Tag Archives: epa

Wait, why are we dunking so many of our seeds in neonic poison?

Wait, why are we dunking so many of our seeds in neonic poison?

Shutterstock

In the same way that America’s fast-food industry fooled us into accepting that a burger must come with a pile of fries and a colossal Coke, the agricultural industry has convinced farmers that seeds must come coated with a side of pesticides.

And research suggests that, just like supersized meals, neonicotinoid seed treatments are a form of dangerous overkill – harming bees and other wildlife but providing limited agricultural benefits. The routine use of seed treatments is especially useless in fields where pest numbers are low, or where insects, such as soybean aphids, chomp down on the crops after the plant has grown and lost much of its insecticidal potency.

“The environmental and economic costs of pesticide seed treatments are well-known,” said Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of a new report that summarizes the findings of 19 peer-reviewed studies dealing with neonic treatments and major crop yields. “What we learned in our thorough analysis of the peer-reviewed science is that their claimed crop yield benefit is largely illusory, making their costs all the more tragic.”

The report was published by the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, where Jenkins is a consulting attorney. It concludes that the frequent use of seed-coated neonics “does not provide an economic benefit to farmers compared to alternative control methods or not treating fields when pest pressure is minimal.” In eight of the studies reviewed, neonics provided no yield benefits. In 11 of the studies, yield benefits were inconsistent. Here are some highlights from the 19-page report:

Almost all of the corn seed and approximately half of the soybeans in the US are treated with neonicotinoids. More than 90% of the canola seeded in North America is treated. This prophylactic pre-planting application occurs regardless of the pest pressure expected in the field, as typically there is no monitoring or sampling of crop fields for pest presence prior to application. Neonicotinoid treated seeds are commonly the only option for farmers purchasing seed. …

The studies reviewed in this report suggest that farmers are frequently investing in crop protection that is not providing them with benefits. In addition to the short-term economic costs, this presents long-term risks to sustainability for American farmers and the rural environment.

Digging up these 19 scientific studies wasn’t easy — nor is it easy to stomach the fact that there were so few studies available to review.

The lack of solid science on the actual benefits of neonic-coated seeds is a major problem. Cornell University scientists noted in a 2011 paper published in the Agronomy Journal that “there have been few peer-reviewed studies on seed-applied insecticide/fungicides” — something the scientists speculated was “because of the recent commercialization of these products.” Three years later, we still don’t know much about seed-coating benefits.

And what ever happened to the precautionary principle? The EPA has the power to regulate these poisons under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Yet, the report notes, “Although not all records are public, to date, no indication exists that EPA has ever formally denied a full registration for any proposed neonicotinoid product because its foreseeable costs exceeded its benefits.”


Source
Heavy costs: Weighing the value of neonicotinoid insecticides in agriculture, Center for Food Safety

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

Original link:  

Wait, why are we dunking so many of our seeds in neonic poison?

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wait, why are we dunking so many of our seeds in neonic poison?

Pipeline bursts, makes a big mess in Ohio nature preserve

Pipeline bursts, makes a big mess in Ohio nature preserve

Shutterstock

A ruptured oil pipeline has dumped more than 10,000 gallons of crude into a wetland area and nature preserve in southwestern Ohio. How’s that for a reminder that pipelines aren’t necessarily cleaner than oil trains?

The 1950s-era pipeline, owned by Sunoco Logistics, was sending oil from Texas up to refineries in Michigan. The spill was discovered Monday, but some neighbors reported smelling oil since late February.

Ohio officials are now testing air quality and drinking water, and cleanup workers are using heavy equipment to try to mop up the mess. The oil has pooled in a marsh not far from the Great Miami River. The Oak Glen Nature Preserve – home to deer, birds, woods, and wildflowers – has been temporarily closed.

EPA via WLWT

Oil spill in Oak Glen Nature Preserve, Ohio.

“We do have a large area impacted. The good news is it’s contained. The bad news it’s a mile of creek impacted. It is going to be a big cleanup,” U.S. EPA official Steve Renninger told WKRC Cincinnati.

EPA via WLWT

And another view of the oily mess.


