Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Category: Backyard Talk

CHEJ Blog

Categories
Backyard Talk

Exxon and Climate Misinformation

Recently, it seems that every month or so there is a new story that shows another way that ExxonMobil has worked to hide the truth behind the highly destructive effects of climate change. This past month was no different, as the Guardian released a report that links Exxon to the elimination of an important congressional lecture series on climate science in 2001, just days after the inauguration of George W. Bush.
Unknown
While this story is troubling, as it prevented members of Congress from hearing about the emerging science of climate change at a very important time, it is just one incident that has come to light in recent months showing how Exxon has sheltered the truth behind climate change decades earlier. According to an investigation by InsideClimate News, the oil company has known that the burning of fossil fuels results in a rise in the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere as early as 1977, which is over a decade before climate change ever became a public issue. The company actually played active role in discovering the phenomenon by employing top scientists to develop climate models based off of original research. Exxon’s top scientist even delivered a speech to executives introducing the science and warning that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.” Yet, almost 40 years later, humans are beginning to experience the effects of climate change and still very little has been done, thanks to Exxon’s sheltering of the truth.
Not only has Exxon prevented the public from discovering the potentially catastrophic future that climate change poses, but they have also contributed to spreading of skepticism of climate science among the general public. Much like the tobacco industry promoted misinformation regarding the health risks of smoking, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on organizations promoting climate denial. They have even utilized the same consultants that worked with the tobacco industry decades earlier to develop a communications strategy. A memo from the fossil fuel industry, found by the Union of Concerned Scientists, sums up the intentions of their campaign perfectly when it stated, “Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.”
It is sad that Exxon could not act on the troubling evidence provided to them by its own scientists in the 1970s. We would’ve had a chance to get ahead of climate change and start taking the steps necessary to mitigate catastrophic levels of temperature rise. But, it is easy to see why Exxon would hide the truth and promote skepticism of climate science, as any logical response to widespread acceptance of the science by the public and our policymakers would involve major government intervention to slow the burning of fossil fuels, which would most certainly hurt Exxon’s profit. Now that it is clear that Exxon prevented action on mitigating climate change, it is time that they pay their share of the costs that climate change is already inflicting across the world.
 
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

What We Don’t Know about Toxic Chemicals

So often people believe that the solution to their problem lies in science and technical information. How often have you heard some company spokesperson speak to the need for sound science. At CHEJ, we have have learned many lessons about science and how it is used. Science and technical information is important and has a role in helping to achieve your community goals. Identifying this role and learning how to use scientific and technical information is critical to the success of your group.
The most important lesson is that science and technical information alone will not solve your problem(s). It’s reasonable to think that if you hire the best scientists and engineers and make solid technical arguments, the government will do the right thing. Those of you who have been there know it doesn’t work that way.
When the government discovers a problem, it’s reluctant to determine the full extent of the problem. This is because if the government documents contamination that threatens people’s health, it then has to do something about it—like evacuate people or clean up the contamination. This costs money that government doesn’t have or want to spend. Such action might also set a precedent by establishing cleanup standards or unsafe exposures levels that would mean spending more money at other sites
Deciding what action to take is complicated by the fact that there are few answers to the many scientific questions raised by exposures to toxic chemicals. Scientists actually know little about the adverse health effects that result from exposure to combinations of chemicals at low levels. As a result, when politicians and bureaucrats look for answers, the scientists don’t have them. They have their opinions but no clear answers.
Most scientists however, are reluctant to admit they don’t know the answer to a question. Instead they introduce the concept of “risk” and begin a debate over what’s “acceptable.” This process hides the fact that scientists don’t know what happens to people who are exposed to low levels of a mixture of toxic chemicals. This uncertainty gets lost in the search for what’s “acceptable.”
Because of the lack of scientific clarity, bureaucrats and politicians use science cloaked in uncertainty, not facts, to justify their decisions which at best are based scientific opinion, but more likely driven by the political and economic pressures they face. Whether this is right or not is not a scientific question but an ethical and moral question. It is foolish to think that in this setting, science can be anything but a tool used by politicians and corporations to get what they want.
While science and scientific information have failed to provide clear answers and solutions to the hard questions about the health and environmental impact of the chemicals we use, we cannot abandon science. Science and scientific information can be a powerful tool for community groups, but only if you recognize what it can tell you and what it can’t, and only if you learn how to use the information and not just collect it. The right information used in the right way at the right time can be very powerful. Learning how to use scientific and technical information strategically is an organizing skill. Contact CHEJ to continue this conversation.
 
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

Did you hear that the Flint water crisis is over?

