Tag Archives: environmental

Bay Area voters approve a whole new kind of climate tax

Bay Area voters approve a whole new kind of climate tax

By on Jun 9, 2016Share

Bay Area voters approved a first-of-its-kind tax to fight the effects of climate change.

Measure AA, which passed with 69 percent of the vote during California’s primary on Tuesday, will impose a new annual property tax of $12 per parcel. The funds raised — an estimated half billion dollars over the next 20 years — will be used to restore tidal marshes around the San Francisco Bay to help mitigate flooding from rising sea levels and climate-related storms. Restoring the wetlands will also provide habitat for migrating birds and other wildlife, as well as help to reduce pollution in the area.

Some opponents said the flat rate was unfair because it taxed everyone at the same level, regardless of income or resources. “Whether it is a struggling farm worker family in a very modest bungalow in Gilroy, or the Apple campus there in Silicon Valley,” the tax is the same, Jon Coupal, president a local taxpayers advocacy group, told NPR in May.

But proponents of the measure argued that a $1-a-month tax was not too onerous, and the benefits to the region would be many. Environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Nature Conservancy endorsed it as a way to protect the Bay Area from climate change.

About 80 percent of the Bay’s marshes have already been lost to development, KQED reports. One study estimates there is $62 billion worth of property at risk from climate change in the Bay Area, including developments like the Facebook and Google campuses and the San Francisco ferry terminal. The passage of this measure could help change that. Here’s hoping.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link:  

Bay Area voters approve a whole new kind of climate tax

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bay Area voters approve a whole new kind of climate tax

Small-Town America Has a Serious Drinking-Water Problem

Mother Jones

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

On a sweltering day last July, a team of scientists stood before a crowded room of people from the tiny town of Sanders, Arizona, and showed them a photo of a dilapidated wooden shack covered by hole-filled tarps. This, the scientists explained, was the town’s water source.

Tonya Baloo, a longtime resident and mother of two, did a double take. “It looked like a Third World country,” she says. “I was like, ‘Is this Africa?'”

The well serving Sanders residents Chris Shuey

The researchers’ next image—a chart with a flat red line cutting through yellow bars—was even more worrisome. Tommy Rock, a Ph.D. candidate studying water contamination at Northern Arizona University, explained that the red line was the Environmental Protection Agency’s threshold for uranium allowed in public water systems: 30 micrograms per liter. The yellow bars represented uranium levels in Sanders’ water supply dating back to 2003. They hovered around 50 micrograms per liter.

For more than a decade, the chart showed, people in Sanders had been drinking contaminated water.

Residents listened, dumbfounded. Sanders sits on the edge of the Navajo Nation; uranium mines, relics of the Cold War, have long dotted tribal lands across the West. Long-term exposure to the heavy metal can cause kidney disease and cancer. But locals had never been notified of the contamination. Nor were they aware of the nearly 200 drinking-water violations that the local utility had amassed over the previous decade, ranging from uranium and bacterial contamination to failure to test the water.

“The initial betrayal,” Baloo says. “It was shocking.”

The meeting happened two months before researchers in Flint, Michigan, revealed that their city’s water was laced with lead. In both cases, curious scientists exposed years of drinking-water violations that affected predominantly poor, minority communities. (Most Sanders residents are Navajo and live on less than $20,000 per year.) But unlike urban Flint, Sanders is home to just 630 people and consists of a cluster of single-family homes, a gas station, a dollar store, two churches, and a trading post—all surrounded by miles of red rock and sage brush.

An aerial view of Sanders, Arizona Doc Searls/Flickr/Wikimedia Commons

The town is one of thousands of rural communities across the country where water quality has quietly evaded federal health standards for years. Many small utilities simply cannot afford advanced water treatment technology, says Jeff Griffiths, the former head of the EPA’s drinking-water division. (An inspection of the Sanders well in 2012, for example, found that “the owner pours an unapproved bleach product down the casing vent daily as the method of disinfection.”) According to EPA data, roughly 6 million Americans use one of 2,300 public water systems that qualify as “serious violators”—defined as having multiple, continuous, or serious health or reporting problems. Ninety-nine percent of those utilities serve fewer than 50,000 people. Together, they serve a population 25 times the size of Flint.

