Tag Archives: organic

Tom’s Kitchen: I <3 Farro Edition

Mother Jones

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

I fell in love with farro, an ancient relative of wheat, more than 10 years ago at the venerable Brooklyn restaurant Al di La. The puffed little kernels formed the basis of a chilled salad, tossed with arugula and tomatoes. The farro was light yet nutty, substantial yet melt-in-your-mouth tender, and it merged beautifully with the other ingredients, like some kind of Platonic ideal of pasta. Then I encountered it in similar several times in a trip across Italy working on organic farms, mostly in the northern states of Umbria and Tuscany.

I returned to the United States in the throes of a full-blown farro obsession, determined to make it part of my repertoire. By then I had moved out of New York City and was living on a small farm in rural North Carolina, far from any fancy-food emporia. Online researched seemed to suggest that what we call spelt in the US is identical to Italy’s farro. So I embraced spelt berries, which I could find at the local health-food store. Results were more or less dismal. Even after long soaking and hours of cooking, something almost always seemed off: the kernels would be either way too chewy, deplorably mushy, or, paradoxically, both. In time, I learned that true farro (also called emmer) and spelt are indeed distinct, but by then I had ceased to care. I had moved on to other obsessions. (Somewhat childishly, I exacted my revenge against spelt in this 2011 April Fool’s piece. I should note that spelt flour is an excellent thing, especially for non-yeasted baked goods like biscuits and cookies).

Continue Reading »

View the original here – 

Tom’s Kitchen: I <3 Farro Edition

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Tom’s Kitchen: I <3 Farro Edition

5 Surprising Genetically Modified Foods

Mother Jones

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

GE rice may soon be approved for human consumption. Photo illustration/Photos from IRRI, WIkimedia Commons

By now, you’ve likely heard about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the controversy over whether they’re the answer to world hunger or the devil incarnate. But for right now, let’s leave aside that debate and turn to a more basic question: When you go to the supermarket, do you know which foods are most likely to be—or contain ingredients that are—genetically engineered? A handy FAQ:

So what exactly are genetically modified organisms?
GMOs are plants or animals that have undergone a process wherein scientists alter their genes with DNA from different species of living organisms, bacteria, or viruses to get desired traits such as resistance to disease or tolerance of pesticides.

But haven’t farmers been selectively breeding crops to get larger harvests for centuries? How is this any different?
Over at Grist, Nathanael Johnson has a great answer to this question—but in a nutshell: Yes, farmers throughout history have been raising their plants to achieve certain desired traits such as improved taste, yield, or disease resistance. But this kind of breeding still relies on the natural reproductive processes of the organisms, where as genetic engineering involves the addition of foreign genes that would not occur in nature.

Am I eating GMOs?
Probably. Since several common ingredients like corn starch and soy protein are predominantly derived from genetically modified crops, it’s pretty hard to avoid GM foods altogether. In fact, GMOs are present in 60 to 70 percent of foods on US supermarket shelves, according to Bill Freese at the Center for Food Safety; the vast majority of processed foods contain GMOs. One major exception is fresh fruits and veggies. The only GM produce you’re likely to find is the Hawaiian papaya, a small amount of zucchini and squash, and some sweet corn. No meat, fish, and poultry products approved for direct human consumption are bioengineered at this point, though most of the feed for livestock and fish is derived from GM corn, alfalfa, and other biotech grains. Only organic varieties of these animal products are guaranteed GMO-free feed.

So what are some examples of food that are genetically modified?
1. Papayas: In the 1990s, Hawaiian papaya trees were plagued by the ringspot virus which decimated nearly half the crop in the state. In 1998, scientists developed a transgenic fruit called Rainbow papaya, which is resistant to the virus. Now 77 percent of the crop grown in Hawaii is genetically engineered (GE).

2. Milk: RGBH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, is a GE variation on a naturally occurring hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production. It is banned for milk destined for human consumption in the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Many milk brands that are rGBH-free label their milk as such, but as much as 40 percent of our dairy products, including ice cream and cheese, contains the hormone.

3. Corn on the cob: While 90 percent of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified, most of that crop is used for animal feed or ethanol and much of the rest ends up in processed foods. Sweet corn—the stuff that you steam or grill on the barbecue and eat on the cob—was GMO-free until last year when Monsanto rolled out its first GE harvest of sweet corn. While consumers successfully petitioned Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s to not carry the variety, Walmart has begun stocking the shelves with it without any label.