Source
Oil spill damages nature reserve, WKRC Cincinatti

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

View original post here: 

Pipeline bursts, makes a big mess in Ohio nature preserve

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, Mop, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pipeline bursts, makes a big mess in Ohio nature preserve

Are Ford Hybrids A Reliable Choice Up In Cold Northern Manitoba Canada Or Minnesota ?

We often hear one common quote “The constant thing in this world is change” not only from our elders, but also from marketers who want to sell an enhanced product. This saying is absolutely true and applicable when it comes to gadgets and automobiles in our market today. Who should use cellphones with antennas in our present time? Who is willing to ride in an old type of car without any windshield or side mirrors? Who is not in favor with innovations that benefit each consumer? Of course, everybody will agree about vehicle improvements like the proposed plan of the Ford Company.

Reading authoritative auto trade journals , such as Edmunds or Consumer Reports and in addition online auto industry related websites you will note that the Ford Company has experienced success in sales as a major global player. In the past this was not the case when decades back Ford was essentially and primarily a domestic American auto maker with its local North American marketplace to serve . According to sale and statistic records, nearly 64 percent of the C-MAX buyers came from non-Ford brands in June, whereas demands of clients were mostly on savings and improve on-road fuel economy that somehow Ford cannot give at this time. Yet, Raj Nair, the vice-president of global product enhancement told the press about the upcoming innovations of Ford Hybrids as well as the key to make it into success- the strong acceptance of the consumers.

The above disadvantages are the main reasons why Ford Hybrids, including the 2013 models of Ford are soon to launch with an enhanced features and systems. According to Raj Nair, the vice president of the international product development, client’s attention and strong acceptance with the innovations were the keys to achieve higher Ford vehicle sales. Their plan was based from the recent statistics and sale records of C-MAX buyers and results showed that almost 64 percent of the consumers were non-Ford brands in June while the remaining percentage might under non-vehicle clients.

Innovations and calibration updates have been started since August in the United States and Canada. Models such as the 2013 Ford C-MAX, 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid and 2013 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid received an enhanced inside and outside vehicle improvements made possible by the Ford automakers and owners. To make it into success, electric car engineering team by nearly 50 percent increase and $50 million dollar investments in high-class facilities for the expansions have been proposed.

To provide a clearer copy and understanding of these features, Raj gave the following detailed information: increased maximum pure electric speed to 85 mph from 62 mph, improved climate control system to minimize the use of the air-conditioning compressor and reduce the energy consumption, shortened engine warm-up time by 50 percent to enable electric-only driving and engine shutdown, lessened electric fans speed function of coolant temperature to decrease the fan’s consumption of energy and optimized Active Grille consumption to reduce the aerodynamic drag under more driving and temperature conditions.

Data is based on the range of new automotive features/technologies introduced in the U.S. over the past fifty years. These analogs collectively suggest it would take at least 30 years for this modality of propulsionto capture 80% of the U.S. passenger vehicle stock.. Free reprint available from: Are Ford Hybrids A Reliable Choice Up In Cold Northern Manitoba Canada Or Minnesota ?.

Posted in solar power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Ford Hybrids A Reliable Choice Up In Cold Northern Manitoba Canada Or Minnesota ?

A New Study Shows Real Costs of Toxins

Originally posted here:

A New Study Shows Real Costs of Toxins

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A New Study Shows Real Costs of Toxins

Natural Gas Is Dirtier Than We Thought—But It’s Still Better Than Coal

Mother Jones

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

For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency has underestimated US emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. That’s the argument of a new analysis appearing in the Feb. 14 issue of Science, which also finds that a big factor behind the lowball estimates is the EPA’s poor grasp of methane leaks from the natural gas industry.

The analysis, which examines more than 200 existing studies, is the first to take a broad view of scientific knowledge of methane emissions, and it has critical implications for the use of natural gas. Gas has been touted by its proponents as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels such as coal—President Obama hails it as a “bridge fuel” that will allow the country to transition to cleaner energy sources—since burning natural gas for energy emits far less carbon dioxide. But because methane, a main component of natural gas, is such a powerful greenhouse gas, the new evidence of narrows the gap between the climate change contributions of gas and coal.