A week after Rock’s presentation, Sanders residents received a notice in the mail from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) informing them of the high uranium levels in the local water supply—a first since the contamination was reported to the state in 2003. Long-term exposure can increase the risk of kidney disease and cancer, it said, but the situation wasn’t an emergency. “You do NOT need to seek an alternate (for example, bottled or hauled) water supply,” it read. “The water remains safe to use until treatment is put into place.”

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2843723-ADEQ-Communication-With-AZ-Windsong-Customers.js”,
width: 630,
height: 500,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2843723-ADEQ-Communication-With-AZ-Windsong-Customers”
);

ADEQ-Communication-With-AZ-Windsong-Customers (PDF)

ADEQ-Communication-With-AZ-Windsong-Customers (Text)

Many residents, wary of the state’s assurances, avoided the water. Baloo brought her kids an hour away to her mom’s house for baths. Genevieve Lee, a 73-year-old retired teacher, resorted to eating canned food and taking sponge baths out of a bucket. She made 40-minute treks to Gallup, New Mexico, for water and often found herself wondering about the uranium’s impact. Did it contribute to her breast cancer in 2008? To her neighbor’s kidney disease?

Lee, Baloo, and others formed a water task force, petitioning for the town to connect to a nearby, well-maintained utility in the Navajo Nation. “All we think about is water,” Baloo told me this spring.

The hubbub led Sanders school system superintendent Dan Hute to test the schools’ water supply, which comes from a private well unaffiliated with Sanders’ water system; the water in Sanders elementary and middle schools was also contaminated. Hute tapped into school budgets to provide bottled water to roughly 500 students and 150 teachers. “I’ve gotten no help from anybody,” Hute told me earlier this spring. According to Rock, no local, state, or federal agency provided the town with bottled water or filters.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, utilities are required to notify their customers if water has contaminant levels above the EPA’s threshold. If they fail to do so, the law calls for the “primacy agency”—in Sanders’ case, the state—to intervene. After 30 days, the EPA steps in.

Though the policy sounds simple enough, the reality is far murkier. Dr. Bruce Macler, an EPA toxicologist who helped decide to tell Sanders residents that their water was safe, explains that when it comes to uranium, the feds have a standard in place. “It’s no joke,” he says. “That’s why we go after them if they exceed it. But it isn’t terribly worrisome if they’re a little over the level.” If the contaminant were an “acute toxicant”—say, giardia—being over the standard wouldn’t be tolerated, he explains. But “when you’re looking at something that takes a lifetime of exposure” to produce health effects and the benchmark is already conservative, Macler says, it doesn’t make sense to tell residents to use other water sources: “The stuff isn’t that risky.”

Many disagree. “It’s unbelievable to me that they would have such a cavalier, unconcerned attitude,” says Chris Shuey, a researcher at the Southwest Research and Information Center who studied Sanders’ water with Rock. “These people have been drinking this for years. It’s not a short-term exposure,” says Doug Brugge, a biologist at Tufts University who studies the impact of uranium. “I’m a little baffled by their lack of concern.” (An EPA spokeswoman says the agency was concerned about the contamination of Sanders’ water and was working on establishing an alternative source.)

State records show that over the past two decades, environmental regulators repeatedly approached the local utility’s owners, an elderly couple named Pat and Lillie Paulsell, about the poor water quality. (Pat maintained the well until his death in 2014, when Lillie took over the utility, Arizona Windsong Water Company. Lillie Paulsell declined to be interviewed for this article.) An inspection in 1995 found that Windsong wasn’t testing for bacterial or lead contamination. By 2002, the utility had risen to the top of the EPA’s “Significant Noncompliance” list due to a host of reporting and health problems. Yet, according to an ADEQ representative’s notes from that year, Pat Paulsell “continued to make no effort to comply other than to send me a package of analytical results, which I have not yet received.” In 2012, a state-commissioned water quality report noted live wiring on the floor of the well. Uranium contamination continued to be a “major problem.” In 2014, the utility paid a $1,000 penalty to the EPA for its violations—but the uranium levels continued to exceed federal standards.