Did you hear that the Flint water crisis is over?  Nothing could be further from the truth. President Obama’s attempt to prove the water’s safety by drinking it on national television left many Flint residents confused and angry.  Right now, pregnant women and children under age six are still being warned not to drink the water.  How safe is it? Many Flint residents are relying on bottled water to bathe, cook, and brush teeth.  Flint’s old leaded pipes are a long way from being replaced.  The chemicals being used to seal pipes are showing problems. Flint’s residents are rightly anxious about the safety of the water.
 
The early signs which concerned moms and dads noticed included hair loss, sudden skin rashes, abdominal pain.  They knew something was wrong, but for many parents, learning that the child was lead poisoned was much worse than anything else they had imagined.  The heartbreak continued as they found that their kids were now at high risk for ADHD, low IQ, among other long-term health effects. Here is one mother’s story:
 
‘I’m not taking a bath . . . it hurts my skin.’ The evening struggle begins again for a mom whose child refuses to bathe. The contaminated water was causing her young son’s rash. ‘I took him to the doctors. I was told to keep his skin clean and to bathe him every night. The doctor said he had contact dermatitis from something like laundry soap, bar soap, or something else he comes in contact with. I never thought water from my faucet could be hurting my baby.”  
 
Oversight responsibility over city water is the local government’s job. Local government is required to report to the state, which is overseen by the federal EPA water division.  One breakdown in oversight is bad, but a break down at every level means somebody or everybody is slacking on the job and does not care.  
 
Sasha Khokha, a journalist from California National Public Radio has a different distressing story.  After she heard about the water crisis in Flint, she decided to check her tap water. When she reviewed her water bill from the city of Fresno, she read the “consumer confidence report” for drinking water.  Sasha read the footnote in small print: ‘123 Trichloropropane (1,2,3 TCP) has been detected in 29 wells in Fresno…. Some people who use water containing it over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer, based on studies in laboratory animals.’
 
Fearing for her two children, she decided to get her water tested for the presence of chemicals.  The sample from Sasha’s kitchen tap showed 2.2 parts per trillion, three times the state’s public health goal for 1,2,3-TCP.   Twenty-five years after California declared 1,2,3-TCP to be a carcinogen, drinking water regulators are only now planning to set a standard for drinking water.
 
And it’s not just Fresno. According to the State Water Resources Control Board, the chemical has been found in about a hundred public water systems across California, mostly in the Central Valley, but also in counties like Santa Cruz, Monterey, Sacramento, and Los Angeles.  
 
We have do better as a country, every person deserves safe drinking water – it is a human right.

Categories
Backyard Talk

We are all part of the problem, as well as the solution.

Currently I am on a week long family vacation in Gulf Shores, Alabama with my lovely mom, brothers, cousins, and aunt. I emphasize the word lovely because I want the readers to understand that my family is full of good, kind-hearted individuals that do not have a malicious bone in their body. They are wonderful human beings, and definitely not the face of the evil collective you envision when you think about those out ruining our environment and littering the world with trash.
And yet, that is exactly what I am accusing them, of us all, of doing.
Earlier this morning my mom and littlest brother went for a sunrise walk across the beach and came back complaining about the rubbish left along the shoreline in enormous amounts – she claims to have seen even battered lounge chairs left out far too long for us to suspect someone is planning on coming back to get them. Did this bother her to an average human extent? Yes. Did she do anything to resolve the problem? Nothing except make someone more proactive, myself, aware of it. Later that day I asked my cousin to accompany me on the same walk along my mother’s morning route with trash bags in our hands and conviction in our hearts as we picked up after the vacation goers’ neglected remains.
I am an optimistic person. I would like to believe that the endless water bottle caps, candy wrappers, and beer cans were only forgotten. That does not make this litter excusable; it merely means that the culprit could have been someone who would never dare suspect themselves to be a part of the problem – it could be someone just like you, or someone just like me. So what do I propose we do about it?
We need to start taking on the responsibility for the destruction of the environment around us. Instead of playing the blame game with the smaller problems like litter, become apart of the simple solution and pick it up! And more broadly, what I’m saying is that we need to take responsibility for the problems we are causing and more actively participate in coming up with solutions. There are a lot of things wrong with our world, and it is important that we acknowledge those things. It is far more important that we take physical action in implementing a solution. Whether it’s something as small as picking up a few stray flip-flops on the Gulf Shores, or as big as organizing a fundraiser, petition, or protest on behalf of the people of West Lake Landfill, it is about time that we do something, rather than sit back and take part in being the problem.