“Our best guess is that methane emissions in this country are about 50 percent more than the EPA estimates,” says Adam Brandt, an assistant professor of energy resources engineering at Stanford University and the lead author of the analysis. Methane emissions could plausibly be anywhere between 25 to 75 percent more than what EPA measures have shown, Brandt adds. “That amounts to something like 7 to 21 million excess tons of methane every year.” Brandt and his co-authors, he says, did not have enough evidence to determine what proportion of total excess methane is released by the natural gas industry, as opposed to by other energy sectors, agriculture, or landfills.

But the study concludes that natural gas as a fuel source still contributes less to climate change than coal. “We don’t believe that the evidence suggests that burning coal is better,” Brandt says. “There’s just not support for that.” The reason is that while methane is the more damaging greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, which coal emits in huge quantities when burned, stays in the atmosphere for a much longer period of time. Coal is a “cleaner” fuel only in the near-term—a period of 20 years or so. Brandt says that over a period of 100 years, natural gas—leaks and all—would still be a less greenhouse gas-intensive source of energy than coal.

Still, Brandt cautions, natural gas is not a long-term energy solution for keeping climate change in check. “Uncontrolled use of gas over a century or more isn’t a good thing, from a climate change perspective,” Brandt says. “Most climate change scenarios suggest that this can’t be a solution for 100 years.”

The analysis also concludes that even under the most conservative estimates of methane leaks from the gas sector, keeping diesel-powered powered vehicles, such as buses, on the road contributes smaller amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than switching to gas-powered buses.

The researchers believe that only a small percentage of methane leaked by the gas sector is coming from the controversial hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—process itself. Rather, accidental leaks that occur as the industry moves and processes natural gas likely account for the biggest proportion of these emissions. One study cited by the analysis found that less than 1 percent of individual pieces of equipment at a single natural gas plant were responsible for nearly 60 percent of its leakage. Brandt says new technology that quickly identifies these “superemitters” is the best hope for reigning in the industry’s emissions.

As for why the EPA underestimates methane leaks in the gas industry, the analysis notes that the agency can only measure emission rates at wells and plants where the operators volunteered to allow the EPA on site. In one instance, the EPA asked 30 natural gas companies to allow them on site, but only six cooperated.

Visit source – 

Natural Gas Is Dirtier Than We Thought—But It’s Still Better Than Coal

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Natural Gas Is Dirtier Than We Thought—But It’s Still Better Than Coal

BP found another shady way to cheat public, get richer

BP found another shady way to cheat public, get richer

Shutterstock

It’s hard to imagine a company as filthy rich as BP running a scam that would cheat a state out of tens of millions of dollars. Wait, no it’s not.

Minnesota is claiming in a lawsuit that BP did exactly that.

The alleged scam took advantage the nationwide problem of old, leaky underground storage tanks (the EPA calls them LUSTs, because occasionally the EPA is hot). The EPA estimates there are 78,000 such tanks buried nationwide, each of them containing funky old oil and the like, even after some 436,000 were removed in recent decades. To help rid Minnesota of the tanks’ hidden pollution dangers, the state levies a fee on petroleum products that goes into its Petrofund. BP has received money from this fund to help it meet the costs of cleaning up its LUST sites. According to Minnesota’s lawsuit, however, more than $25 million of BP’s LUST cleanup costs were already being met by the company’s insurers.

In other words, BP was allegedly illegally double-dipping — turning a $25 million profit by having two entities pay to clean up its subterranean messes. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports:

“They lied on their applications,” said Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman, whose department sued BP in Ramsey County District Court seeking reimbursement and other damages, civil penalties and interest.

BP denied wrongdoing and said its dealings with the storage tank funds have been proper.

“BP acted at all times in good faith, and believes its dealings with the Minnesota state underground storage tank fund have been proper,” spokesman Jason Ryan said in an e-mail. “BP plans to defend itself against the allegations in the complaint.”

If the state wins its lawsuit, BP could have to pay up to triple damages. It wouldn’t be the only such scammer – Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips paid $7.4 million last year to settle similar lawsuits.


