By: Sharon Franklin
When their children in Johnson County, a suburban Indianapolis community fell ill with cancer, no one had heard of Glioblastoma, Ewing’s Sarcoma, or Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia. Now, families in a county that voted overwhelmingly for President Trump are making demands of his administration that collide directly with one of his main agendas: rolling back health and environmental regulations.
A community group in Franklin, Indiana documented at least 58 cases of childhood cancer, including blood and brain cancer since 2008.
Families and residents started asking whether the cancer cases are related to contamination. These concerns about contamination and childhood cancer prompted the involvement of state and federal agencies. The findings from EnviroForesensics showed that cancer-causing chemicals were found in the groundwater, which originated from at least one former industrial site, Amphenol, which had a history of contamination problems. The main contaminants in question were trichloroethylene, or TCE, and tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, which the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) have said cause cancer in humans. According to the EnviroForensics report, the chemicals and levels found “show that additional work is necessary to determine the extent of the groundwater and soil gas impacts south of the former Amphenol site.”
How did the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) respond to the residents of Johnson County, Indiana? The USEPA commissioned the IWM CONSULTING GROUP, LLC to prepare an Offsite Work Plan by December 21, 2018. According to the Workplan, the preliminary laboratory results will be supplied to representatives from the USEPA as soon as possible once the information has been received and reviewed. Then the analytical results will be validated by a third party and the validation will be included the letter report being submitted to the USEPA. The letter report will summarize the sampling activities, results, and make recommendations regarding the need for additional sampling or investigation activities.
The families of Johnson County who represent a cross-section of the political spectrum have also spoken out against the Trump administration’s drive to weaken restrictions on TCE, a colorless fluid with a subtle, sweet odor used by as many as four-fifths of the nation’s 65,000 dry cleaners, as well as about 2,200 factories and other facilities. Steve Barnett, Franklin, Indiana’s mayor and a Republican, said “When it comes to public health, we can go against party lines. And I don’t agree with trying to roll back the EPA.’s role,” “Back in the day, there weren’t any rules. That’s why there was so much contamination.”
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
By: Daisy Clennon
This past Wednesday, the 16th of January, was Andrew Wheeler’s EPA confirmation hearing. The hearing came at a controversial moment: in the midst of the longest-ever government shutdown, and with no immediate reason to confirm the acting administrator as the official EPA head. For this reason, the hearing was criticized by Democrats for wasting time that could be better spent finding a shutdown solution. Furthermore, Wheeler had some of the EPA staff who were deemed “essential personnel” help him prepare for the hearing. Democrats and environmentalists found this frustrating, as they thought there were more “essential” tasks for the fraction of still-working EPA staffers.
Agency nominees are confirmed by the Senate, and since Republicans hold the majority, it is almost certain that Wheeler will be confirmed. Wheeler became acting head of the EPA when Scott Pruitt resigned over the summer. Pruitt was a high profile figure in the Trump Administration and was well known for his lawsuits with EPA prior to becoming its administrator. Since Wheeler is about to be confirmed, let’s take a look at his record and at his confirmation hearing.
Wheeler was Pruitt’s deputy and has been acting head of EPA since July of 2018. His first foray into the environmental world was in 1991, as a special assistant for the EPA’s toxics office. Wheeler then worked with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public works in different roles, two of which were Chief Counsel for Senator Jim Inhofe, and Chief Counsel to the Committee itself. In these roles, Wheeler worked in favor of industry deregulation. Senator Inhofe is notoriously anti-climate change and well known for bringing a snowball to the Senate floor to prove that climate change isn’t real. After working as Chief Counsel, Wheeler spent nearly a decade as a coal lobbyist. He defended some of the most prominent coal lobbying firms in the United States.
During his confirmation hearing, Wheeler stated that he would try to implement the Trump Administration’s environmental agenda and that he would stick to Pruitt’s plan for the EPA. Wheeler also refused to criticize Pruitt in any way. Fortunately, Wheeler does admit that climate change is real and that people have impacted the climate. Despite this acknowledgement, Wheeler was not prepared to make any changes to deal with climate change. He said that as Administrator, the EPA would follow the directive of Congress in terms of environmental laws, but would not go further. The vast majority of legislation surrounding environmental issues came out of the 1960s and 1970s. While climate change was on the horizon by this point (the issue was first discovered in the 1800s, confirmed by 1860, and was further researched throughout the 1900s) the vast majority of our environmental legislation does not deal with what is arguably the worst crisis humanity has ever faced.