Categories
Backyard Talk

West Lake Landfill has to be a St. Louis issue, not just a Bridgeton issue

westlake blows everywhere

 
The two smoldering landfills in Bridgeton, Missouri have forced the community around them to take action. Just Moms STL, a group headed by area moms Karen Nickel and Dawn Chapman, has executed steps from community phone calls to representatives to meeting with EPA administrator Gina McCarthy to discuss relocation. The group and the problem have attracted national attention, and yet the Bridgeton and West Lake Landfills seems to remain a Bridgeton issue in the eyes of many St. Louisans—not a St. Louis issue. This has to change.
It’s easy for the issue to remain localized for several reasons. First, St. Louisans can dismiss the landfills as a problem only for those who live near them. Since most St. Louis residents aren’t currently experiencing the health effects or odor of the landfills, they don’t have the constant reminder of the danger there. Last fall, St. Louis County released emergency evacuation plans, and rumors flew about the possibility of radioactive waste being spread by wind throughout the whole of St. Louis. But after these scares died down, most of St. Louis put West Lake on the back burner.
Bridgeton residents continue to push forward on the issue, and the rest of St. Louis needs to do the same. The question of unity continues to dog the city, as it has for so many things. The Greater St. Louis area is separated into St. Louis City and St. Louis County, a divide that hurts both sides. The county is further divided into municipalities, which have their own semi-independent jurisdiction. The problems in this division and hierarchy were demonstrated, for example, during the Black Lives Matter movement in 2014. Ferguson as a municipality, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City were all at odds for authority, and they, especially in regards to their separate police, failed to coordinate.
In that case, however, St. Louis residents did recognize that Black Lives Matter was not just a Ferguson issue—it was a city-wide, nation-wide issue. The movement was not limited to Ferguson, and actions occurred across the city and county. The same needs to happen for the West Lake and Bridgeton Landfills. Republic dumpsters are in every other alley in St. Louis city. Republic has sites not only in Bridgeton, but in Cahokia, South County, and North City. St. Louis residents have to realize that the landfills are an issue for the whole of St. Louis and rally around leaders like Just Moms STL.

Categories
Backyard Talk

A World Free of Nuclear Weapons Must Also Begin At Home

By Jacob Metz
Last week, President Obama became the first sitting president to visit Hiroshima, one of only two sites directly targeted by nuclear warfare. He used the trip to promote his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, encouraging the global community to “have the courage to escape the logic of fear” and to eliminate nuclear stockpiles from military arsenals. We would do well to heed Obama’s call to work towards a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons. But a world free from nuclear weapons must also mean a world free from dangerous nuclear waste situated near our communities.
In 1942, the St. Louis-based Mallinckrodt Chemical Works became one of the main processors of uranium ore for the Manhattan Project, the government-sponsored project tasked with developing nuclear weaponry for use in World War II. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that Mallinckrodt Chemical Works played a large role in the production of weapons-grade uranium, from the end of World War II to the height of the Cold War in 1957. The heightened focus on the possibility of war combined with a rudimentary scientific understanding of the health effects of radioactivity meant that little attention was devoted to figuring out how to safely dispose of the radioactive waste.
After the 1950s, the radioactive waste changed hands several times around the St. Louis area before falling under the supervision of the Cotter Corporation, which illegally disposed of the waste in the West Lake Landfill. Though dumped nearly fifty years ago, the nuclear waste still remains in the West Lake Landfill today, posing a direct threat to the public health and local environment of nearby Bridgeton, Missouri.
Despite the consistent efforts of local activists like Dawn Chapman and Karen Nichols to call for the complete removal of the waste, the EPA has stalled and not used its full authority to properly and efficiently remediate the site through the Superfund law. The content of the West Lake Landfill is already strongly believed by residents to be linked to cases of cancer in the community, especially since a Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services report claims that the exact same waste in nearby Coldwater Creek was linked to statistically higher rates of cancer in surrounding zip codes.
Local Bridgeton residents want jurisdiction over the clean-up of the site to be transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers, a federal agency which has already successfully remediated other St. Louis sites affected by the same nuclear waste. Congress must pass S. 2306 to transfer authority of the clean-up to the Army Corps of Engineers and to protect the health of Bridgeton residents. As we contemplate the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we must remember that nuclear weapons threaten the lives of civilians both through their use in war as well as through their domestic production.