The records also show that the Paulsells were struggling financially and unable to keep up with the growing number of required tests and treatment plans. “I don’t know what you mean by emergency operations plan. Also a microbiological sample plan,” Pat wrote to the ADEQ in 2001. “I have tried very hard to keep all samples done that are supposed to be done.” When an ADEQ representative asked if he had a copy of the rules for water utilities, Pat replied, “You people are always changing them!” In 2002, an inspector found that the couple’s “current health is poor.” Pat, 69, was using a wheelchair. In 2009, he faxed a handwritten letter along with water sample results. “It costs between $35 and $45 each month to send this water sample. The power bills have more than tripled in the last 3 years. I have worn out a ¾ ton new pickup just on the water co…I can’t continue to operate this co with this small income.”

“There are Sanders equivalents all over the country,” says Macler, the EPA toxicologist. “Small little communities that have limited ownership, no money, no resources.” Many, adds Griffiths, the former EPA drinking-water head, are unwilling to cooperate with state and federal regulators, which don’t have the financial capacity to force the matter. “We have a foolish system for how we deal with this stuff,” he says.

In early April, eight months after the state distributed a water advisory and more than a decade after the first reported uranium, Sanders residents got some good news: Arizona and the Navajo Nation agreed to let Sanders switch water sources to the nearby Navajo utility. Within the month, water from a new source was flowing through the old pipes, which will be replaced this summer.

“From my standpoint, this is more of a success than a failure,” Macler says. “Could it have been sooner? Yeah. Are we glad that it’s done? Yeah.”

“It’s a really big sigh of relief,” says Tonya Baloo, who’s now watering the trees in the yard and letting her kids bathe at home every once in a while. Her family still drinks from jugs of water she buys from Walmart. Maybe after the pipes are fixed, she says, they’ll once again start drinking from the taps.

More here: 

Small-Town America Has a Serious Drinking-Water Problem

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Small-Town America Has a Serious Drinking-Water Problem

Biofuel Boosters Rally Support for Higher EPA Blending Levels in 2017

back

Biofuel Boosters Rally Support for Higher EPA Blending Levels in 2017

Posted 3 June 2016 in

National

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 3, 2016
PRESS CONTACT: Zachary Cikanek, 202.677.7043, zcikanek@fp1strategies.com

WASHINGTON, DC – The nation’s leading biofuel advocates are rallying supporters to urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to increase its proposed 2017 targets under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). With the start of the EPA’s public comment period this week and the announcement of a public hearing on June 9, supporters have a limited time to call on the EPA to make more ethanol and other biofuels available to consumers in next year’s fuel mix.

“America can’t achieve its climate, health or economic ambitions without renewable fuels. Among the most powerful tools we’ve got in achieving those ambitions is the Renewable Fuel Standard – as long as it’s allowed to work,” said Adam Monroe, America Regional President, Novozymes North America. “We urge anyone who’s benefitted from the renewable fuel industry to speak out – and urge the Administration to listen to those voices and maximize renewable fuel production.”

“Consumers who care about having affordable options and a choice at the gas pump can get in on the action by contacting the EPA and asking their lawmakers to support a strong RFS,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. “Policymakers need to be reminded that ethanol producers, retailers and the current auto fleet are fully capable of accepting the statutory volumes as called for by Congress, providing consumers with a true choice and savings at the pump. As EPA noted in their own proposed rule, ‘To date we have seen no compelling evidence that the nationwide average ethanol concentration in gasoline cannot exceed 10 percent.’ It’s vital that we fight for the statutory biofuel targets for America’s 2017 fuel mix.”

“The proposed targets fall short of the statutory levels set by Congress,” said Bob Dinneen, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). “Consumers know that having only one choice at the pump – fossil fuels – is a vestige of outdated thinking and poor policy decisions. We must aim higher to protect the economic, environmental and energy security benefits of America’s most successful clean energy program.”