Instead, the Trump Administration’s directive is to continue the deregulation of industries. Scientists have found that following the Trump Administration’s environmental plan is worse than doing absolutely nothing at all. This is reminiscent of the Reagan Administration’s environmental rollbacks of the 1980s. The EPA, then lead by Anne Gorsuch, dismantled many of the environmental successes of the Carter and Nixon administrations, implemented harsh budget cuts, and worsened the bureaucratic complexities of the agency.
The ties Wheeler and Pruitt have to the corporations EPA is supposed to regulate brings up the concept of regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is when a government agency works in favor of the industries it was created to regulate. In an analysis by the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, it was determined that there was a systematic shift in the influence of corporations over the first year of the Trump administration. Wheeler has shown no initiative in deviating from this agenda.
At such a crucial time in history, it is obvious that at the very least, an EPA administrator should have no ties to the corporations that have changed the very chemistry of our planet. In order to make much needed change, in order to protect the communities that have been destroyed by toxins, in order to protect communities dealing with climate change-exacerbated natural disasters, in order to protect the water supplies that are rapidly becoming a scarcity, and in order to make the United States a leader in the greatest global crisis we have faced, we need to have an Environmental Protection Agency administrator who wants to protect the environment.
By: Katie Pfeifer
According to US Energy Information Administration (US EIA), more coal plants in the US were retired in President Trump’s first 2 years in office than the whole of Former President Barack Obama’s first term. This is despite lawmaker’s and Trump’s efforts to “revive” the industry, one of Trump’s key campaign promises during the election. Recently released data shows more than 23,400 MW of coal fired power plants were shuttered in 2017-2018 compared to 14,900 MW shut down between 2009-2012.
This shouldn’t be too much of a shock, since coal has been on the decline since 2011, when the industry hit its peak. Coal will continue to decline as inexpensive natural gas and renewables, as well as consumer demand for cleaner forms of energy generation. In 2017, Energy Secretary Rick Perry ordered a grid study to asses the stability and reliability of our nation’s grid, with a focus on renewables effecting the reliability of the grid. The results of the study pointed to cheap natural gas as the culprit for the retiring coal and nuclear plants. The study as concluded that closure of said plants does not affect the grid negatively, in fact, the grid is more diverse and reliable as ever.
Still after the release of the study, Trump ordered Perry to stop the shutdown of coal and nuclear plants by creating a plan to order grid operators to favor certain plants, in the name of national security. The plan would also exempt those plants from environmental regulations and laws. It would cost billions for the plan to work and would only cost more as time goes on. The health impacts of the plan would be harmful for people and the environment. Luckily, the plan was shot down after push back from utilities and lawmakers.
Coal is not only economically inefficient, it’s downright dangerous and detrimental to human health. Coal mines are known to be dangerous workplaces, in 2010 an explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia killed 29 miners. In 2017, 15 coal miners were killed due to accidents in the workplace. The health of miners and surrounding mine communities is in decline along with the industry. According to research, mortality rates, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and birth defects are all increased in and around areas that mine coal. In 2014, Researchers made a link between the toxic dust from mountain top coal removal and growth of lung cancer cells in nearby communities. As the cost of renewables plummet, a bigger shift towards clean energy has started and will continue for generations to come.
By: Sharon Franklin
As we look back at the holiday season, it is only a reminder to Mike Dunn of the health issue his wife Sandy encountered, who was a 40-year employee of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Mike is reminded of the 2008 Christmas Eve when Sandy left their Alcoa, Tennessee home and her family and headed to the Kingston Fossil Plant, where 7.3 million tons of coal ash was spilling from a busted dike. Sandy knew nothing about coal ash, even though she worked in the safety division of the largest producer of coal ash in the nation.
