Tag Archives: government

All those fracking jobs come with an increased risk of lung cancer

All those fracking jobs come with an increased risk of lung cancer

chriswaits

While all the damage hydraulic fracturing could do to the Earth is pretty well-covered, we mostly overlook the risks it poses to fracking workers. Each well requires thousands of tons of fracking sand full of fine silica, which can penetrate lungs and lead to incurable silicosis and even lung cancer.

To find out how much those frackers were at risk, Eric Esswein, a workplace safety and exposure expert with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), strapped on a face mask and dug in. NPR reports:

He and his colleagues visited 11 fracking sites in five states: Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas. At every site, the researchers found high levels of silica in the air. It turned out that 79 percent of the collected samples exceeded the recommended exposure limit set by Esswein’s agency.

There were some controls in place, says Esswein, who notes that “at every site that we went to, workers wore respirators.”

But about one-third of the air samples they collected had such high levels of silica, the type of respirators typically worn wouldn’t offer enough protection. …

Workplace inspectors with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration wouldn’t have been aware of this potential risk for fracking workers before this recent study because, unless they receive a complaint or there’s an accident, they generally don’t see the process of hydraulic fracturing. That part of setting up a well happens quickly — and once a well is up and running, contractors move on to the next one.

Government officials and the fracking industry say they’re now working together to reduce workers’ exposures. They started with quick fixes, like putting up warning signs and simply closing hatches on sand-moving machines.

Not only did most of the airborne silica samples exceed NIOSH’s recommended levels, but almost half exceeded the maximum levels set by OSHA, and a third exceeded NIOSH’s recommended level by a factor of 10 or more. Gee, thanks Mister Fracking Industry! All this cancer will go great with my firewater!

Workplace safety experts say the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules for silica should allow about half of what they do now, but OSHA’s updated regulations have been stuck in review for more than two years.

The New York Times took OSHA to task in a scathing longread about the watchdog agency’s failures when it comes to long-term health threats: “Partly out of pragmatism, the agency created by President Richard M. Nixon to give greater attention to health issues has largely done the opposite. OSHA devotes most of its budget and attention to responding to here-and-now dangers rather than preventing the silent, slow killers that, in the end, take far more lives.”

Just another dirty cost of all that “clean” natural gas.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View the original here:  

All those fracking jobs come with an increased risk of lung cancer

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on All those fracking jobs come with an increased risk of lung cancer

Obama creates five new national monuments

Obama creates five new national monuments

Shutterstock

/ Mariia SatsMonumental.

President Barack Obama doesn’t just think the San Juan Islands are awesome. He thinks they are monumentally awesome.

Obama today will announce the designation of five new national monuments, including nearly 1,000 acres on the San Juan archipelago off the coast of Washington state.

That will more than double his monument-designating tally under the 1906 Antiquities Act to a total of nine.

From The Seattle Times:

The lands that islanders had sought to preserve are already federally owned and overseen by the Bureau of Land Management. While there were no apparent plans for the government to sell or develop the properties, the monument designation offers virtual certainty they will remain protected in perpetuity.

U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, credited “years of persistence” by environmental and business leaders who built a coalition to campaign for the monument.

A national monument is a lot like a national park, except that the president can designate one without the approval of Congress. Other national monuments include the Statue of Liberty in New York City and the Muir Woods north of San Francisco. There are about 100 in all.

Here are the national monuments being protected today, from USA Today:

The San Juan Islands National Monument in Washington state
First State National Monument in Delaware
The Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico
Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument in Ohio
A monument commemorating Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railway in Maryland

Having gained lots of experience handing public land over to energy companies to drill and pollute, Obama today offers an overdue nod to wilderness and American history.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source article:  

Obama creates five new national monuments

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama creates five new national monuments

Off the Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government, and True Independence in Modern America

[amzn_product_post]

Posted in Penguin Books | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Off the Grid: Inside the Movement for More Space, Less Government, and True Independence in Modern America

EPA sued over failure to protect bees from pesticides

EPA sued over failure to protect bees from pesticides

Shutterstock

A federal courtroom will bee-come a hive of activity, with lawyers attempting to sting the government into action over buzz-killing insecticides.