Supporters are urged to testify at the EPA field hearing in Kansas City or submit comments to the EPA by July 11, when regulators start writing a final rule.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
See the original article here:

Biofuel Boosters Rally Support for Higher EPA Blending Levels in 2017

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Biofuel Boosters Rally Support for Higher EPA Blending Levels in 2017

Sanders may not win but he’s about to do something yuge

Yuge!

Sanders may not win but he’s about to do something yuge

By on Jun 1, 2016 2:20 pmShare

Despite the long odds of taking the Democratic nomination this July, Bernie Sanders is fighting on — raising money and giving speeches, even though, barring an astroid, Hillary Clinton will be running against Donald Trump.

And yet, when Sanders sat down with Rolling Stone after a rally in Oregon recently, he acknowledged that his greatest contribution to the race won’t be his victory; it will be pulling the Democratic Party to the left. The candidate told reporter Tim Dickinson that one of his priorities is to see strong language on climate change and a carbon tax in the Democratic platform:

Number one, we want the strongest progressive platform that we can [get]. That would incorporate many of the ideas that we’ve fought for: from Medicare for all; paid family and medical leave; 15-bucks-an-hour minimum wage; very strong language on climate change and a carbon tax; stopping fracking; public colleges and universities tuition-free, et cetera, et cetera.

Now that Sanders has been allotted five out of 15 slots on the Democratic Party’s Platform Drafting Committee, he’s in a better position to make that happen. Sanders announced Monday that his five candidates include academic and political activist Cornel West, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, Arab American Institute head James Zogby, Native American activist Deborah Parker, and climate activist Bill McKibben (a Grist board member). Hillary Clinton has named former Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner as one of her picks.

Sanders may not be able to claim victory in the race, but he’ll be able to claim something momentous all the same: bringing in new and needed voices to the very inner workings of the party he hoped to lead.

Get Grist in your inbox

More – 

Sanders may not win but he’s about to do something yuge

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Paradise, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sanders may not win but he’s about to do something yuge

Love Canal: The toxic suburb that helped launch the modern environmental movement

Love Canal: The toxic suburb that helped launch the modern environmental movement

By on May 30, 2016 7:00 amShare

If you’re traveling through the suburbs around Niagara Falls, you might notice that one of them is missing. There are still roads, and you see empty driveways and old sidewalks hiding in the grass. But no one lives here anymore.

There aren’t any signs saying where you are, so I’ll tell you: It’s Love Canal, an idyllic suburb that caught the country’s attention back in 1978 when its residents realized that they were living on a toxic-waste landfill. Love Canal’s residents organized, protested, and kept their story in the media for a year. Along the way, they helped launch the modern environmental movement.

rik-shaw

A new history of that struggle, Love Canal: A Toxic History from Colonial Times to the Present by the environmental historian Richard S. Newman, reveals details that I’d never heard before. Love Canal’s evocative name? The land used to be owned by William T. Love, a real-estate dreamer of the 1890s who dug the canal in the hopes of creating a model city along its banks. Love imagined his city would be powered by hydroelectric energy poached from Niagara Falls. In contrast to the dirty, coal-powered factory towns then powering the American industrial revolution, Love’s city would boast such luxuries as clean drinking water, lines for telephone, gas, and water, as well as mail delivered by pneumatic tubes.

In 1894, local papers reported that the excavators hired by Love “have already made quite a hole and a big pile of dirt,” but that was as far as the model city ever got. Love lost a ton of money, then quit and moved west. Local kids used the canal as a swimming hole in the summer and an ice pond in the winter, until a local producer of bleaching powder, rubber, and explosives noticed it.

From 1942 through the early 1950s, that company, Hooker Electrochemical, filled in the unfinished canal with 22,000 tons of toxic waste, much of it leftover from Hooker’s work outfitting the military for World War II.

In 1952, the Niagara Falls school board approached Hooker and asked if the company would be willing to part with the land so that it could build a suburb and a new elementary school on it. Several Hooker company officials objected. Maybe the land was safe for a park, they said, but not housing. Still, in April 1953, Hooker sold the former canal to the school board for $1. The deed of sale mentioned that the site was brimming with chemical waste, and that, by signing the deed, Niagara Falls assumed all liability for any problems.