Six years later, Sandy was dead, poisoned, her family says, by coal ash dust that her bosses said was safe. According to the Dunn family today, more than 30 workers at the clean-up site are now dead, and more than 250 are sick, and many more may be sick.
Coal ash contamination and its affects are also being reported in other areas, such as the one reported by Molly Samuel, a reporter at WABE, an Atlanta, Georgia Public Broadcasting radio station. Ms. Samuel reported that the toxic coal ash pollutants are leaking into groundwater from 92 percent of Georgia coal-fired power plants, according to an analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice.
The report Georgia At a Cross Roads documents widespread groundwater contamination at Georgia’s coal ash dumpsites It reports that eleven of the state’s 12 coal-fired power plants are leaking pollution into the state’s underground water supplies, and 10 of these 11 polluting plants are owned by a single company, Georgia Power. The report outlines the effects of coal ash, and explains the hazardous brew of toxic pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, radium, selenium and other toxic elements. The toxic elements in coal ash can cause cancer, heart disease, reproductive failure and stroke, and can inflict lasting brain damage on children. Additionally, the report noted that Georgia Power owns all of the contaminated waste sites that are located near lakes and rivers. The Environmental Integrity Project attorney Abel Russ, one of the authors of report said “Georgia is at a crossroads with respect to the toxic legacy of coal-burning.”
The report concluded that “We do not know the extent to which the tested groundwater is used for drinking, but regardless of use, these levels represent a significant deterioration of water quality by coal ash. Releases of these pollutants to the environment are particularly troublesome, because once they leach into groundwater, the harmful pollutants do not go away or degrade over time.”
If you think the last two years were bananas, 2019 is going to be a real doozy.
My colleague, James Mumm at People’s Action Institute, wrote this insightful forward looking piece and thought I’d share it with you. I spent the last few hours of 2018 thinking about what we need to do next year to defeat Trump and Trumpism. We played solid defense this year. We created a #PeoplesWave to take back the House and many states in the midterms. But Trump is still president and McConnell and the GOP have a stronger grasp on the Senate.
Here is what I know. Trump blames everyone but himself when things go wrong. Now that the economy is off the rails thanks to his erratic international and domestic actions, he is pointing fingers in every direction except where it belongs (squarely at himself).
Trump tries to act big because he feels small inside. His edifice complex will not bring him the love of his mother or father, nor the majority of the American people. Truth is, his world is very small. A shrinking circle of yes men and women, campaign rallies with diehard fans, and a chorus of Fox News right-wing extremists.
If you think the last two years were bananas, 2019 is going to be a real doozy. With an incoming Democratic majority in the House and Mueller’s investigation coming to a crescendo, the walls are closing in on Trump. His entire world is shrinking and that makes him panic.
- Trump will double down on anti-immigrant white nationalist populism.Trump is going to lash out with all the power of his office against immigrants, women, LGBTQ communities, people of color, low-income families. We will need to play ferocious defense against these attacks.
- The Trump 2020 campaign will swing into high gear and make us all fear that he could win again.I learned a hard lesson in 2016. Michael Moore and my mom both said that Trump was going to win. I scoffed. Well, I scoff no more. This could happen and it terrifies me (you too I bet).
- Trump’s instability and chaos will cause a recession.One year ago, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan rammed their tax scam through Congress. The result? Big corporations gave CEOs and investors one trillion dollars in the form of stock buybacks. The tax scam did not create jobs; it made millionaires and billionaires wealthier while creating a mountain of public debt that the rest of us have to pay off. Trump took a lot of unwarranted credit for the economy when it was booming. Now Trump will have to own the coming recession. And the next Democratic president will have to do something bold (see next prediction) to pull America out of a spiraling crisis.
- The word of the year in 2019 will be “Green New Deal.”This is a bold idea that Democratic presidential contenders will be wise to endorse. A Green New Deal that is 100% Just is a total winner. 100% Just means 100% renewable energy and 100% equitable for the communities of color and low-income communities on the frontlines of climate change. This could be the answer to how we save people and planet at the same time.
- Lightning will strike twice and the #PeoplesWave will continue with thousands of fearless progressive women, people of color and young people running for (and winning) local office. There are thousands of city council, county, school board, and more elections happening across the country next year. The country is changing from the bottom up and there is nothing that Trump and the GOP can do about that.
