to prepare the newly planted palm groves. Some had to spread at least 20 50-kilogram sacks of fertilizer each day. If they fell short, they had to make it up the next day or see their already deferred pay cut. They say they were required to spray with the herbicide Paraquat, a substance that’s been linked to kidney and liver damage and is banned in at least 32 countries. (China, which announced in April it would phase out the herbicide, would be the 33rd.) Because they weren’t given protective gear, some claim to have suffered respiratory damage. An alleged victim, “Jacob,” who was held with his wife for two years at PT 198, reported nightly bloody coughing fits but says [the foreman] denied him adequate medical care.

Adam and his cousin eventually escaped (with the help of a coal-company truck, incidentally). A supervisor at the plantation later alerted authorities to the conditions there, and a few months later, after intervention from NGO Menapak, a palm-oil watchdog group, and a national labor union, followed by reporting by Rainforest Action Network, KLK officials apologized to workers and promised to pay for their passages home and return their stolen pay. Adam says he received neither, and it appears that the officials responsible for abuses at PT 198 may still be working for KLK.

KLK palm oil and its derivatives have been sold, through Cargill, to Nestle, General Mills, Kraft, and Kellogg. Derivatives of KLK palm oil also appear in Procter & Gamble’s Crest toothpaste, Gillette shaving cream, and Olay skin-care products. KLK is a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which claims a commitment to bettering the industry. But critics question the depth of RSPO’s investment in sustainability. Only 35 percent of member growers have been certified as sustainable — a process involving third-party evaluation — and no member has ever been penalized for labor violations, despite the fact that, according to Tomasz Johnson of London’s Environmental Investigation Agency, “Every time an NGO shines a light into the activities of an RSPO producer, it finds dirt.”

According to Bloomberg, when told about these alleged human rights violations, Kellogg, Kraft, General Mills, and Procter & Gamble all simply referred to their supplier codes of conduct, which supposedly forbid such abuses. Nestle promised to investigate further. Cargill, the largest privately held company in the U.S., brushed off the allegations, saying it had concluded that KLK was in the clear.

Though the U.S. and some European countries have started to exert pressure on the industry, their impact is outweighed by consumers in China and India, which import more than a third of the world’s palm oil. As long as these countries’ middle classes, with their appetite for cooking oil, keep growing, palm oil will have a booming market, and the industry may see little reason to change its practices: A 2009 Ruder Finn Asia study found that only 5 percent of Chinese consumers consider labor conditions when they make purchases. That study also reported, however, that 44 percent of Chinese would pay more for more environmentally friendly products (compared to less than 40 percent of Brits and Americans).

Does orangutan well-being present a more powerful impetus for change than human rights? Perhaps combined consumer outrage at both, plus a helping of corporate guilt, will finally be enough to get the industry to clean up its act.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue at source:

Palm oil: Bad for workers as well as orangutans

Posted in alo, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Palm oil: Bad for workers as well as orangutans

Explosion at West Virginia fracking site seriously injures four

Explosion at West Virginia fracking site seriously injures four

Federal investigators are trying to figure out what caused an explosion at a West Virginia fracking site over the weekend. The blast injured at least seven people, including four workers who were sent to a hospital with life-threatening burns.

Residents and activists have long complained about safety practices by frackers operating in the state, where they draw natural gas from the Marcellus shale formation. Traffic accidents involving trucks traveling to and from frack sites in the state are common, and explosions can be deadly.

Hydraulic fracturing was not underway at the time of Sunday’s blast in Doddridge County. The explosion occurred 50 yards away from the work crew and it did not involve the drilling rig. From Reuters:

Two storage tanks containing brine and fracking fluid from the well exploded at 4 a.m. EDT on Sunday Antero spokesman Alvyn Schopp said. Five workers were taken to hospital with burns, he said.

“We do not know the ignition source, but we suspect it was a methane explosion,” said Schopp, vice president at Antero, an oil and natural gas company controlled by Warburg Pincus LLC.

The cause of the explosion remains a mystery, but it could not have come as a huge surprise to fed-up residents of the state.

In April, two workers were killed and two others were injured by an explosion at a frack site in Tyler County, W.Va., though the story was quickly buried amid news of the Boston marathon bombings.

Also in April, AlterNet published a feature article that catalogued frackers’ shoddy safety records in West Virginia, and described the pollution that they cause. The piece includes a series of photographs of accidents, including this photo below, of a fire that burned for more than a week at a well site in September 2010:

Wetzel County Action GroupFire at a West Virginia frack site in 2010.

“It burned for something like nine days,” Ed Wade, the resident who shot the photograph, told AlterNet. “But the [West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection] said there were no cases of air pollution. You believe that?”

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link:  

Explosion at West Virginia fracking site seriously injures four

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Explosion at West Virginia fracking site seriously injures four

Hawaiians fight back against GMO experiments

Hawaiians fight back against GMO experiments

The state of Hawaii has become a lot like the island of Dr. Moreau. Except that instead of Dr. Moreau — the mad scientist in H.G. Wells’s 1896 novel who vivisected animals into beast-people — Hawaii is ruled by the GMO industry.

Shutterstock

The Island of Dr. Monsanto.

Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, DuPont Pioneer, and BASF use the Pacific archipelago as open-air testing grounds for their experimental genetically modified crops, and they spray those crops with herbicides and other chemicals to test how they respond.

But now many residents, including lawmakers, are saying they have had enough of this science-fictionesque madness.

From a February article by Al Jazeera:

These transnational corporations prefer Hawaii for growing and testing GE crops because of its abundant sunshine, rainfall and year-round growing climate. GMO opponents say the companies also enjoy Hawaii’s isolation, largely removed from the public eye.

Yet these companies, which have been in Hawaii for decades, are now facing increasing opposition from residents concerned about GMOs, the health and environmental impacts of pesticides and what they see as a lack of oversight and transparency.

A flurry of bills have been introduced in the state legislature and by local lawmakers aiming to better regulate, limit, or prohibit GMOs. A bill to require labels on GMO foods appears to have died in the state legislature this spring, but at least two local GMO bills are very much alive.

One bill that’s moving forward, Hawaii County Bill 79, would “prohibit the propagation, cultivation, raising, growing, sale and distribution of transgenic organisms” on the island of Hawaii, aka the Big Island. The bill will be debated at a hearing today of the county council’s public safety committee.

And Kauai County Council Bill 2491, introduced last week, would impose a moratorium on the experimental use and commercial production of GMOs until an environmental impact study is completed. The legislation would also create new permitting requirements and procedures for growing such crops after the study is complete, including rules on the use of chemicals.

More than 1,000 people attended the first hearing on the Kauai legislation, with attendees speaking in support of and opposition to the bill. Paul Towers of the Pesticide Action Network wrote in a blog post that “pesticide and genetically engineered seed corporations bused in dozens of employees to attend the hearing.”

The Garden Island has more on the bill:

In addition to establishing a 500-foot pesticide-free buffer zone around public areas and waterways, the bill would make it mandatory for large agricultural operations to make records of pesticide use available, ban open-air testing of experimental pesticides and crops, and place a moratorium on the commercial production of GMOs.

“We all like to believe the EPA protects us from pesticide harm, but sadly that is not always the case,” said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety.

Earlier this year, Indian environmental activist Vandana Shiva came to Hawaii to support anti-GMO activists: “I think your island is truth-speaking to the world that GMOs are an extension of pesticides, not a substitute or alternative to it,” she said.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link:  

Hawaiians fight back against GMO experiments

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hawaiians fight back against GMO experiments