The battle for the bees is headed to court.

Beekeepers and activist groups, fed up with the wanton use of insecticides that kill bees and other pollinators, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday. They are suing to try to force the EPA to ban or better regulate neonicotinoids and other pesticides that kill bees and butterflies and lead to colony collapse disorder.

From a press release put out by the Center for Food Safety, one of the plaintiffs in the case:

“Beekeepers and environmental and consumer groups have demonstrated time and time again over the last several years that EPA needs to protect bees. The agency has refused, so we’ve been compelled to sue,” said Center for Food Safety attorney, Peter T. Jenkins. “EPA’s unlawful actions should convince the Court to suspend the approvals for clothianidin and thiamethoxam products until those violations are resolved.”

The case also challenges the use of so-called “conditional registrations” for these pesticides, which expedites commercialization by bypassing meaningful premarket review. Since 2000, over two-thirds of pesticide products, including clothianidin and thiamethoxam, have been brought to market as conditional registrations.

“Pesticide manufacturers use conditional registrations to rush bee-toxic products to market, with little public oversight,” said Paul Towers, a spokesperson for Pesticide Action Network. “As new independent research comes to light, the agency has been slow to re-evaluate pesticide products and its process, leaving bees exposed to an ever-growing load of hazardous pesticides.”

The lawsuit comes a week after the European Union failed in an effort to ban the use of neonicotinoids. From The Independent:

To the dismay of environmental campaigners, but to the relief of the pesticide industry and some agricultural scientists, the vote resulted in a stalemate. 13 of the 27 European Union member states voted in favour of a ban, while nine voted against and five, including Britain, abstained.

The arithmetic of the vote meant that the necessary qualified majority — with votes weighted according to member states’ populations — could not be obtained, and so the vote was deemed inconclusive.

However, the question of a ban is likely to be voted on again fairly soon. If the issue remains deadlocked, it is possible that the European Commission, the EU civil service which proposed the ban in the first place, could act to bring one in on its own initiative.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See original – 

EPA sued over failure to protect bees from pesticides

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Brita, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA sued over failure to protect bees from pesticides

Big Sugar could get a big government bailout

Big Sugar could get a big government bailout

Trigger warning, healthy eaters. The USDA is considering a big sugar bailout. Here’s how that would work: The agency would buy 400,000 tons of sugar from surprisingly productive sugar companies in order to give those sugar companies enough cash to pay back the the $862 million they borrowed from the USDA last October. And then you would riot in the streets because what the hell is going on, USDA?!

The Wall Street Journal reports on the part before the rioting:

The USDA makes loans to sugar processors annually as part of a program that is rooted in the 1934 Sugar Act. The loans are secured with some 4.1 billion pounds, or 2.05 million tons, of sugar that companies expect to produce from the current harvest. That comes to almost a quarter of total U.S. output that the USDA forecasts for this year.

If domestic sugar prices bounce back before a final decision [on the bailout] is made, the USDA would back away from plans to intervene in the market, [said USDA economist Barbara Fecso]. A final decision could come as early as April 1. …

The loan program was designed to operate at no cost to taxpayers. A June 2000 study by the Government Accountability Office, then called the General Accounting Office, estimated the program’s cost to the U.S. economy at $700 million in 1996 and $900 million in 1998.

The bailout would help bolster the price of sugar, therefore driving up the cost of sweetened goods. But even if you hate sugar and all the terrible things it does to our bodies, you’re still paying for it.

Is that enough, though, to ally carrot and cupcake lovers in what New York Magazine wishes were a militant social movement?

Big Sugar has spent decades paying its way into politicians’ hearts, demanding price controls and tariffs that boost profits and artificially inflate sugar prices, and using its political clout to establish a permanent life-support mechanism for an industry whose major product is causing many Americans to die.

