Just yesterday, the federal state of emergency in Flint, Michigan over lead-contaminated water expired. What comes next for a community continuing to deal with a public health crisis?
Residents in Flint have been understandably concerned about the August 14th deadline, as Michigan Radio reports. President Obama declared a Federal State of Emergency over Flint’s poisoned water on January 15th of this year, making 5 million dollars of federal money available to help with the crisis. With the state of emergency in place, the federal government has covered 75% of costs necessary for providing bottled water, filters, filter cartridges, and home testing kits to Flint residents. This aid isn’t going away, according to state officials; instead, the state will be picking up the tab for the necessary supplies –estimated to cost 3.5 million dollars a month, based on current water needs (approximately 10,000 cases of water a week.)
Will those needs remain steady, or have they reached their peak? Current testing suggests conditions in Flint are improving. NPR reports that Virginia Tech researchers, who first exposed the lead contamination, found no detectable levels in half of the homes they tested last month. One expert described Flint as “entering a range that’s considered normal for other U.S. cities.” Unfortunately, water contamination is not unique to Flint, and what’s considered ‘normal’ around the U.S. may simply not be safe enough.
Lead is not the only threat to water supplies across the United States. In addition to known and regulated contaminants, emerging contaminants that have yet to be evaluated may be impacting our water supplies. According to the EPA, many streams that supply water nationwide are not covered by clean-water laws. In an interview with the New York Times, Dr. Jeffrey K. Griffiths, a public health expert at Tufts University and former chairperson of the EPA’s Drinking Water Committee, noted that we have “lots of really good professionals in the water industry…but it doesn’t take much for our aging infrastructure or an unprofessional actor to allow that protection to fall apart.”
Given the financial aftermath of the Flint crisis, it’s unsurprising that some ‘unprofessional actors’ were hesitant to disclose the unsafe drinking water conditions. The cost of supplying water to Flint residents is just the beginning; Governor Snyder’s original application for federal aid estimated that as much as 55 million dollars would be needed to repair damaged lead service lines in Flint. The consequences are steep for a city whose crisis originated with a water supply switch intended to cut costs.
Most critically, the crisis in Flint has called into question the trust that we place in our federal, state and local officials to disclose threats to our safety presented by unsafe water. In Flint, the lead contamination persisted for years before it was discovered, and even longer before it was disclosed to the public. Even if water treatments and infrastructure repairs are ultimately successful and lead is undetectable in every Flint household, residents may never again trust their water supply, or the reports they are given about it by their local and state officials. Water can be treated and pipes can be replaced, but trust is much more difficult to repair. In the meantime, at least Flint residents will continue to have access to clean, bottled water. Whether they will trust their faucets again in the future is another matter entirely.
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
[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”]
The struggle for natural gas and oil continue each day. While we deplete our oil resources we look for new ways of finding oil such as fracking and importing more oil, but this oil flow is slowly, but surely drying up too. Our nation is looking to divest our energy production in other facets such as green energy, wind, water and solar and even nuclear energy, that uses uranium rods as a fuel source.
Nuclear energy has been used for decades and over that time we have seen many catastrophes and accidents such as Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant, in Pennsylvania or Fukushima Nagasaki Power Plant explosions in Japan, where residents are still threatened by toxic pollution and mass amounts of radiation. Not to mention, possibly the most famous disaster, Chernobyl Nuclear Site which is still abandoned and must be constantly monitored. Regardless of these disasters governments around the world claim nuclear is still very safe and good option to divest money away from natural gas.
In the US many states have chosen to renew expiring nuclear plant licenses and will continue to operate under federal standards. However, some are choosing to close their doors. In New Jersey, Oyster Creek Nuclear Facility has faced several difficulties and has determined the cost of updating safety standards and fixing operating issues would be more costly than just to end their licenses and permits early and close by 2019. In other states such as New York more and more nuclear power sites are feeling the same pressures. Exelon said the R. E. Ginna and Nine Mile Point nuclear plants will need to be shut down unless it receives financial help from NY state. Entergy, another nuclear power company, said that it would close the James A. FitzPatrick plant, which neighbors Nine Mile Point on the shore of Lake Ontario in Oswego County, by early next year. The costs are too high to remain open, but could cost the state and nation more if an accident happens or operating standards cannot be met.