4. Squash and zucchini: While the majority of squashes on the market are not GE, approximately 25,000 acres of crookneck, straightneck, and zucchinis have been bioengineered to be virus resistant.

5. “All natural” foods: Be wary of this label if you’re trying to avoid GE foods. Right now there is no strict definition of what constitutes a natural food. This could be changing soon as federal court judges recently requested the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether the term can be used to describe foods containing GMOs to help resolve pending class action suits against General Mills, Campbell Soup Co., and the tortilla manufacturer Gruma Corp.

Are there any foods I’ve heard might be genetically modified—but actually aren’t?
1. Potatoes:
In 1995, Monsanto introduced genetically modified potatoes for human consumption, but after pressure from consumers, McDonald’s and several other major fast food chains told their French fry suppliers to stop growing GE potatoes. The crop has since been removed from the market.

2. Seedless watermelon: While it would seem plausible that a fruit that produces no seeds has been bioengineered, the seedless watermelon is a hybrid of two separate breeds. It has been nicknamed the “mule of the watermelon world.”

3. Salmon: Currently no meat, fish, or egg products are genetically engineered, though a company called Aqua Bounty has an application in with the FDA to approve its GE salmon.

4. Soy milk: While 93 percent of soy grown in the United States is genetically engineered, most major brands of soy milk are GMO-free. Silk, the best-selling soy milk brand in the country, joined the Non-GMO Project in 2010. Many popular tofu brands in the United States also sell GMO-free tofu products.*

5. Rice: A staple food for nearly half the world’s population, there are currently no varieties of GM rice approved for human consumption. However, that could soon change. A genetically modified variety called golden rice being developed in the Philippines has been altered to include beta-carotene, a source of vitamin A. Backers are lauding it as a way to alleviate nutrient deficiency for the populations in developing countries.

How about organic foods?
Since the late ’90s, USDA organic standards have prohibited any genetically modified ingredients. Originally, the agency tried to include GE foods under the organic umbrella, but it backed down in 2002 after a massive public outcry to save organic standards.

How long have I been eating GE food?
Scientists conducted the first GE food trials the late 1980s, and in 1994, a biotech company called Calgene released the first GMO approved for human consumption: the “Flavr Savr tomato,” designed to stay ripe on the vine longer without getting squishy. The product, which Monsanto eventually picked up, flopped, but it paved the way for others: Biotech companies have made billions since with GE corn, soy bean, cotton, and canola.

Aren’t food companies required to let me know whether their products contain GMOs?
Not in the United States. Sixty-four developing and developed countries require GMO food labeling, according to Freese at the Center for Food Safety. You may have heard about the recent string of “Right to Know” bills in state assemblies across the country. The bills are aimed to require food companies to label any products that contain genetically modified organisms. Connecticut and Maine recently passed laws that would require food manufacturers to reveal GE ingredients on product packaging, but those laws won’t go into effect until other states adopt similar measures. Americans overwhelmingly support such laws, with poll after poll showing that over 90 percent of respondents support mandatory labeling. Biotech companies and the food industry say that such labeling would be expensive and pointless since genetically engineered foods have been declared safe for human consumption.

So if the food is safe, what’s all the fuss about them?
First off, not everyone agrees that GMOs are safe to eat, especially over the long term. The European Union remains decidedly skeptical, with very few approved GE crops grown on the continent and mandatory labeling in place for products that contain GMOs. Some scientists fear that GMOs could cause allergies in humans. Others point to the environmental consequences of the farming of GE crops.

How do GMOs affect the environment?
One word: Pesticides. Hundreds of millions of extra pounds of pesticides. The six biggest producers of GE seeds—Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow Agrosciences, BASF, Bayer, and Pioneer (DuPont)—are also the biggest producers of chemical herbicides and insecticides. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, for example, are genetically engineered to be immune to herbicide so that farmers can destroy weeds without killing their cash crops. But the process has spawned Roundup resistant weeds, leading farmers to apply greater and greater doses of the chemical or even resort to more toxic methods to battle back the superweeds.

Where can I learn more about GMOs?
Mother JonesTom Philpott writes critically about GMOs often. In this 2011 Scientific American piece, Brendan Borrell lays out the pro-GMO case very well. Grist‘s Nathanael Johnson has written several posts that clarify the basic science behind GE crops, and a New York Times Room for Debate from 2009 offers a pretty good synopsis of the controversy. Food policy wonks might enjoy perusing the Food and Agriculture Organization’s page on biotechnology in agriculture; if you’re looking for a more entertaining way to educate yourself, a documentary called GMO OMG opens in select theaters this fall.