Why wait? Let’s Occupy Sugar, and Occupy it now.

Speaking of unholy alliances, New York points to a 2012 report by the Heritage Foundation. Free-market-loving Heritage hates Big Sugar. The foundation points to big political spending by sugar companies, just the kind of sweet stumping that killed New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s soda ban.

Heritage Foundation

Not feeling riled yet? Maybe have an angry-making Coke first.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Excerpt from:  

Big Sugar could get a big government bailout

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Sugar could get a big government bailout

New law aims to make eating lions illegal, because right now it’s totally not

New law aims to make eating lions illegal, because right now it’s totally not

When Mufasa gave Simba that speech about the circle of life, he maybe should have included an extra warning about becoming lion jerky for some hungry folks in the U.S. Because apparently that is a thing.

Illinois Rep. Luis Arroyo wants to make eating lions illegal in his state, and the proposal is a lot more controversial than you might think. If passed, the Lion Meat Act would make it “”unlawful for any person to slaughter a lion or for any person to possess, breed, import or export from this State, buy, or sell lions for the purpose of slaughter.” Right now, eating lion is legal nationwide.

safaripartners

Burgers? Tacos? Snack sticks? Really?

For a ban on eating a threatened species, Arroyo’s proposal is garnering a lot of criticism — and not just from the guy who runs the weird-meat store, though he’s certainly the most annoyed. Richard Czimer of Czimer’s Game & Seafood, Inc. (mm mm lion snack sticks and bear bacon!) told National Geographic that the ban is “trying to curtail a choice.” Of Arroyo: “He’s discriminating against all my customers and everybody who wants to try something new,” said Czimer, who was only able to buy two lousy lions last year.

Czimer, who was jailed for six months in 2003 for buying and selling illegal tiger and leopard meat, is mostly but not entirely alone in his love for lion, which also enjoys a bit of market share in Arizona. Other critics of the Lion Meat Act seem to be bothered by the big-government overreach of preventing people from eating threatened species. From Take Part:

“Most people would never even conceive of eating lion meat,” said Kristina Rasmussen, vice president of the Illinois Policy Institue. “If this is a problem—and I’m not convinced that it is—surely it can be solved by civil action and community consensus and open debate. Do we have to rush in with a law, especially when we have so many other problems right in front of our face?”

Yeah, ‘cuz when did laws ever make things better? More from NatGeo:

“[E]ating carnivores is mostly not a good idea,” argued Luke Hunter, president of Panthera, a U.S. based wild-cat conservation group …

For one, carnivore populations worldwide are dwindling—the African lion is listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and is endangered in certain West African countries.

Though wild lions aren’t killed for food, there’s concern that weak or poorly regulated laws regarding the ownership, breeding, and trade of captive big cats in the U.S.—in particular tigers—could fuel the black market for big-cat parts, Will Gartshore, senior program officer for U.S. Government Relations at WWF, said in an email.

So, sorry: Legal or not, big cats aren’t the best burger choice. But if you’re interested in some other adventurous meat-eating, BuyExoticMeats.com is currently having a sale on its “Exotic Meat Club” monthly package. October is the “Manager’s Special”! Yum, cross your fingers for some big cats!

If you were skeeved out by the idea of horse meat — which is harder to get in the U.S. than lion — do not click on that link. And if you care about the environment, or still have a special place in your heart for baby Simba (who doesn’t?), might I recommend a black bean patty, or an invasive species?