When the school board then sold the land to a housing developer in 1957, Hooker executives warned city officials against putting houses on the site. “There are dangerous chemicals buried there in drums, in loose form, in solids and liquids,” A.W. Chambers, a Hooker representative, told the Niagara Falls Gazette. All they could do was warn, though — Love Canal was no longer Hooker’s property. The developers built hundreds of houses atop the landfill anyway.

To the thousands of people who moved in during the 1960s and 1970s, Love Canal was a nice neighborhood — working-class and friendly. But weird things happened. When the kids threw rocks against the pavement they exploded like firecrackers. Manhole covers launched themselves into the air without warning. Kids playing baseball would get strange, chemical burn-like rashes when they slid across the grass. Dogs went bald.

Neighbors shared stories and slowly realized they had more than their share of miscarriages, birth defects, and cancer. In 1976, New York State health officials started testing the area around Love Canal for dangerous chemicals. The following year, a regional officer for the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency wrote a letter to his bosses in Washington, warning that the area around the canal was so polluted that the state’s only option was to buy up the 40 or 50 homes closest to the canal and tear them down. Local officials panicked, and asked for more tests.

University of Buffalo

More tests just made everything scarier: 82 different chemical compounds were found around Love Canal. They were sitting in puddles, hiding in sump pumps, and seeping through basement walls. Many, like benzene, were known carcinogens. State health officials found that women in the neighborhood miscarried at 1.5 times the level of the general population. Some 13 percent of the babies born in one section of houses near the canal had birth defects. The state health commissioner advised evacuating all pregnant women and children under the age of 2.

After years of rumors and unsettling data, news of the planned evacuation made the people of Love Canal go from afraid to ballistic. They began organizing protest groups, the most visible of which was the Love Canal Homeowners Association (LCHA) led by a local housewife named Lois Gibbs. Another organization, the Concerned Love Canal Renters Association (CLCRA) is less well-remembered. It was run by a community activist named Elene Thornton, and consisted mostly of African American residents from a nearby federal housing project. Television crews and reporters, enchanted with the idea of white housewives turned activists, largely wrote the CLCRA out of their coverage of Love Canal.

What’s also forgotten is just how vicious the situation was. At one point, residents burned effigies of Jimmy, Rosalynn, and Amy Carter (who was 10 years old at the time).

University of Buffalo

But it was Carter’s executive decisions that paid for people to move from Love Canal. In 1978, Carter approved emergency federal aid so that New York State could start buying the homes of the 236 families closest to the canal.

That didn’t appease the other 710 families that still had to live there. In May of 1980, the EPA announced that blood tests of 36 Love Canal residents revealed nearly a third “exhibited chromosome damage of an abnormal nature.” The LCHA responded by holding two EPA representatives hostage. When the police arrived, they found the entrance to the LCHA offices blocked by hundreds of angry suburbanites armed with two-by-fours. Gibbs called the press, and the White House. “We’ll keep them fed, we’ll keep them happy,” she said of her hostages.

The homeowners association released their hostages after five hours. Gibbs later recalled that one of them, Frank Nepal, was kind of into it. “He was telling us how he used to be involved in the Vietnam War protests,” Gibbs said. “So he thought it was kind of cool, being held hostage.”

University of Buffalo

New York and the federal government squabbled over buying out the remaining 710 families. A compromise was finally reached in October of 1980, with the federal government providing $7.5 million in grants and another $7.5 million in loans to the state so that it could begin buying homes immediately. The following spring, Love Canal was a ghost town.

University of Buffalo

The Love Canal experience also led Carter to create the Superfund program in 1980. That way, when another Love Canal happened (and there would be many drums of toxic waste unearthed in the following decades), there would be funds ready to pay for any cleanup and relocation.

Time has edited the story of Love Canal. The EPA rescinded the chromosome study in 1983, saying that it was poorly done. Gibbs’s two children, both sickly as children, grew up to be healthy adults. A long-term study carried out by the New York State Health Department found the health of former residents wasn’t that different from those of others living in Niagara County and throughout the state. Sure, they died more frequently of heart attacks, car crashes, suicide, and bladder and kidney cancer, but overall, their mortality rates fell within the average range for the area.