Clarification: Previously this story stated most tofu sold in the United States is GMO-free. While the top-selling US tofu brand Nasoya and many other major manufacturers in the US have items verified by the Non-GMO Project, this doesn’t necessarily encompass all tofu products.

Read this article: 

5 Surprising Genetically Modified Foods

Posted in FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, organic, Pines, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Surprising Genetically Modified Foods

How Fracking Affects Your Farmer’s Market

Original link – 

How Fracking Affects Your Farmer’s Market

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Fracking Affects Your Farmer’s Market

July 30: Try Out 1,000 Green Products for Free

This seven-piece vegan brush set from Christopher Drummond is one of the 1,000 products available for free on July 30. Image: Courtesy of John Paul Selects

On July 30, 1,000 sustainable and eco-friendly products will be given away free via JohnPaulSelects.com. The website, founded by Paul Mitchell Systems and Patron Spirits Co-Founder John Paul DeJoria, helps visitors identify and purchase sustainable products based on various attributes, such as the use of recycled materials, philanthropic benefits or animal-friendly ingredients or practices.

DeJoria decided to host the giveaway to celebrate his receipt of “The Visionary Award” from the Green Business Bureau (GBB) earlier this month.

“We wanted a way to commemorate our winning the award and to show appreciation to the community for supporting us. This also allows people to test out some products they might be interested in,” he said.

In a blog post, the GBB  stated that DeJoria received the award because he is considered “a perfect role model for our thousands of members who work hard every day to develop their companies and serve their communities.”

Products available via the giveaway range from vegan makeup brushes and rain boots to bamboo toothbrushes and nail polish and are available for free on a first-come, first-served basis.

John Paul Selects works to “to attract, inspire and educate the human spirit on behalf of the best emerging sustainable brands and eco-conscious entrepreneurs who are striving to make a difference, both socially and environmentally.” The website aims to make finding quality, eco-friendly products easier by vetting them in advance using six criteria and also excluding those that contain ingredients or use practices that do not meet the organization’s standards.

earth911

Continued:

July 30: Try Out 1,000 Green Products for Free

Posted in alo, Anker, ATTRA, bamboo, eco-friendly, FF, GE, ONA, organic, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on July 30: Try Out 1,000 Green Products for Free

Conservatives Are Digging Very, Very Deep to Keep IRS "Scandal" Alive

Mother Jones

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

Conservative desperation to revive the IRS “scandal,” which basically imploded in their laps weeks ago, continues apace. Steve Benen reports today that the latest is a scoop by the Daily Caller about a White House meeting with IRS chief counsel William Wilkins in 2012. The fact that this was trumpeted in the Caller is pretty much all you need to know about this supposedly nefarious meeting, but click the link if you want the (extremely boring) details of what really went on.

For sheer entertainment value, though, a friend passes along the fun and games on Fox last night:

So Greta Van Susteren has on an unfortunate Virginia organic farmer — not coincidentally, I’m sure, an attractive young blonde — who says she was audited by the IRS because of her affiliation with the Tea Party!

Under mild questioning, she admits that most of her apparently many disputes are in fact with the county government. Despite the headline and her flat assertion, she provided zero testimony or explanation for how her IRS problem might have anything to do with the Tea Party.

Never mind. One of her many accusations of outrageous government harassment is that the county fined her for having a birthday party for eight little girls on her farm! Oh, the horror! How could such a thing possibly be?

A birthday party! Tyranny has run amok. However, what millions of Fox watchers will never learn is that her dispute is actually over her refusal to pay for a $150 permit if she wants to use her farm for commerical activities (hosting events, selling other people’s craft items) that it’s not zoned for (i.e., growing and selling food). The county also wants to make sure that she has parking and bathrooms on the site. That’s it. But it doesn’t matter. Another urban legend on the right has been born, and it will now live forever.

View the original here: 

Conservatives Are Digging Very, Very Deep to Keep IRS "Scandal" Alive

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservatives Are Digging Very, Very Deep to Keep IRS "Scandal" Alive

Finding Superior Options For Organic Baby Clothes

Lacking an option for quality organic baby clothes can find you forced to compromise on your future purchases. Dealing with garments that have been poorly constructed, or materials and manufacturing processes that are less desirable can be very disappointing. The right retail options can be found that will be able to satisfy all of your needs with much less effort.