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue reading here:

New law aims to make eating lions illegal, because right now it’s totally not

Posted in alo, ALPHA, G & F, GE, LG, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New law aims to make eating lions illegal, because right now it’s totally not

Chinese forests now just chopstick factories in waiting

Chinese forests now just chopstick factories in waiting

China’s been dealing with a lot of pressure lately: dirty aira river full of dead pigs, new pledges to go green … To cope, there’s apparently been an uptick in stress-eating. The country is now producing 80 billion pairs of disposable wooden chopsticks a year, nearly 60 pairs for each person in the country, according to Bai Guangxin, chair of Jilin Forestry Industry Group. That’s way up from the estimated 57 billion pairs produced annually between 2004 and 2009. At this rate, China is destroying nearly 1.5 percent of its forests each year just in the name of chopsticks.

theeruditefrog

From The Huffington Post:

The consequences of China’s chopstick production — deforestation, for one — have prompted action from some environmental groups. …

Bai pointed out during [a] meeting Friday that the Chinese government has also begun taking action by introducing policies limiting manufacturing of disposable chopsticks.

Government actions range from a 5-percent tax levied in 2006 on disposable chopsticks, to a 2010 warning of potential government regulations for companies that fail to strictly supervise disposable chopstick production. …

“We should change our consumption habits and encourage people to carry their own tableware,” Bai recommended on Friday.

If the country’s still planning on increasing its forest cover by nearly 21 percent by 2020, it should heed Bai’s advice. (You’d think as the head of a timber company he might be able to do something about this himself, but there’s the whole state-run thing to contend with.)

Maybe a little DIY could help. My brother, a sushi fanatic, carries his own steel travel chopsticks in a pouch around his neck. Similar sticks with a travel case cost a few bucks at your local Asian market. Bonus: no figurative or literal splinters in your mouth from unethical eating instruments.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original article:  

Chinese forests now just chopstick factories in waiting

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, G & F, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chinese forests now just chopstick factories in waiting

Superstorm Sandy aid dollars go to rebuilding in flood-prone areas

Superstorm Sandy aid dollars go to rebuilding in flood-prone areas

The Eastern Seaboard is still limping toward recovery post-Superstorm Sandy. Just as the government was really getting rolling distributing $60 billion in federal aid that was authorized in January, that amount was chopped by 5 percent thanks to sequestration.

Jenna Pope

And now comes news that some of that rebuilding money is being spent not-so-wisely. While San Francisco is trying to make a “managed retreat” from rising seas, the tri-state area seems to be more in favor of a “whatevs, fuck it” approach. ProPublica reports:

A WNYC and ProPublica analysis of federal data shows at least 10,500 home and business owners have been approved for $766 million in SBA [Small Business Administration] disaster loans to rebuild in areas that the government now says could flood again in the next big storm. The data, which shows loans approved through mid-February, was obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

More loans could be going to flood-prone areas. The analysis did not cover Long Island or Connecticut.

The loans require borrowers to get flood insurance, which in turn could encourage some to rebuild properties to be more flood-resistant. However, for many owners there’s no requirement they raise their properties to the heights FEMA recommends.

The result: the federal government is helping people rebuild despite the risk that flooding will again destroy the properties.

ProPublica talked with folks who plan to rebuild but can’t afford to raise their properties to better withstand future storm surges. Post-Sandy, FEMA released new maps of areas the agency deems at risk of flooding, where buildings should be raised or, well, razed.

New York Times

Revamped flood zones in Staten Island and Brooklyn. Click to embiggen.

But in total, ProPublica reports, 83 percent of loans in New York City went to rebuild properties in those flood zones; in New Jersey, the figure was 71 percent.

The SBA says it’s not their job to assess whether it’s smart to build in flood-prone areas.

“Our mission is to help these homeowners and business become whole again,” said Carol Chastang, an SBA spokeswoman. “We really aren’t in a position to tell people where or where not to rebuild.” …

Environmental groups like the National Wildlife Federation say the best flood protection are wetlands and to leave stretches of the coast undeveloped.

“Ideally we’re going to help people move away from the flood zone and not give them assistance to rebuild exactly as is,” said Joshua Saks, the federation’s legislative director. “But we recognize it’s a very personal decision, it’s a local decision.”

It’s a personal decision for folks like the owners of the private Fairfield Beach Club, which received the biggest loan yet of $1.5 million. “If we really wanted to avoid future damage we’ve got to close the club and move inland two or three miles,” Arthur McCain, a member of the club’s finance committee, told ProPublica.