Excitement is building among environmentalists as Washington prepares for the arrival of new lawmakers elected by the #PeoplesWave. Led by New York Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, these insurgents promise to infuse new energy into the movement for climate justice.
By Ben Ben Ishibashi, People’s Action Network
Ocasio-Cortez, through a series of high-profile public protests and statements, has focused the minds and hearts of activists, and laid down a gauntlet for the Democratic Party.
Now is the time, she says, for a Green New Deal that confronts climate change head-on with bold solutions that can fundamentally alter our nation’s course on both the environment and rising income inequality through a real commitment to renewable energy.
Last month, she led over a thousand young people in three simultaneous sit-ins at Democratic leadership offices on Capitol Hill to demand action on climate change.
“This is going to be the New Deal, the Great Society, the moon shot, the civil-rights movement of our generation,” she said.
36 members of Congress have already joined her call to action. On Friday, more than 300 local officials signed an open letter of support, adding to the thousands of young people from the Sunrise Movement who helped coordinate the Capitol Hill protests.
But what exactly is a Green New Deal? More importantly, what should it be?
At People’s Action, we often find ourselves at the front lines with those most affected by environmental injustice. We know that a new energy economy must go far beyond simply replacing fossil fuels.
We welcome this new influx of excitement and resources to the fight for environmental justice. We invite new lawmakers to join us in working to pass and implement policies that address our needs for a just and equitable energy transition – to an economy that is not only 100 percent renewable, but also 100 percent just: an economy that puts those most affected by our climate crisis, people of color and the working class, at the center of our new economy.
At present, the Green New Deal is a proposal – a statement of intent, really – to create a Select House Committee with House members who have never taken money from the fossil-fuels industry. This committee will draft legislative language for the Green New Deal by March 1, 2020.
Goals include a dramatic expansion of renewable power to meet 100 percent of national power demand through renewable sources, upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural transportation and other industries, and making the U.S. a global leader in the creation and export of “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services.
In order to be 100 Percent Just, any Green New Deal must include truly renewable fuels, democratizing the grid, and an end to “sacrifice zones” where Black and Brown communities disproportionately bear the human costs of dirty energy extraction.
Good green jobs must be created both for communities that have survived decades of disinvestment, as well as those communities that now depend on extraction.
We have an opportunity – indeed, an obligation – to transform our energy economy so we can not just meet the challenges of climate change, but also transform our economy overall to put people and planet before profits.
A 100 Percent Just Green New Deal goes far beyond good intentions: it frames justice and equity as necessary components that make this project strategically possible. It mandates that dirty energy pollution end by the earliest date, spelling out clearly and intentionally how this happens.
It must include a plan for investment and reparations for communities that have been sacrificed on the altar of polluter profits. And this commitment to equity must be part of the structure of the plan – from the very first resolution, establishing the first House Select Committee, all the way through to final bill language and commitment to follow through with jobs, training, accessibility and investment for working class people and communities of color.
This means a 100% Just Green New Deal not only mandates that we stop burning fossil fuel for energy by 2030, but that we fully end the extraction fossil fuels and other forms of dirty energy by 2025, and do so in a way that doesn’t leave extraction workers or their communities in the lurch.
A 100% Just Green New Deal will mandate that we phase out fossil fuel energy, but will also require that that this starts with the closure and reclamation of the dirtiest power plants, located in the communities most overburdened by pollution.
We must commit to and adopt the principle that the residents of sacrifice zones that have most borne and bear the burdens of dirty energy now become the first to receive benefits of the new, democratic and non-extractive economy.
A 100% Just Green New Deal doesn’t just offer a blanket promise of good green jobs and training for everyone, it will ensure that jobs training programs and investments in job creation are targeted and available first to the communities that need them most.
The Green New Deal, in its current form, aspires to some of these things, but not all of them. We know this is a work in progress, and welcome this influx of new energy, but we know there is much more work to be done.
For the United States is to position itself globally as a green technology leader, we must push for the kinds of broader restructuring of international trade and global economic structures that will lay the ground for a truly equitable, just and transformative global economy.