The subsidies needed to keep these pants open will be immense and large in monetary value as well as impact. If these sites were to close the state will need to bring more energy from oil, coal and natural gas energy. Thus adding to the release of carbon emissions and pollution. Cuomo is all for these subsidies and bailouts in order to keep our energy consumption of oil and gas low. He even praised this work saying, “This Clean Energy Standard shows you can generate the power necessary for supporting the modern economy while combating climate change.”
So, the question stands, is nuclear power sucking America dry or is it filling our pockets with energy? You be the judge.
To find out more about current subsidies for New York nuclear plants click here: and to stay up to date with more environmental justice issues make sure to continue reading Backyard Talk- CHEJ’s Blog. [/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
It’s bad enough that lead is making headlines everywhere, but now a new group of chemicals is showing up in drinking water across the country – in Portsmouth, NH, Hoosick falls, NY, Scottsdale, AZ, Colorado Springs, CO, Decatur, AL, Bucks County, PA, Cape Cod, MA to name a few places. These chemicals are called perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs and they first generated headlines in the 1990s when they contaminated the drinking water for 70,000 people of Parkersburg, WV where a DuPont plant made teflon and related products for decades. Exposure to these chemicals is linked to developmental delays in children, decreased fertility, increased cholesterol, changes in the immune system, and cancer (prostate, kidney and testicular).
PFCs are quickly becoming the “hot” chemical to look for in drinking water as it seems to be showing up everywhere including places such as the Pease International Tradeport Business and Industrial Center in Portsmouth, NH. In the summer of 2014, the City of Portsmouth reported that two unusual chemicals were found in all three wells that serve the business center as well as the NH Air National Guard Base on the site of the old Pease Air Force Base. The concentration of one of these chemicals – perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) – exceeded the USEPA Provisional Health Advisory (PHA) causing the city to immediately shut down the well. PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are part of the class of chemicals known as perfluorinated compounds, and they are starting to show up in drinking water wells throughout the country.
PFCs are common in many consumer products, including teflon pans, fabric protectors, pizza boxes and ski wax and it is used to make carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture. They are also used to fight fires and in a number of industrial processes. At the Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, the water became contaminated when firefighters practiced putting out fires on abandoned portions of the airbase using firefighting foams that contained PFCs.
PFOA and PFOS contamination in drinking water is thought to stem from two main sources: factories that formerly manufactured or used the chemicals, and locations, including military bases, where they were used in firefighting foams. According to the EPA, both PFOA and PFOS are found at very low levels in the blood of the general population across the U.S.
Although no one lives at the Tradeport Center, more than 10,000 people work there and there are two day care centers. The people who use the daycare centers immediately formed a Facebook page called “Testing for Pease” and began asking for blood testing for the children. Soon more than 500 adults and children had their blood tested for PFCs and many had levels that were higher than the general population. More blood testing is now underway as the community struggles to make sense of the results and what it means for their future. The health effects of PFCs are not well understood but studies in communities with similar exposures found associations with kidney cancer and testicular cancer. Other concerns includes high cholesterol, immune damage and possible reproductive effects.
In May of this year, the EPA finalized its Health Advisory for PFOA and PFOS lowing its advisory value from 400 and 200 respectively to 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for both compounds combined. This level was based on a lifetime exposure to total PFCs. This change followed criticism from researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health that the original PHA was not adequately protective of the public. This health advisory is based on long term exposure to PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.
CHEJ has prepared fact sheets on the toxicity of these chemicals and on the how to interpret blood levels. Both were prepared as part of our work with the local residents in Portsmouth, NH.
Don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about PFCs including how to interpret test results.
Categories
An Issue We Can All Get Behind
Every blog I have written during my time at the CHEJ has focused on or mentioned the West Lake Landfill. No wonder, considering how the majority of my work here has dealt with promoting awareness about the landfill. But the reason why I continue to write about it is because the inaction and inattentiveness shown by some public officials towards this issue angers me.