Clothing that has been created in ways and methods that make use of unsafe labor practices, harmful harvesting of natural resources and any other practices that you are concerned with would be a poor investment. Finding a better alternative means that you will not spend your money supporting such manufacturing practices. Smarter shopping can be a vital concern.

Products that have been manufactured using a safer range of more natural materials will alleviate any concern you may have about them being in such close contact to young children and infants. Unsafe and illegal manufacturing of garments can be a real concern for those investing in new clothing. Ensuring that your products have been created safely, and with natural materials can be a real concern.

Options can be quite limited when you choose to do business with mainstream retailers. Even the outlets that carry a wide selection of clothing and garments designed for infants may be unable to provide you with the options you are most interested in. Dealing with a seller who specializes in such concerns will provide you with greater selection and options to make use of.

With the right retail purchases available, clothing and providing for your children may be done in the best ways possible. Having to compromise your shopping habits due to a poor selection of options to make use of could be very unfortunate. Knowing where to find a range of superior options will allow you to make wiser and more effective investments each time you make purchases.

Knowing where to find the best retail options could be key to the entire process. Choosing to do business with the right professionals will allow you to make use of an expanded inventory and the highest quality products available. Cost-effective resources that will provide you with the clothing that you have been searching for will allow you to more easily find the items you seek.

Searching though an online storehouse might be a lot easier than shopping in person. A faster and more effective way to make your purchases can be found, and all without ever having to leave your home. Purchasing natural high quality clothing and garments online provides you with the easiest means to provide for your children, ensuring that your shopping efforts will meet with success.

Dealers who can offer superior options for organic baby clothes are where you should concentrate your efforts. Shopping for the right garments can be done more quickly and successfully by those who have access to the right retailers. A better way to meet all of your needs would be well worth investigating, as such efforts may allow you greater opportunity to make the most beneficial of purchases in your efforts to assemble a wardrobe for your child.

Polly Browder is a full-time mother and part-time nanny. For more information about the advantages of organic baby clothing, visit www.organicbabywearhouse.com.

Posted in organic | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Finding Superior Options For Organic Baby Clothes

Could Photosynthesis Be Our Best Defense Against Climate Change?

Mother Jones

This story first appeared in Slate and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

A gigantic, steaming-hot mound of compost is not the first place most people would search for a solution to climate change, but the hour is getting very late. “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade,” declares a new report from the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization, which added that the decade was “the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850.” Among those extreme events: the European heat wave of 2003, which in a mere six weeks caused 71,449 excess deaths, according to a study sponsored by the European Union. In the United States alone, 2012 brought the hottest summer on record, the worst drought in 50 years and Hurricane Sandy. Besides the loss of life, climate-related disasters cost the United States some $140 billion in 2012, a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council concluded.

We can expect to see more climate-related catastrophes soon. In May scientists announced that carbon dioxide had reached 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, humanity is raising the level by about 2 parts per million a year by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and other activities.

At the moment, climate policy focuses overwhelmingly on the 2 ppm part of the problem while ignoring the 400 ppm part. Thus in his landmark climate speech on June 25, President Obama touted his administration’s doubling of fuel efficiency standards for vehicles as a major advance in the fight to preserve a livable planet for our children. In Europe, Germany and Denmark are leaving coal behind in favor of generating electricity with wind and solar. But such mitigation measures aim only to limit new emissions of greenhouse gases.

That is no longer sufficient. The 2 ppm of annual emissions being targeted by conventional mitigation efforts are not what are causing the “unprecedented” number of extreme climate events. The bigger culprit by far are the 400 ppm of carbon dioxide that are already in the atmosphere. As long as those 400 ppm remain in place, the planet will keep warming and unleashing more extreme climate events. Even if we slashed annual emissions to zero overnight, the physical inertia of the climate system would keep global temperatures rising for 30 more years.

We need a new paradigm: If humanity is to avoid a future in which the deadly heat waves, floods, and droughts of recent years become normal, we must lower the existing level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To be sure, reducing additional annual emissions and adapting to climate change must remain vital priorities, but the extraction of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has now become an urgent necessity.

Under this new paradigm, one of the most promising means of extracting atmospheric carbon dioxide is also one of the most common processes on Earth: photosynthesis.

Which is how I came to find myself plunged forearm-deep into the aforementioned mound of compost. It was a truly massive heap, nearly the length of a football field, 5 feet tall and 10 feet wide, and a second equally large pile lay nearby. It all belonged to Cornell University, one of the powerhouses of agricultural research in the United States. Michael P. Hoffmann, the associate dean of Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, told me it was comprised mainly of food scraps from Cornell’s dining halls and detritus from its groundskeeping operations.