Finally, any 100% Just Green New Deal must include the voices of those who are directly impacted. The people who are closest to the problems of sacrifice zones, the consequences of extractive industries and the private monopoly control of energy, must be invited into the process of drafting and proposing solutions that flesh out this bold new framework.
Their voices must be heard, and it is up to our new lawmakers to put their vision, needs and priorities at the heart of this exciting new process from its beginning through to the end.
Are Real or Artificial Trees Better for the Environment?
By: Katie Pfeifer
Real or artificial Christmas trees, which is better for the environment? This question seems to come up every year around the holiday season. There are many factors that go into making an environmentally friendly choice this season depending on what environmental and health factors matter most to you. A recent article from the NY Times citing information from studies from both the American Christmas Tree Association, which represents manufacturers of artificial Christmas trees, and the National Christmas Tree Association, which represents US Christmas tree farmers gives good insight to the debate.
First, the case for a real Christmas tree. Not only the classic, but real trees are also are great for the economy. Real Christmas trees are crops that farmers grow for the purpose of being cut down. According to the National Christmas Tree Association, which represents Christmas tree farmers, there are currently over 350 million Christmas trees growing in the US by farmers and it takes about 7-10 years for a tree to grow. When it is cut down, the farmer will typically plant a one to three seedlings in its place the following spring. Over 100,000 people are gainfully employed in the US Christmas tree farming industry at over 15,000 farms. The industry provides plenty of jobs and helps stimulate the economy. More than 80% of fake Christmas trees are manufactured in China, buying a real tree helps support American jobs and local economy.
Real Christmas trees are also great for the environment. They clean the air and also provide crucial ecosystems and watersheds to wildlife. They also grow best on hilly land that is unsuitable for other crops. Tree farms cover over 350,000 acres, assisting in land preservation. As long as Americans continue to buy real trees, the land is protected from being sold to developers. Best of all, real trees are compostable and recyclable. There are over 4,000 Christmas tree recycling programs in the US. One of the most successful is Mulch Fest in New York City, an event that the city holds to collect thousands of trees to mulch for use in public parks.
As for artificial Christmas trees, the National Christmas Tree Association, which represents Christmas tree manufacturers, says that fake trees are the more environmentally friendly way to go. According to their sustainability life cycle assessment, if you use and keep the tree for longer than 5 years, its environmental impact is less than that of purchasing a real tree every year. The typical family will keep a tree between 6-9 years before throwing it away. While the impact may be slightly less based on purchasing a new real tree every year, artificial trees will ultimately end up in landfills across America. Fake trees are primarily petroleum based and made of PVC, metals, and chemical adhesives. These materials can have toxic health risks, some artificial trees even tested positive for traces of lead. When dumped into a landfill these toxins can start to leech adding to environmental issues. Some artificial trees require special labeling thanks to California prop 65. The label states: “This product contains chemicals including lead, known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm”. That’s a scary thing to have present in your home and around your family.
While the debate will continue it’s good to know that no matter how they are disposed of, real or artificial, Christmas trees only account for less than 0.1% of the average person’s annual carbon footprint. Happy Holidays from all at CHEJ!
Categories
State Stops Plan to Burn PFAS Waste
The state of Vermont changed its mind about sending about 2,500 gallons of the hazardous fire depressant known as PFOA and PFOS to a hazardous waste incinerator, when it discovered that the operator of the plant had been cited for numerous clean air violations. The Heritage Thermal Services incinerator in East Liverpool, OH has consistently and repeatedly been in violation of federal and state environmental laws and has been a Significant and Habitual Non-Complier of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and High Priority Violator of the Clean Air Act continuously for years. For the past three years running, for the 12 consecutive quarters from October 2014 to today, Heritage Thermal Services has been and continues to be a High Priority Violator of the Clean Air Act due to the release of excessive amounts of hazardous air pollutants and hydrocarbons. That’s 100% of the time. This is an increase over the three (3) year period from 2010 to 2012 when Heritage Thermal Services was a High Priority Violator 67% of the time.