There is no excuse for delaying the clean-up of a toxic waste site that poses a threat to public health and potentially threatens the community’s water source. When a Tea Party Republican like Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer and Progressive Democrat like Lacy Clay can agree on the EPA’s mismanagement of West Lake, you know there’s a problem. No room for argument exists as to whether Superfund sites (those recognized by our government as hazardous and toxic) should be top priorities for our public officials. And yet Superfund sites languish across the country.
In addition to the West Lake Landfill, sites in San Jacinto, Texas and Birmingham, Alabama have gone unresolved. The San Jacinto Waste Pit received wastes from a nearby paper mill, depositing harmful dioxins “which are extremely toxic and can cause increased risk of cancer and other threats to human health such as liver damage and birth defects.” The waste pit is also directly near the San Jacinto River and puts the local environment and community drinking water at grave risk. And yet the EPA comes back with temporary cap plans rather than a plan towards a permanent solution. Similarly, the Birmingham community is dealing with the aftermath of the ABC Coke Plant’s pollution at the 35th Avenue Superfund Site. Containing contaminated soil and groundwater, the Birmingham Superfund site also remains an issue and shows the EPA’s preference for lip service over action on toxic waste sites.
Superfund issues have one clear answer: they must be a priority and any threat to families and the public must be immediately addressed. Every day that a site goes unaddressed is another day that a community is put at risk. It’s just common sense that communities should have access to safe, clean drinking water and not live near hazardous waste sites that have gone largely unaddressed by the government. Protecting communities from environmental disasters should be an issue we can all get behind.
Last week, we asked you on Twitter, Facebook, and through an e-mail to add your voice to an important discussion: what do you want to see from the next EPA administration? The results are in!
- Focus on environmental justice: 58 votes
- More direct efforts to make impactful resolutions: 32 votes
- Responsive leadership: 27 votes
- Transparent decision making: 26 votes
103 people participated in the survey. As you can see, some people put more than one answer– we should expect a lot from the EPA!
The most popular choice was a focus on environmental justice, with about 40% of the vote. It’s clear that the participants in this poll aren’t happy with the approach the EPA is taking towards environmental justice. The next EPA administration must adopt an mode of operation that protects everyone, especially those who need it most.
We’ve seen environmental injustice exemplified in Flint, where the EPA stayed silent, failing the people there who need clean water. It’s time for a new EPA to speak up. As this infographic from The Nation shows, “environmental racism is nothing new.”
More direct efforts to make impactful resolutions, responsive leadership, and transparent decision making all came in at about 20%. All of these qualities are the next EPA administrator must have, and that current administrator Gina McCarthy has often failed to exhibit.
With elections looming, it’s time for politicians– and for all of us– to know what we need from the new EPA for it to be effective in protecting our environment and the people in it. Let’s hold our candidates responsible for their power of appointing the new EPA administrator.
We are deep in the middle of an ugly and divisive election season with two presidential candidates regularly described by polls as the most unpopular in decades. This year’s partisan advertisements and speeches are enough to turn off anyone from politics. One could be forgiven for wondering if politicians can actually work together on an urgent issue that demands attention.
That’s why the cooperative tone currently shown by Missouri’s senators and congressional representatives on the outrage of the West Lake Landfill is such a breath of fresh air. The West Lake Landfill, a landfill containing radioactive waste right next to a landfill on fire, is owned by Republic Services and is a Superfund site managed by the EPA. The health and safety concerns of the community have taken a back seat to political self-interest due to agency concerns and Republic’s political influence over elected officials.
But rather than shamefully protect Republic Services or defend the EPA’s baffling inactivity, Missouri’s congressional delegation has taken a strong stance standing up for local Bridgeton community. After the tireless work of Dawn Chapman and Karen Nickel, two co-founders of the group Just Moms STL, Missouri’s elected officials both hear their concerns and have acted to fix the problem. Nearly one year ago, Senators Blunt and McCaskill and Representatives Clay and Wagner introduced H.R. 4100 to transfer authority over the cleanup from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers, an agency trusted by the Bridgeton community because they successfully remediated similar sites in the area. Blunt and McCaskill were able to unanimously pass the bill through the Senate, an action that is practically unheard of in a gridlocked Washington. Clay and Wagner testified at a Superfund hearing one week ago, forcefully denouncing the EPA’s inactivity and giving voice to a Bridgeton community concerned by West Lake’s current impact and its potentially catastrophic effects.