Former Love Canal residents continue to dispute this research. For one thing, residents who died of cancer before 1972, or moved away before 1978, were not counted in the state’s study. For another, why compare the health of Love Canal residents to another group that lived nearby? Why not make the control group people who lived in a community with no pollution at all?

The toxic waste filling Love Canal proved too big to move, so the canal was covered in clay and entombed instead. Or, as Gibbs said, it lived in “a gated community for chemicals.”

In the 1990s, some 200 homes at the outer edge of the evacuation zone were refurbished and renamed Black Creek Village. A few years later, residents of Black Creek Village began complaining of miscarriages and mysterious rashes. Not possible, replied an EPA spokesperson. The area around Love Canal was surrounded by monitoring wells and “the most sampled piece of property on the planet.” Any leak in the landfill would be detected. Because it’s so closely watched, the story goes, what was once the most dangerous suburb in America is today one of the safest.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here:

Love Canal: The toxic suburb that helped launch the modern environmental movement

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Love Canal: The toxic suburb that helped launch the modern environmental movement

Coal exec admits Donald Trump doesn’t understand the first thing about coal

Coal exec admits Donald Trump doesn’t understand the first thing about coal

By on May 24, 2016Share

The way Donald Trump talks about the coal industry, Appalachian miners will be getting back to work on day one of his administration. “The miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week, Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me,” the presumptive Republican nominee said earlier this month. Everything will be great.

What is unclear is how Trump intends to make coal mining great again, since he doesn’t appear to understand the first thing about the industry he intends to save — neither the broad-brush economics, nor what is within the president’s power to do. Even a coal industry executive, Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy and vocal Obama critic, has to admit Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

In an interview with Taylor Kuykendall, a reporter for the trade publication SNL Energy, Murray revealed just how little Trump really gets about coal.

Trump, for instance, reportedly asked Murray, “What’s LNG?” (it stands for liquified natural gas, which the candidate might want to read up on as the glut of cheap natural gas is a large factor in coal’s demise.)

Murray also told Kuykendall that Trump is over-promising and should stop setting unrealistic expectations for coal’s big comeback:

“I don’t think it will be a thriving industry ever again,” Murray said. “We’ll hold our own. It will be an extremely competitive industry and it will be half size. … The coal mines can not come back to where they were or anywhere near it.”

Implicit in Murray’s comments is the fact that there is a lot outside a president’s control when it comes to coal. These include: sinking prices for natural gas and renewable energy that have made coal far less competitive; other markets’, like China’s, demand for coal; and coal production moving from Appalachia to Wyoming, now the top U.S. coal producer, where it’s cheaper to mine.

In other words, Trump can do his worst — like scrap the Environmental Protection Agency — and it won’t bring about an economic revolution for these states. Murray all but admits that when he says he’s skeptical of Trump’s abilities to reverse all these trends.

Trump’s delusions, however, won’t stop the industry from embracing him. Calling Trump “the horse to ride” in a speech yesterday, Murray was ready to give Trump a pass on the policy. As he told Kuykendall, “he’s just focused on getting elected so he has to kind of gloss over all of the issues.”

Trump will be presumably be enlightening us on his energy policy on Thursday, in a speech in North Dakota, home of the domestic oil and gas boom that has helped kill coal.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

See original article: 

Coal exec admits Donald Trump doesn’t understand the first thing about coal

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, ONA, Sprout, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coal exec admits Donald Trump doesn’t understand the first thing about coal

Duke Energy will have to clean up its filthy coal ash sites … eventually

Duke Energy will have to clean up its filthy coal ash sites … eventually

By on May 19, 2016Share

Duke Energy is finally being ordered to clean up its coal-ash ponds in North Carolina — more than two years after one of them leaked 40,000 tons of toxic muck into the Dan River. But it has eight years to get the job done, and the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hopes to give the company even more flexibility.