Source
BP sued by Minnesota for fraud over $25 million in tank cleanups, Minneapolis Star Tribune

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

View original article: 

BP found another shady way to cheat public, get richer

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BP found another shady way to cheat public, get richer

EPA is finally taking at least a small step to protect water supplies from fracking

EPA is finally taking at least a small step to protect water supplies from fracking

Noel Byrne

Obviously, diesel should not be pumped into the ground. It is a filthy fossil fuel that can cause cancer. But about 2 percent of frack jobs include the ingredient in their cocktail of drilling poisons — and that will be allowed to continue, albeit with some weak new oversight from the EPA.

The L.A. Times reports on the EPA’s overdue foray into regulating the use of diesel in fracking:

The Environmental Protection Agency has little authority to regulate fluids used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves pumping water laced with chemicals into shale formations to unlock trapped oil and gas. But the agency has been allowed since 2005 to regulate the use of diesel in fracking. Until Tuesday, it had not done so. …

The EPA’s new guidance defines five substances as diesel that require a permit for use in fracking. …

It is not a rule, but guidance on how to interpret the law for federal officials who review and grant fracking permits.

Needless to say, frackers denounced the new guidance, even as they claimed that diesel has been virtually phased out of fracking operations. One drilling group told the Times that the EPA’s move is “a solution in search of a problem.”

Environmentalists were similarly unimpressed — but for very different reasons. They want the use of diesel in frack jobs banned outright. ”Given the potential health and environmental impacts, the use of diesel presents an unacceptable risk and should be prohibited,” Natural Resources Defense Council scientist Briana Mordick wrote on a blog post. “Alternatives that perform the same function as diesel are available.”

Meanwhile, the EPA is working separately to develop regulations for fracking on public lands.


Source
Obama administration issues guidelines on using diesel in fracking, Los Angeles Times
EPA Releases Final Guidance for Fracking with Diesel, NRDC

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

,

Politics

Read original article: 

EPA is finally taking at least a small step to protect water supplies from fracking

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA is finally taking at least a small step to protect water supplies from fracking

Hundreds of scientists urge EPA to reject Pebble Mine

Hundreds of scientists urge EPA to reject Pebble Mine

Friends of Bristol Bay

Nice spot for a monstrous mine?

You don’t need to be a scientist to realize that allowing a mammoth gold and copper mine to tear up sensitive habitat near Alaska’s Bristol Bay would be a dreadful idea. But being a scientist sure would help you articulate the dangers of the plan — and do so with loads of credibility.

Fortunately, hundreds of scientists with backgrounds in ecology and natural resource-related disciplines have done just that. On Tuesday, 360 of them sent a letter to the EPA calling for the Pebble Mine proposal to be rejected, and thanking the agency for its recent assessment that found the mine would inflict severe damage on waterways, wildlife, fisheries, and Native Alaska cultures.

From the letter:

[W]e are very concerned about the prospect of large-scale mining in the unique and biologically rich watersheds of southwest Alaska’s Bristol Bay. …

In our view, the [EPA’s] final Watershed Assessment aptly identifies the outstanding ecological and cultural values at risk from a mine on the scale of the Pebble discovery or from other mine operations that would likely follow. The Bristol Bay area, especially the Nushagak and Kvichak river watersheds, the headwaters of three other pristine rivers, and the largest undeveloped lake on Earth, is one of the most productive landscapes on the continent. Undeveloped watersheds are a rarity throughout the world and Bristol Bay’s watersheds support a world-class salmon fishery, which includes all five salmon species native to Alaska and the largest sockeye salmon runs in the world.

So far, all the EPA has done is release an assessment saying that the Pebble Mine would make a terrible mess. The company proposing to build the mine hasn’t even applied for permits yet.

The cosigners of the letter, as well as activists and concerned Alaskans, are calling for the EPA to be proactive and use its authority under the Clean Water Act to block the mine proposal before it goes any further.


Source
Hundreds of scientists sign letter urging EPA to act against Pebble, Anchorage Daily News

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

,

Politics

See original: 

Hundreds of scientists urge EPA to reject Pebble Mine

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hundreds of scientists urge EPA to reject Pebble Mine

8 Tips for Greening Your Super Bowl Party

Hosting a green Super Bowl party is easy if you follow some of our simple tips. Photo: Shutterstock

The National Football League has taken steps to make Super Bowl XLVIII a green event, including purchasing renewable energy certificates, hosting e-waste recycling events and using biodiesel in outdoor generators.