While these actions aren’t enough by themselves, they are without a doubt an achievement for concerned local activists like Chapman and Nickel. The bipartisan action on the landfill absolutely speaks to its pressing nature and proves that focusing on relocation of the families affected is an issue Democrats and Republicans can get behind. In a political era where bipartisan socializing let alone action is rare, the fact that the Missouri delegation is attempting to fix the long overdue problem at West Lake is admirable.
Just Moms STL is planning on fostering this bipartisan spirit by hosting an event in Maryland Heights on August 18th called the “West Lake Candidate Forum” where Democrats and Republicans will personally tell voters their plan to address the West Lake Landfill. We can only hope that more elected officials recognize that the people of Bridgeton need this issue to be immediately addressed and resolved.
Categories
Lead: Slowly Poisoning Our Country
[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”]
With news about flint’s water crisis still fresh in our minds, we continue to hear concerns from other communities about their water supplies. Recently, more than 72 Chicago public schools were found to have high levels of lead, well above EPA standards, in their water fountains and/or sinks. Nearly an additional 75 Chicago schools tested positive for lead in the water, but the levels were deemed “safe,” by EPA standard. This means these schools did test positive for lead, but the lead was less than 15 parts per billion, so students were allowed to continue school and be exposed to lead in the water. Out of all 500+ schools only 50 were lead free.
As we know lead has no safe level of exposure for children or adults alike. Lead is dangerous and can be fatal for the human body. Lead poisoning can damage one’s brain and nervous system, leading to issues with body function and control as well as mental illness. Issues with the stomach and the kidneys are common. Lead can also cause high blood pressure. However, little is being done to combat the leaded pipes and the illnesses linked to children who have been repeatedly exposed to leaded water. Several children have explained that they have been drinking from these highly contaminated sources multiple times each day during the school week leaving them especially vulnerable to lead leaching.
Since the Flint water crisis has come to the forefront, communities have started to take notice. With more and more cities doing more routine water testing, it is likely that more townships and school districts will find themselves in the same position wondering what to do to save their water and most importantly protect their children. As parents and educators fight for the health of the students blame alone will not be enough to combat the lead crisis. The EPA is approaching these issues slowly and ineffectively. The response to the communities is unjust and has left the people helpless. Especially parents of children from the 75+ affected Chicago public schools who are forced to continue sending their children to these schools each day where they are constantly exposed.
The EPA National Drinking Water Advisory Committee Working Group has recommended removal of all lead service lines as a public health priority, however this is a monumental project. One that will not be accomplished promptly or with enough time to truly make a difference. There is also the enormous cost burden which these communities cannot afford. Areas like Chicago and Flint still need help and they need it now. By shining light on all the affected communities across our country we can help grow support and action pushing the government to act fast and change its practices on removing lead from our waterways.
To keep a watchful eye on these topics and their progress head to CHEJ’S Facebook page, website, or to learn more click here.[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
Categories
Grassroots Green Hero: Eva Telesco
[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”]
Interview by Erin Allegro
Eva M. Telesco is a volunteer leader of Lancaster Against Pipelines working against Atlantic Sunrise Project, a proposed fracked-gas pipeline that would be double the size of most such pipelines — 42 inches in diameter and 1200 to 1500 PSI — leading to possible environmental disaster.
Telesco shared a few stories about her group’s work on the frontlines and how CHEJ has been of help to them with intern Erin Allegro recently.
Q: When did you first notice that the community was at risk due to the Atlantic Sunrise Project?
A: My husband and I didn’t learn about the Atlantic Sunrise Project until the fall of 2014. Other people in our community had known since that spring how dangerous it could be and how close it would be to our homes. When we first heard about it we said to each other “Oh, a pipeline? Aren’t they everywhere? Big deal.” Luckily, other people were more aware of the reality and the risks, and LAP was formed early in 2014 when the project was announced and the first scoping meetings happened.
Q: What did the county do to notify people of the problems with the pipeline that will carry fracking gas through five counties? What solutions or precautions were advised?