What’s odd about the decision to burn this waste is that the very reason this family of chemicals are used by fire fighters is that it suppresses flames and is difficult to burn. It’s very likely that the much of the PFAS waste that would be burned in an incinerator would end up going out the smokestack creating air pollution problems.
The state changed its mind once it learned about Heritage’s track record. There was also public pressure from local citizens groups in Vermont who raised significant concerns about burning foam at a hazardous waste incinerator. Alonzo Spencer of the local groups Save Our County in East Liverpool credited the Conservation Law Foundation which has an office in Vermont with stopping the delivery of the waste. “I would like to personally thank Jen Duggen [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][Vermont director of CLF]. Heritage was on the verge of accepting waste from Vermont that Heritage couldn’t handle correctly. It was Duggan’s Foundation that opposed that. That waste would have been on its way now if she hadn’t intervened,” Spencer told a local paper.
The ingredients of these fire-fighting foams have been found to be toxic. PFOS and PFOA belong to a class of compounds called PFAS chemicals that have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, developmental problems in children and immune system problems. They were banned for use by fire departments in the early 2000s and have become an emerging drinking water contaminant across the country. An estimated 110 million Americans have PFAS in their water according to a report by the Environmental Working Group. There are 32 military sites and 17 private sites contaminated with PFAS that are on the federal Superfund list. For more, <read here>.
Alonzo Spencer told his local paper, “The city has been spared a ‘disaster.’”[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
Forty years ago, on October 4th, a beautiful child at the age of seven was taken from his family. Why? Because he played in his own backyard. Unknown to anybody, this backyard was contaminated with chemicals. Jon Allen was a special little boy who at the age of seven was always kind and considerate to everyone. Two weeks before he died his mother made cupcakes for him to take to school to celebrate his seventh birthday. He was concerned because he knew one of his classmates had some dietary restrictions and would not be able to eat a cupcake. He was only satisfied when his mother told him that his classmate had a treat for the day. This was Jon, always concerned about others, not himself. I keep thinking that the world lost this compassionate little boy because of corporate greed and government’s failure to protect American families.
Many people hear the words “Love Canal” and they think about toxic chemicals in the environment. Some people know the story while others just identify with the name which has become synonymous with toxic chemicals and harmful health effects on people. Most people, even if they know the detailed story behind the words, Love Canal, don’t understand the real cultural, scientific, public policy and practice that this event shaped.
In honor of little Jon Allen and the 40th anniversary of Love Canal, I want to highlight the extraordinary impact this local fight made on American history, regulations and practice.
First and foremost, the events demonstrated the incredible power of our country’s democracy. An average working class and working poor community, united together, spoke truth to power, demanding that our government which was elected and established to protect the people, do just that. Holding elected representatives accountable resulted in the President of the United States to traveling to Love Canal providing the resources needed to end the suffering of 800 families. Neither the lawyers, scientists, nor existing laws and regulations provided the pathway to victory. They were just tools within the community’s toolbox. It was the people, organized and willing to risk everything that created the power for change.
Secondly, the Love Canal crisis opened new scientific explorations around public health effects and environmental chemical exposures. Prior to the events at Love Canal, most scientific research around chemical releases and impacts were done on the natural environment, wildlife and marine life. Rachel Carson’s work on how pesticides were destroying birds and other species is a critical example. There were also studies on lead exposures in the air and in paint as well as worker exposure, but these worker studies focused on 160 pound male employees exposed 40 hours a week. The scientific studies done by Dr. Beverly Paigen at Love Canal, connecting the 56% birth defect rate in the community to exposure of chemicals in homes and yards was groundbreaking new science. Later Paigen and Dr. Lynn Goldman studied growth and maturation of children, concluding that children’s growth was affected by living in this toxic community.
Since Love Canal there have been studies on endocrine disrupting chemicals, consumer products resulting in product bans, chemicals such as dioxins and PCBs, multiple chemical exposures, and much more. Prior to the studies at Love Canal, the exploration of science related to public health was slow and focused on a narrowly limited population and often on a single chemical.