Categories
Backyard Talk

We Are Winning With Renewables

The U.S. electric grid added more than 70 times as much renewable energy capacity as natural gas capacity from January to March 2016. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) reports no new capacity of coal, oil, or nuclear power were added in the first quarter of the year. I know there are many factors in addition to our efforts at the street that makes this possible but you – our grassroots field fighters – can take some credit for this accomplishment.
Today, renewables make up 18 percent of total U.S. installed generating capacity. This is a low number as FERC doesn’t include solar energy on rooftops across America. They only include large scale solar units.
According to an article in Climate by Joe Romm, “There is increasingly clear that we don’t need to add significant amounts of any new grid capacity that isn’t renewable for the foreseeable future. In part that’s because demand for utility power generation has been flat for almost a decade — and should continue plateauing for quite some time — thanks to rapidly growing energy efficiency measures (and, to a much lesser extent, thanks to recent increases in rooftop solar).  We also know that renewable power — both new wind and solar — is now winning bids for new generation around the world without subsidies.  Some bids are coming in at under four cents per kilowatt hour!
This is all good news. What isn’t is that the oil and gas industry still wants to drill, frack and export our fossil fuels. In New Bedford, Texas, Maryland, Oregon and other ports along our coasts are export terminals planned to take America’s resources and ship them overseas. What ever happened to our energy security? So that big oil and gas can increase their profits, the American people lose not only energy security but also the destruction of our water, land and the public’s health.
This is an election year and we – the people – have an opportunity to ask all candidates as they knock on our doors or rally in the park where they stand on destroying our environment and harming public health to export our resources and make big oil/gas richer. I personally think it is un-American hurt our families, environment and not keep the fossil fuels in the ground until just in case Americans need them.

Categories
Backyard Talk

TSCA Reform: Is It Enough?

On Tuesday in a vote of 403-12 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named after a former democratic senator from New Jersey who dedicated much of his life to TSCA reform, is a “compromise bill” designed to appease industry and environmental groups alike. The bill is also a compromise between the House and the Senate who came up with separate TSCA reform bills and were forced to combine them. The Senate’s vote is still pending, and will likely happen in the next few weeks. White House correspondents have said President Obama supports the bill and will sign it into law pending its passing in the Senate.
The original TSCA was meant as a way for EPA to evaluate the toxicity of chemicals and regulate them if they posed a threat to human or environmental health. However, TSCA is full of holes and red tape that have actually made it more difficult for EPA to regulate chemicals. The 1976 TSCA does not require industry to get safety approval before beginning the sale of a product and only allows EPA a certain amount of time to evaluate the product. Additionally, a counterintuitive measure of TSCA required EPA to provide proof of potential harm for a chemical before beginning to evaluate the harmfulness of the chemical. Worst of all, the original TSCA legislation required the EPA to consider the cost of enforcing regulations when evaluating chemicals. These restrictions meant that EPA could not or did not take sufficient regulatory action, and when it did, courts used TSCA to overturn their rules (including the asbestos regulations). Consequently, only about 200 chemicals have been evaluated since TSCA first passed, while the New York Times estimates about 64,000 chemicals are currently left unregulated.
The current TSCA reform bill aims to address the problems in the 1976 law. It requires EPA to test chemicals regularly, working on 20 chemical reviews at one time. It also ensures that EPA focus on chemicals that are more likely to harm vulnerable populations (children, workers, pregnant women, low income communities) and chemicals that could easily pollute drinking water. EPA will evaluate what it perceives as the most dangerous chemicals first, but industry can pay to have their chemicals evaluated out of order (useful if they want to begin selling new products). Industry will also contribute $25 million total each year to help fund the EPA evaluations. The rest of the funding will come from federal allocation of the budget. Finally, the TSCA reform bill also includes a requirement to find ways to reduce animal testing and a requirement to evaluate chemicals linked to cancer clusters (see Trevor’s Law).
However, despite the numerous improvements to TSCA, the reform bill is also somewhat problematic. The section that most concerns environmental activists and other critics explains that EPA regulations will preempt those set by states. While any state regulations enacted on or before April 22 will be upheld, EPA regulations will apply to chemicals evaluated after April 22nd. Proponents of the bill argue that this section addresses the patchwork of enforcement by state and that it will improve interstate commerce. However, this could mean that states with traditionally strict chemical safety measures like California could see their regulations watered down. States are permitted to request waivers from EPA, but EPA takes full responsibility for the nationwide evaluation of chemicals, even blocking states from continuing to evaluate chemicals the EPA is researching. This statute gives EPA an enormous amount of power, even allowing EPA to control our exposure levels. Even now EPA allows for higher exposure levels of some chemicals than do states. Are we sure we’re ready to trust them so completely? Federal safeguards such as those preventing chemical exposure should be a minimum, not a maximum. Or as Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) said when asked about the bill, “[F]ederal chemical regulations should be a floor, not a ceiling.” EPA should set the standards, but states should be free to make them more stringent in order to better protect the health of their residents.
 