A: A lot of this happened before I had been involved, but in the township where I live, residents organized several town meetings. I learned about the pipeline at a community meeting at the fire hall. There were also a few township wide mailers, all funded by private citizens.
Conestoga residents just sent one out to advertise the walk and keep people up to date with the recent route changes and other news. Most of Lancaster Against Pipeline communication has been through the website, as well as Facebook and emails because we don’t have the money to do huge mailings. Our E-newsletter went out to give residents necessary information.
The township didn’t give us any solutions. The supervisors in our towns and all the neighboring towns generally, have been very unsupportive of our side. Even the fire hall meetings and mailings were initiated by private citizens. The township supervisors did not step up at all, and their stance was that they wanted to remain neutral, but in actuality it’s much more like they are siding with industry rather than residents and neighbors.
Q: What were some events experienced by community members?
A: In the spring of 2015, two of the affected townships [/fusion_builder_column][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”][Martic and Conestoga], tried to adopt home rule, a form of government that gives townships and individual voters more flexibility and more voice in the governing process, and would have hopefully allowed voters to pass a Rights Based Ordinance against the pipeline. Especially in the township where I live, the vote ended up being close, but we ended up losing in both townships.
That took a lot of time and energy and a lot of community meetings as well as door to door canvassing and working with voters. After this failed we moved to more of a countywide focus.
We started the Protect PA quilt project shortly after. We worked on getting groups and individuals to make quilt squares. We attended local fairs and car shows with a table with information about the pipeline, as well as supplies to make the quilt squares. Now the quilt is so large we have ten five-by-five panels. In March 2016, when we completed our tenth panel and the quilt reached 50 feet, the same distance as the permanent right-of-way for the proposed pipeline, we held a press conference at a local farm that would be bisected by the pipeline. Last summer a lot of our work was based around this quilt project.
This spring, we were able to do outreach with affected landowners; more than 40 landowners in Lancaster County have not signed contracts with Williams, the pipeline company. We visit with information and little messages of encouragement. Last month, we gave out a small plant as a gift and this month we are giving out information about eminent domain and what it will look like for the affected landowners.
We are just trying to support the landowners and help them stand up to the Williams Company. There are some owners that are a part of our group and some who are resisting, but are not actively engaged with us. They want to be more private about it.
Two weeks ago, Conestoga residents organized a walk against the Pipeline. About 200 people came out to walk approximately 3.1 miles, starting at a landowners farm, continuing down Main Street and ending at the park. We were really excited about the turnout and there was great energy. We brought in some new people and had new volunteers as well as many more people joining! Last week, at the Lancaster FERC meeting we had a huge turnout. The newspapers estimated about 300 people came out, mostly in opposition to the pipeline. The meeting was very dramatic and contentious with a lot of people speaking out and adding great comments. The meeting ended with our supporters singing the FERC representatives off the stage.
Q: How has this issue affected you or your family specifically?
A: It has really opened my eyes to all kinds of other environmental issues that I was only a little bit aware of but kind of ignoring until it hit so close to home. It has turned our lives upside down; we are involved in some kind of pipeline activity 3-4 nights a week and we are spending probably 10-15 hours a week on pipeline related work. Our four-year-old son is coming to meetings and rallies with us and it’s absolutely crazy trying to balance activism and our normal lives.
Q: What media coverage and help of outside organizations were you able to secure? How has it changed the response?
A: The Sierra Club has been really supportive. They sent a mass email form letter to all regional Sierra Club members; individuals could submit the letter as is, or modify, during the comment period of the DEIS. The local media has been fairly involved with relatively good coverage. In their effort to remain unbiased the media has represented us well, but has also put in even-handed words on behalf of Williams as well.
We have also worked with many other groups, like the Clean Air Council and the Delaware River keepers. Locally, the Lancaster Conservancy and the Lancaster Farmland Trust have been very supportive. They made strong statements at the FERC meeting in Lancaster. Our allies have helped us to get good coverage in the media as well.
Q: What do you want other citizens to know as they move forward in their communities with similar issues with their local environment?
A:It’s very hard work, but it’s worth doing. People have to believe that we can stop pipelines! I think the current climate is starting to change. More folks are against these projects and we just have to keep fighting until leaders and politicians catch up. Anyone that wants to get connected please reach out! We are happy to offer advice, help others and attend events to help in any way we can.