Duke, the nation’s largest electric utility, has 33 sites around the state where it dumps toxic ash waste from its coal-fired power plants, and some of the sites are believed to be leaking hazardous chemicals into nearby water supplies. For a year, hundreds of households near coal ash ponds were told not to drink water from their wells, which was found to have high levels on a known carcinogen. This spring, they were told they could resume drinking the water, even though it hadn’t been cleaned up. (We wrote more about this earlier this week.)

In a proposal released on Wednesday, DEQ said Duke should excavate and close eight of the most dangerous coal ash sites by 2019, and the 25 others by 2025. But DEQ is asking the state legislature to be allowed to reconsider the timeline in 18 months. The agency has been accused of being lenient on Duke; last year, DEQ lowered the utility’s fine for the big 2014 spill from $25 million to $7 million.

Duke CEO Lynn Goode said the cost of the cleanup could be as high as $4 billion — and the company would seek to pass that cost on to the state’s residents. “It’s fair to say that if we have to excavate all of our basins, it would be significantly higher costs for our customers,” Goode said during a conference call with reporters.

Environmentalists say the DEQ’s recommendations don’t go far enough. “DEQ just ducked its responsibility and punted it into the future,” said Peter Harrison, attorney for the Waterkeeper Alliance. “As usual, North Carolina’s so-called leadership has shown it lacks the courage to stand up to powerful polluters, even when people’s health is at stake.”

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Read original article:

Duke Energy will have to clean up its filthy coal ash sites … eventually

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Duke Energy will have to clean up its filthy coal ash sites … eventually

BPA’s Lasting Effects on Kids May Start in the Womb

Mother Jones

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

The US childhood obesity rate remains high and is probably still inching upward. A new study points to a possible contributing factor that’s often neglected: prenatal exposure to bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical widely used in plastic water bottles, metal food cans, and receipt paper.

A team of researchers from Columbia University, Johns Hopkins, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked 369 mother-child pairs from the third trimester of pregnancy until the kids turned 7. They measured BPA levels in the moms’ urine during pregnancy, and then checked the kids’ height, weight, waist circumference, and body fat as they aged, also measuring their BPA levels. They adjusted the results for factors that could potentially skew the results, including race and pre-pregnancy obesity among the moms.

They found that 94 percent of the pregnant women in the study had measurable levels of BPA in their bodies. The kicker: The higher the mothers’ BPA exposure was during pregnancy, the more signs of obesity girls showed at age 7, as measured by body fat and waist circumference compared to height. There was no such association for boys; nor was there any relation between BPA levels in the kids’ urine and obesity as they grew.

The fetal period is when we’re most vulnerable to BPA and its ability to alter metabolism and the way our bodies generate fat cells, the results suggest. As for the finding that BPA seems to affect girls differently than boys: That’s not surprising, said the study’s lead author, Lori Hoepner of Columbia University’s Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health. BPA is an endocrine-disrupting chemical, meaning it mimics or blocks hormones produced by the body. Boys and girls produce different hormones, so hormone-disrupting chemicals might be expected to affect them differently.

Hoepner added that other studies have linked prenatal BPA exposure to higher body fat in children up to age 4. The current study is the first one to find an association at age 7. Hoepner and her team plan to follow the same mother-child pairs to see if the effect persists into puberty.

While the current study found evidence for an obesity effect from prenatal exposure, others—like this one—have also found an obesity association in older girls from childhood exposure. Previous studies have also linked to BPA to neuro-developmental disorders and asthma in kids.

A Columbia University press release accompanying the study delivered this advice for avoiding BPA: “To reduce exposure to BPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences recommends avoiding plastic containers numbers 3 and 7, shifting from canned foods to fresh or frozen foods, and, when possible, choosing glass, porcelain, or stainless steel containers, especially for hot food and liquids.”

The US Food and Drug Administration has banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups, but that won’t protect pregnant women from exposing their fetuses to it via, say, eating canned food or handling receipts. For its part, the chemical industry insists BPA is safe. According to the US Department of Agriculture, two companies—Dow and Bayer—”produce the bulk of BPA in the world.”