Categories
Backyard Talk

The Water in Flint is Not Safe to Drink

I suspect that many of you watched in amazement as President Barack Obama drank a sip of tap water while visiting Flint, MI earlier this month and told everyone that it’s OK. Sorry, Mr. President, but all’s not well in Flint. This publicity stunt is a slap in the face to so many people. Not only have thousands of people including young children and infants already been exposed to toxic levels of lead and other contaminants that will affect their health for years, but thousands of people in Flint are still drinking and using contaminated water.
Dr. Marc Edwards, a professor of engineering at Virginia Tech who has done an enormous amount of water testing in Flint released the latest testing results in April several weeks before Obama’s visit. These results showed lower levels of lead in the water, but lead levels were still above the action level set by Obama’s EPA. In a press release, Edwards stated that “People have to continue using bottled water and filters until further notice.” Furthermore, no one is testing the water for volatile organic compounds like trihalomethanes (THM), contaminants that result from adding chlorine to kill bacteria. Early in the Flint crisis, THMs and bacteria levels were found to be high, but once elevated lead was found in the water, testing for THMs and bacteria stopped.
Be clear, Obama’s publicity stunt was not about public health. It was not about good science or testing results that show that the water is safe to drink. Instead, it was about reassuring the public that all is well in Flint and that the government has everything under control. It was about avoiding taking responsibility and not holding those at the highest levels of government accountable for the mistakes that led to the disaster in Flint. It was about controlling the media and trying to convince the media to move on to the next hot button issue. If this succeeds, then we can expect to see more Flints in the future, because we will not have learned anything from this public health disaster.

Categories
Backyard Talk

What the Frack?

Yesterday morning Reuters, a business and financial news source, published an article about a new dimension of the fracking debate: home insurance. With rising concerns about man-made earthquakes, insurers in Oklahoma are none too keen on providing policies to cover earthquake damage. Some insurance companies are increasing earthquake insurance prices by more than 250%, while others increased the deductibles so clients would have to pay for more damage out of pocket. Finally, some companies are beginning not to offer earthquake insurance at all.
According to the Reuters article, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has tracked earthquakes in Oklahoma and found that earthquake frequency is increasing surprisingly quickly. In 2008 the state had “a handful” of earthquakes, then 103 in 2013, and 890 in 2015. Meanwhile, the value of earthquake insurance more than tripled from 2009-2015. Scientists have connected this increase in earthquakes with the disposal of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. By injecting chemical-laden water into deep wastewater wells, energy companies disturb faults and induce earthquakes. As UT Austin Professor Dr. Cliff Frohlich explains, fracking engineers are careful to avoid faults because they don’t want to waste the water they’re using for fracking. Wastewater disposal is not done as carefully because many industries don’t care where the water goes when they are done using it. Dr. Frohlich says, “They’re trying to get rid of it, so they want a very porous material where fluids can flow away across long distances. So they’re more likely to get to a fault.” Even more concerning, some scientists think that as more water is pumped into the waste wells the disturbances will increase, meaning that as wells are used for longer periods of time more frequent and more powerful earthquakes will occur. With this increased risk, is it any wonder insurance companies are backing away from the problem and discussing their willingness to sue oil and gas companies for damages when the insurers do have to pay?
Energy companies claim that as long as wastewater disposal is carefully managed, there should not be any problems. However, industry officials acknowledge the earthquakes and their connection to fracking. For example, emails obtained from open record requests to the Texas Railroad Commission (regulates oil and gas drilling in Texas) demonstrated that industry members have even talked to EPA about their concerns over these earthquakes and the connection to fracking.
But the fossil fuel industry is huge. Fracking in particular has grown from being the source of less than 2% of domestic oil production in the U.S. in 2000 to the source of greater than 50% of domestic oil production in 2016, an increase of over 48% in less than 16 years. The United States is now third globally in oil production behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. We’ve gone from 23,000 fracking wells producing 102,000 barrels of oil per day in 2000 to 300,000 wells producing 4.3 million barrels daily in 2016. It seems daunting to try to stand up to such an enormous industry, regardless of the damages it causes and the problematic policies that lie in its wake.
Yet as much of a problem as the new insurance policies are, low income families are going to suffer the most. Families that can barely afford their current mortgage and insurance plan are not going to be able to afford the price hikes and high deductible. These families will not be able to move away from high earthquake areas and definitely will not be able to easily repair damages after an earthquake. According to Talk Poverty Oklahoma had a 16.6% poverty rate in 2015, higher than the U.S. national poverty rate of 14.8%. Therefore, as we’ve seen with so many other environmental health issues, fracking earthquakes will likely disproportionately affect low income communities. Again we face the question: how do we protect people instead of just profit?