“You don’t want to leave your hand in there too long,” Hoffmann cautioned as I felt around inside the steaming mass of brown. Sure enough, although it was a cool, cloudy day, my forearm soon felt almost uncomfortably warm. “The microbes in there generate a fair amount of heat as they break down the organic materials,” he explained.

Compost is but one of the materials that can be used to produce biochar, a substance that a small but growing number of scientists and private companies believe could enable extraction of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a meaningful scale. Biochar, which is basically a fancy scientific name for charcoal, is produced when plant matter—tree leaves, branches and roots, cornstalks, rice husks, peanut shells—or other organic material is heated in a low-oxygen environment (so it doesn’t catch fire). Like compost, all of these materials contain carbon: The plants inhaled it, as carbon dioxide, in the process of photosynthesis. Inserting biochar in soil therefore has the effect of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it underground, where it will not contribute to global warming for hundreds of years.

Johannes Lehmann, a professor of agricultural science at Cornell, is one of the world’s foremost experts on biochar. He has calculated that if biochar were added to 10 percent of global cropland, it would store 29 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent—an amount roughly equal to humanity’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. This approach would take advantage of a physical reality often overlooked in climate policy discussions: the capacity of the Earth’s plants and soils to serve as a climate “sink,” absorbing carbon that otherwise would be released into the atmosphere and accelerate global warming. Oceans have been the most important sink to date, but their absorption of CO2 is acidifying the sea—threatening the marine food chain—and raising water temperatures, which is causing sea levels to rise (because warm water expands). Meanwhile, the Earth’s plants and soils already hold three times as much carbon as the atmosphere does, and scientists believe that they could hold a great deal more without upsetting the balance of natural systems.

Using photosynthesis and agriculture to extract carbon should not be confused with other methods that sound similar, such as “carbon capture and sequestration.” CCS, as experts call it, is a technology that would capture carbon dioxide released when a power plant burned coal (or, in theory, other fossil fuels) to generate electricity. A filter would collect the CO2 before it exited the smokestack; the CO2 would then be transformed into a solid and stored underground. CCS assumes that coal burning would continue; the CCS technology would simply cancel out most of the CO2 emissions this coal burning would produce—and that’s assuming the technology will actually work. So far, no nation on Earth has managed to operate a commercially viable CCS plant, despite an estimated $25 billion in subsidies.

Continue Reading »

Excerpt from:

Could Photosynthesis Be Our Best Defense Against Climate Change?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, Hoffman, Landmark, ONA, organic, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Could Photosynthesis Be Our Best Defense Against Climate Change?

Philippe Van Den Bossche & Overall Affect By Organic Products

To say that eating organic is most healthful is definitely an understatement. There are those who may indulge every now and then while others have tailored their entire diets around this, which is brilliant, in my view. They understand what is needed in order to make the most of their lives and eating well should be a given. However, there is an audience that may not understand everything that there is to know, though authorities like Philippe van den Bossche may be able to relay some surprising information.

I have to say that there are a number of items which can be considered organic, some of them more popular than others. I remember when “Honest Tea” started to make strides and how many individuals started to invest in it. Once I had the chance to taste some of it for myself, I was happy to say just how satiating it could be. For those who don’t think much of these natural items, you may want to set aside such reservations because they could prove worthy of the investment.

I believe that these items are immensely useful, which is a statement that Philippe van den Bossche can attest to as well. Such authorities know how well these items can come into play and I believe that they should be learned about as a result. These products are excellent and I don’t think that anyone will be able to disagree with such a sentiment. In fact, you may just find that they can help you in terms of a new lifestyle, which is recognized by Philippe as well.

Medical Daily recently reported on the importance of organic items in terms of Parkinson’s disease. They seemed to actually prevent the condition and this was due to the lower instances of pesticides, for ones. Apparently, farmers have put this to use in great amounts, especially considering that they are involved in the cultivation of various crops. With more natural methods of growth put into effect, though, it doesn’t seem like it does anything but good for those who are willing to invest in purer products.

To say that going organic is the best course of action would be something of an understatement. To me, it sounds like the best kind of change that anyone can make in their lives and being able to eat healthier is already an endorsed method. All you have to do is look at the actions that Philippe van den Bossche has taken to make sure that this is brought to the forefront. It’s apparent that it is supported for good reasons and it’d be wrong not to try it even once.