Credit: 

BPA’s Lasting Effects on Kids May Start in the Womb

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BPA’s Lasting Effects on Kids May Start in the Womb

Massachusetts kids latest to nab win in lawsuit for climate action

Massachusetts kids latest to nab win in lawsuit for climate action

By on May 17, 2016Share

Leaving future generations to fend for themselves in a climate-changed world isn’t the most generous gift a parent can give. So what’s a youth to do? Sue ’em, of course. Sue ’em all.

Four young plaintiffs just won their case filed against the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which climbed all the way to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. Now, the court has ordered the DEP to design new greenhouse gas-cutting regulations.

Overturning the judgment of a lower court, the decision Tuesday found that the DEP falls short of its obligations under the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires the department to put forward regulations for a range of greenhouse gas sources. While the DEP argued Massachusetts’ participation in a regional cap-and-trade initiative, regulations for sulfur hexafluoride, and low-emission vehicle program satisfied the law’s requirements, the court disagreed.

The decision calls for the DEP to “address multiple sources or categories of sources of greenhouse gas emissions” and “set emission limits for each year” to meet the state’s emission-reduction goals for 2020.

The judicial win is the latest in a streak of victories in youth-led cases supported by Oregon nonprofit Our Children’s Trust. Over the past few years, the organization has helped youth plaintiffs file climate cases in all 50 states, in addition to a federal lawsuit that cleared a key hurdle last month. In one case in Washington, a judge recently ruled in favor of eight young Seattle-area petitioners. The Washington Department of Ecology will need to release an emissions rule by the end of 2016.

Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children’s Trust, stressed on Tuesday the need for climate action so “youth are not unfairly consigned to a disproportionately bleak future.”

Here’s to a future that’s only proportionately bleak.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

This article is from: 

Massachusetts kids latest to nab win in lawsuit for climate action

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Massachusetts kids latest to nab win in lawsuit for climate action

Obama Just Cracked Down on Pollution From Fracking

Mother Jones

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

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday released the final version of new federal rules intended to curb emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas. Methane, which is the main component of natural gas, had previously been unregulated. There’s a mounting pile of evidence suggesting that as the United States relies increasingly on gas to produce electricity, methane emissions are much higher than most people expected them to be.

That’s a problem for the fight against climate change. Methane emissions are far lower than carbon dioxide emissions, and methane survives in the atmosphere for a relatively short period of time. But methane is far more effective at trapping heat than CO2 is, which makes it a significant near-term warming threat. As I reported in a deep dive on methane yesterday:

When unburned methane leaks into the atmosphere, it can help cause dramatic warming in a relatively short period of time. Methane emissions have long been a missing piece in the country’s patchwork climate policy…The natural gas system produces methane emissions at nearly every step of the process, from the well itself to the pipe that carries gas into your home. Around two-thirds of those emissions are “intentional,” meaning they occur during normal use of equipment. For example, some pneumatic gauges use the pressure of natural gas to flip on or off and emit tiny puffs of methane when they do so. The other one-third comes from so-called “fugitive” emissions, a.k.a. leaks, that happen when a piece of equipment cracks or otherwise fails.

The lack of regulations on methane was one reason why President Barack Obama’s climate strategy, which hinges on swapping the country’s coal consumption for natural gas, has been frowned upon by some environmentalists. Even today’s regulations are only a partial solution, since they only apply to new and modified natural gas infrastructure, not systems that already exist. And by some analysts’ reckoning, more than 70 percent of gas-sector methane emissions from now until 2025 will come from sources that already exist.

Still, the regulation announced today achieves one of the final remaining big items on Obama’s climate checklist. It aims to reduce gas-sector methane emissions 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 by tightening the allowed emissions from pumps, compressors, wells, and other infrastructure; requiring more frequent surveys for leaks; and implementing a data-gathering survey that will give officials and companies a better understanding of just how much methane leakage there really is. The EPA expects the regulations to cost $530 million by 2025 but to produce $690 million in environmental benefits.

View original:  

Obama Just Cracked Down on Pollution From Fracking

Posted in Anchor, bigo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Just Cracked Down on Pollution From Fracking