Third, Love Canal open the eyes of the world to how dangerous our past practices and policies around disposal and releases of chemicals are to public health, especially in low wealth and communities of color. Soon after the events at Love Canal, researchers looked to see where other “like” toxic sites might be across the nation. Their studies demonstrated that the majority of toxic releases and disposal sites are located in low income and communities of color. This lead to the establishment of the Environmental Justice Movement and President Clinton’s Executive order of February 1994. This was the first major federal action on environmental justice in the United States and required that all federal agencies “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”
Last but not least, Love Canal was the impetus for a new federal program, called Superfund. This program provides resources to assess and cleanup toxic sites across the country making the responsible corporation pay the cleanup costs. What’s important about this program is that it allows EPA to recover costs from any and every company whose waste is found in the site. This clause made companies very nervous and created the incentive for some companies to find substitutes for the toxic chemicals they use, to recycle their wastes, and more. Another incentive that helped convinced corporations to change their nasty practices was the Right-to-Know amendment to the Superfund law in 1986 that allows anyone to search on-line and find out what a local corporation is releasing into the air.
Love Canal opened a pandora’s box of scientific inquiries, legal strategies, changes in corporate polluter’s practices, public health and environmental policies. However, none of those changes would have happened, if it was not for average American families standing up, not backing down, speaking truth to the powerful and forcing change. Love Canal families were not different than other communities. Most of families had someone working in the chemical industry that we were fighting, 240 families were poor, living in subsidized housing and no one would have thought they would ever carry a sign, march on city hall or be politically active. But they were.
This is a time in our country’s history, we need everyone to do what the Love Canal families did and stand up and speak out. Everything from health care to our planet’s health is at stake. No single person can change the future of America. We need everyone to stand tall and take risks and like the Love Canal events, we can change the direction, policy and practices of our great country. Democracy really works but only if you participate.
Categories
Solar in the US is Booming!
By: Katie O’Brien
Solar in the United States is booming! According to the most recent Solar Market Insight Report by Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), there are more than 58 Gigawatts (GW) of solar currently installed in the US. That’s enough to power over 11 million American homes! The amount of solar installed in the US generates enough power to offset more than 74 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, equivalent to taking 15.8 million vehicles off the road or planting 1.9 billion trees.
Solar is expected to keep growing in coming years…total installed capacity is expected to double by 2023. One of the fastest growing segments in the solar industry is community solar. Community solar is a large solar project shared by multiple community subscribers. These subscribers receive credits on their electricity bill for their portion of the power produced. This allows homeowners, renters, businesses and others who may not have the means or may not have the appropriate roof positioning/tree cover for their own systems. Community solar is also helping assist residents in low income communities. The in Fort Collins, CO is the largest low-income community solar project in the US. The 1.95 megawatt (MW) solar farm will directly benefit low income households, affordable housing providers and non profit organizations located in the utility’s service territory. The project is part of a Colorado state initiative to show the benefits of low income solar for utilities for their highest need customers. Community solar allows more people to share in the economic and environmental benefits of solar.
Solar is not just good for the environment, it’s great for the economy, especially compared to other forms of electricity generation. More than 250,000 Americans are employed in the US solar industry. In fact, solar employees more people than the gas, coal and oil industries combined. With installations expected to boom, more employees will be needed to assist in installation. The solar industry has also accounted for over $159.5 billion in investment into the economy, with over $17 billion alone in 2017. The cost of solar has also been recently found to be the same or cheaper than other forms of generation. With such low costs, high jobs numbers, and investment, it’s hard to understand why there are still so many solar opposers out there.
The solar industry is also refereed to as the “solar coaster”. With most regulation being done at the state level, the benefits of solar can vary immensely from state to state depending on guidelines set by regulators. Florida is known as the sunshine and ranks as one of the top states in the country for solar potential, yet they fall 12th in total installed capacity. This is mostly due to poor solar policy, driven in part by the lobbying efforts of greedy, monopolistic utilities. With solar policy now changing in the state, Florida is expected to rank 2nd in the country growth over the next 5 years, with over 5.1 MW forecasted to be installed. Florida will truly be the sunshine state in so many ways!
Continued growth in solar will help replace other forms of generation that can be not only costly, but their emissions deadly. To learn more about the solar industry visit www.seia.org