How can you do your part? If you’re hosting a party for the big game, help green the event by making your gathering as eco-friendly as possible. To help you do so, we’ve put together a list of eight simple tips for planning your green Super Bowl party.

1. Green your TV

Even your TV can be green. Photo: Shutterstock

Having a group of people watch a game together does save some energy, since only one TV will be on instead of many. Still, most people want to see a football game on a big screen. If you’re considering buying a new TV for your party, choose an energy-efficient model. Many televisions are Energy Star certified, and on average these models are 25 percent more energy efficient than other models.

If you do choose to buy a new TV, be sure to donate or recycle your old one. The EPA offers suggestions for where to do this, or you can search for local options here at Earth911.

Next page: Make food at home

earth911

Read original article:  

8 Tips for Greening Your Super Bowl Party

Posted in alo, Broadway, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 8 Tips for Greening Your Super Bowl Party

Pebble Mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay could be environmentally devastating, EPA says

Pebble Mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay could be environmentally devastating, EPA says

Friends of Bristol Bay

Locals enjoy Bristol Bay in its pre-polluted state.

A colossal gold, copper, and molybdenum mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay could devastate the region’s ecosystem and fishing industry, according to a new report from the U.S. EPA.

“[L]arge-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed poses significant near- and long-term risk to salmon, wildlife and Native Alaska cultures,” EPA regional administrator Dennis McLerran told reporters upon releasing the report.

Canadian mining company Northern Dynasty wants to build the Pebble Mine in the area, but it hasn’t yet applied for federal permits, so the EPA’s study was about the potential impacts of hypothetical mining in the region rather than the Pebble Mine specifically. Still, it was a damning indictment of Northern Dynasty’s plans. (The U.K.-based Anglo American mining corporation dumped its stake in the project in September, and the U.K.-based Rio Tinto is considering whether to do the same.)

Tribes, fishermen, and environmentalists are pressuring the agency to block Pebble Mine under its Clean Water Act powers. This new EPA report was all about the science — it doesn’t make any policy recommendations — but its findings could be used to support such a move.

Depending on the scale of mining in the area, as many as 94 miles of streams could be drained or blocked, the EPA concluded. As many as 4,900 acres of wetlands that provide habitat to salmon could be lost, plus 450 acres of ponds and lakes. The EPA says a mine’s water-treatment systems could be expected to experience failures, which could poison salmon in up to 60 miles of streams.

Here’s how the report describes the wild habitat that would be compromised by the proposed mine:

The exceptional quality of the Bristol Bay watershed’s fish populations can be attributed to several factors, the most important of which is the watershed’s high-quality, diverse aquatic habitats unaltered by human-engineered structures and flow management controls. Surface and subsurface waters are highly connected, enabling hydrologic and biochemical connectivity between wetlands, ponds, streams, and rivers and thereby increasing the diversity and stability of habitats able to support fish. These factors all contribute to making the Bristol Bay watershed a highly productive system.

But, oh, what about the piles of money that could be made by mining? Ryan Cooper of The Washington Post suggests that not much of it would go to locals:

It’s not clear how big an economic boon this project (called the Pebble Mine) would be to people in the surrounding communities. The Pebble deposit contains billions in minerals — though most of the wealth will go to the conglomerate planning the project; the mine would support only a few thousand jobs. Meanwhile, the Bristol Bay area already has a thriving economy centered around the sockeye salmon run. According to the report, the fishing industry supports over 14,000 jobs, and $480 million in direct expenditures.

Cooper describes a mine as “a big test” for President Obama. If the EPA opposes it, will he publicly support the agency? “The choice EPA makes will be a key indicator of the EPA’s willingness to endure the backlash that will certainly ensue if they take strong action on climate change,” he writes.

Here’s a map of the area that would be affected:

EPAClick to embiggen


Source
An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska, EPA
A big test for Obama on the environment, The Washington Post
EPA Critical of Alaska Pebble Mine Project, The Wall Street Journal
Mining could devastate Alaska’s Bristol Bay salmon, The Associated Press

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

,

Politics

See the original article here: 

Pebble Mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay could be environmentally devastating, EPA says

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pebble Mine near Alaska’s Bristol Bay could be environmentally devastating, EPA says