If you are seeking more information about Philippe van den Bossche, click here today!. Check here for free reprint license: Philippe Van Den Bossche & Overall Affect By Organic Products.

Posted in organic | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Philippe Van Den Bossche & Overall Affect By Organic Products

Fracking industry cleanup workers exposed to benzene in Colorado, feds allege

Fracking industry cleanup workers exposed to benzene in Colorado, feds allege

judylcrook

Parachute Creek

We told you about the drawn-out spill of 241 barrels of natural gas liquids earlier this year at a Williams Energy plant that handles fracked gas in Colorado. It turns out that Parachute Creek and its wildlife weren’t the only things exposed to cancer-causing benzene because of the accident.

The toxic contents of the mess were kept secret from workers sent to excavate it, and the workers were not kitted out with the proper safety equipment.

That’s according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which fined a Williams Energy subsidiary and two other companies a total of $27,000 this week for what it described as “serious violations” related to the cleanup work. From The Denver Post:

As workers began digging for super-concentrated hydrocarbons, the companies “did not inform (them) of the nature, level and degree of exposure likely as a result of participation in such hazardous waste operations,” OSHA documents said.

Workers dug trenches along the pipeline, west of Parachute Creek, to find and remove toxic material, documents said. “This condition potentially exposed employees to benzene and other volatile organic compounds.”

The Glenwood Springs Post Independent has more details, including news of an apparent two-month coverup by Williams Energy. The newspaper reports that the company knew about the leak in January, but failed to report it to the state until March:

The leak is attributed to a blown pressure valve on a pipeline leading from a nearby Williams natural-gas processing plant. Williams officials at the time maintained that the amounts of spilled fluids was not enough to warrant being reporting to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), the state’s oversight agency concerning oil and gas drilling activities.

But by March, the amount of spilled natural gas liquids had expanded and ultimately was estimated to amount to 10,000 gallons of hydrocarbons contaminating nearby soil, groundwater and — in small amounts — the waters of Parachute Creek itself.

In early April, four workers complained to the Post Independent that they had been working at the plume site for Badger Daylighting, a contractor hired for the cleanup, without the proper protective gear and breathing apparatus.

Tell us again what’s so great about this fracking boom?

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

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

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit source: 

Fracking industry cleanup workers exposed to benzene in Colorado, feds allege

Posted in alo, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fracking industry cleanup workers exposed to benzene in Colorado, feds allege

Colorado’s oil and gas boom is polluting the state’s air

Colorado’s oil and gas boom is polluting the state’s air

Shutterstock

Frackers and drillers are sullying Colorado’s air.

The oil and gas industry isn’t just polluting the water in Colorado. It’s also fouling the air.

The 50,000 oil and gas wells in the state are collectively pumping hundreds of tons of pollution into the air every day, making the drilling industry the state’s largest source of airborne volatile organic compounds and third-largest source of nitrogen oxides. That’s according to a report in The Denver Post:

Colorado health officials are mobilizing to deal with air pollution from oil and gas industry sources that emit at least 600 tons of contaminants a day. …

But as the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment emphasizes balance as it edges toward possible new rules to reduce pollution, Front Range residents increasingly are riled by a lack of scientific certainty about whether emissions harm their health.

Anti-drilling groups are making health fears the focus of campaigns against drilling near communities. …

A nine-member panel of air quality control commissioners appointed by Gov. John Hickenlooper would vote on any proposed air pollution rules. …

Industry officials from Encana Corp. are already reviewing and commenting on proposed CDPHE rules, “giving input on what kinds of reductions are possible, given current technologies,” spokeswoman Bridget Ford said.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan reports that three-quarters of recent air pollution enforcement cases in the state were related to the oil and gas sector:

Of the 98 air pollution enforcement cases the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, or APCD, handled in January, February and March, 73 involved oil and natural gas production, exploration or transmission companies, a Coloradoan analysis of the quarterly air quality enforcement summary report shows.

Most of the state’s enforcement actions against oil and gas companies involved emissions and reporting violations.

Of the 12 penalties the state assessed against air quality regulations violators, nine were levied against oil and gas companies.

The fact that only nine of the 73 oil industry violations have so far resulted in fines might offer a clue as to why frackers and drillers continue to flagrantly pollute the air — and it reminds us that new rules will only help if they are enforced.

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

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link – 

Colorado’s oil and gas boom is polluting the state’s air

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Colorado’s oil and gas boom is polluting the state’s air