This isn’t just about private clubs, though — it’s about peoples’ homes and lives. If there’s no immediate incentive and aid to plan ahead for rising seas and storm surges, to move inland, then what else can we expect people to do?

Source

After Sandy, Government Lends to Rebuild in Flood Zones, ProPublica

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original: 

Superstorm Sandy aid dollars go to rebuilding in flood-prone areas

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, G & F, GE, Gotham, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Superstorm Sandy aid dollars go to rebuilding in flood-prone areas

Calif. Bill Calls for Single-Use Battery Recycling

Photo: Flickr/JohnSeb

Calif. Assemblyman Das Williams (D) has introduced a bill to the state legislature which would create a recycling and disposal program for all non-rechargeable, single-use household batteries sold in the state.

In early 2006, household batteries were prohibited from being disposed of in solid waste landfills in California. However, currently there is no system in place for managing discarded single-use batteries, making it difficult for consumers to find places to recycle old batteries.

“Banning batteries from disposal without making recycling easy is frustrating for the public. The goal of this bill is to provide convenient recycling opportunities statewide to make it easy for consumers to comply with the law,” said Heidi Sanborn, executive director of the California Product Stewardship Council, in a press release.

Assembly Bill 488 would require producers of single-use household batteries to submit a stewardship plan to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

California state law already requires producers and retailers of rechargeable batteries to collect used rechargeable batteries from consumers. However, currently there is no such mandatory take-back system for single-use alkaline batteries.

Approximately 80 percent of batteries sold in California are alkaline batteries, according to the assembly bill. Managing discarded batteries costs local governments and taxpayers up to $2,700 per ton, which adds up to tens of millions of dollars each year.

“This is a perfect example of how producers, local governments and retailers can unite to help meet a greater good,” Assemblyman Williams said in a press release. “By changing our habits in little ways such as recycling batteries, we can collectively make dramatic changes to help the environment and save money.”

The bill may be heard in committee as early as March 22. If passed, the proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2015.

Patricia Escarcega

Contributing Writer

Like this story?

You’ll love our newsletters!

why join?

learn about the perks

View post: 

Calif. Bill Calls for Single-Use Battery Recycling

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Calif. Bill Calls for Single-Use Battery Recycling

Public surprisingly OK with government policies that push healthy eating

Public surprisingly OK with government policies that push healthy eating

USDA Eat this!

Subsidize green veggies, slaughter big sodas, and steal candy from babies? These kinds of government policies intended to promote healthy eating are A-OK with most of the American public, it turns out. A new poll from Harvard’s School of Public Health found that people “were surprisingly positive about these new public health laws,” as NPR reports, with big percentages in favor of encouraging exercise, making fruits and veg affordable, pushing for healthier restaurant choices, and banning use of food stamps to buy unhealthy foods.

From NPR’s The Salt blog:

“We clearly saw that the more coercion was involved, the more people you lost,” says Michelle Mello, a professor of law and public health at the Harvard School of Public Health, who was a co-author of the study. It was published in the March Health Affairs.

The researchers were surprised to find that people with health problems like obesity and diabetes didn’t object to new laws targeting them.

“We thought that people who felt like targets would be much less likely to support them,” says Stephanie Morain, a graduate student in ethics who co-authored the study. “That wasn’t true.” …

But though people are pretty supportive overall, the results make it clear that they’re more likely to buy in if they feel like public health officials understand their values, and they have a voice in the process. “If people feel like they’re engaged in the policy-making process, they’re more engaged across the board,” Mello says.

The poll found interesting racial differences: Blacks were two to four times more likely to support government intervention than whites, and Hispanics were more supportive than whites too.

Who was least happy about being told what to do by The Man? Older white men, of course! I mean, I coulda told you that.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continued here:  

Public surprisingly OK with government policies that push healthy eating

Posted in ALPHA, Amana, GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Public surprisingly OK with government policies that push healthy eating