Learn more about grassroots heroes on the front lines who work with CHEJ by staying up to date on our blogs and signing up for our e-mails here. [/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
Categories
Brandywine MD Update
[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”]
This blog post was written by a former fellow, Katie O’Brien
Last year, I wrote a blog about the environmental racism taking place in Brandywine, MD after the state approved not one, but two gas-fired power plants in the small town. The town of Brandywine is 21 square miles and home to over 6,700 people, 72% of whom are African American. There is already one operating power plant in the town, and the construction of the two proposed plants will result in FIVE total fossil-fuel powered plants within 13 miles of Brandywine. The town sits within Prince George’s County, which is already in violation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s national air quality standards for ozone particulate. The company building one of the power plants, Mattawoman, has already stated that the site, combined with existing pollution, will cause “excessive levels of nitrogen oxide, which is linked to heart disease, asthma, and stroke”. The state of Maryland is home to 13 power plants, all of which are located in disproportionately black communities.
The Brandywine community and effected surrounding towns just recently gained some ground in their fight this June (2016) when a Federal investigation was launched by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation to investigate a possible Civil Rights Violation. The complaint was filed by Earthjustice on behalf of community residents, the Patuxent Riverkeeper, and the Brandywine TB Coalition. The power plants have an adverse impact on the majority African American surrounding community. The complaint states that the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Maryland Department of the Environment, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources “failed to assess whether the project would cause disparate impacts or explore alternatives to avoid such impacts”. If the investigation finds that disparate impact is taking place, Maryland agencies can be found in violation of the Civil Rights Act and risk the suspension of millions of dollars in grants to the State. Earthjustice Attorney Neil Gormley, who is leading the case says, “We all know it’s unfair to concentrate industrial pollution sources in particular communities, this decision to launch a federal investigation confirms that it’s also a civil rights issue.” The communities surrounding the proposed power plants have the right to clean air and water, despite what the state thinks.
To learn more visit Earthjustice’s website here or here:
To follow the community’s fight click here.[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
Categories
Fracking’s Methane Problem
It doesn’t take too long to scroll through the CHEJ blog roll to find multiple examples of the negative health impacts of hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking. But, even if fracking could be done in a manner that did not pollute and negatively impact the lives of some of America’s most vulnerable citizens, there is another very important reason why fracking may not be the energy solution that many of our leaders believe it is.
First, let’s take a step back and quickly discuss a major reason why fracking has been a focal point in our energy strategy over the last decade, climate change. Because hydraulic fracturing allows energy producers to access natural gas sources, mostly made up of methane, natural gas has the capacity to mitigate climate change. This is due to the fact that, when burned as a fuel, natural gas produces about half as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as coal. This has led many, including Obama, to adopt the strategy of using natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to replace the most carbon-intense sources, such as coal, while renewable technology, such as wind and solar become cheap enough to use on a grand scale.
Even if we ignore the poor record of pollution and injustice associated with fracking, there is another huge hurdle in this “bridge fuel” plan. There is a significant portion of fracked natural gas that is not being burned as fuel and is being released directly into the atmosphere as methane, a greenhouse gas that is over 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. This methane is often leaked into the atmosphere during the extraction process. Even with a minimal leakage rate, there is the potential that methane emissions are offsetting the climate benefits of natural gas and using the fuel could actually be worse for the climate than coal. This is particularly troubling, as it would mean a total failure of America’s climate change mitigation strategy over the last eight years.
Currently, the EPA reports very small leakage rates that are based on industry data. With this data, fracking might still pass this very important test. The only problem is that multiple studies have been produced just in the last five years that report much higher leakage rates and spell disaster for our climate as a result. A recent study by Harvard researchers reports leakage rates much higher than EPA numbers, and a 30 percent increase in methane emissions from 2002-2014.
Considering this troubling data about methane emission, not to mention the public health impacts of fracking, maybe it is time to give up this bridge fuel plan and start utilizing renewables on a grand scale now. At the very least, let’s stop using the argument that fracking is good for climate change and have a more honest dialogue about our energy future.
Find out more about fracking’s methane problem.