Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Category: Backyard Talk

CHEJ Blog

Categories
Backyard Talk

What Does Justice Scalia’s Death Mean for Environmental Justice?

By Dylan Lenzen

Nobody can deny that Justice Antonin Scalia was an immensely important figure asd most certainly left his mark on law in America. With his sudden death over a week ago now, I feel great sympathy for his family, friends, and colleagues mourning his loss. With that said, Scalia’s passing and the decision over his replacement will likely have enormous implications for the environment and, perhaps most immediately, climate justice.

While Scalia has offered positive opinions in regards to some cases with environmental justice implications in the past, his legacy towards the environment is most definitely a negative one. The justice regularly offered opinions in favor of property rights over the protection of human lives and the environment.

In multiple cases, he has voted against the EPA’s ability to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants. Just this summer, he wrote the majority opinion in a case that prevented the EPA from enacting important protections against mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants.

But perhaps most significant, just days before his passing, Scalia was a part of a 5-4 majority that issued a stay, preventing the implementation of the new Clean Power Plan for the time being. Under the plan states would be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent by 2030. This plan also played an important role in helping the U.S. achieve an agreement at the Paris climate talks. Without such a plan ensuring U.S. emission reductions, there is little reason to believe that other countries will achieve their own commitments.

With Scalia on the Supreme Court, it appeared highly doubtful the Clean Power Plan would ever be implemented. With his passing, this projection changes instantly, providing hope for achieving climate justice.

In the short-term, the decision on the future of this important plan will rest in the hands of the D.C. Circuit court, which is likely to uphold the plan. Next, it would require a majority vote from the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of the D.C. Circuit court, but with the court now tied at 4-4, this appears unlikely. So, until a new justice is appointed, either by Obama or the next President, should Congressional Republicans get their way, the future of the Clean Power Plan appears secure.

Ultimately, the newest Supreme Court justice is will have serious implications for climate justice in the long-term. Given the recent Republicans in the Senate over Obama’s intention to appoint a new justice, the process could be a long one, and may rest in the hands of the next president.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Zika Virus, Environmental Justice, and Unforced Errors

By Kaley Beins

Over the past few months the mosquito-borne Zika virus has been dominating global health headlines, especially as researchers began linking it to microcephaly, a birth defect where babies are born with abnormally small heads and potential brain damage. Though Zika virus itself has fairly mild symptoms and is sometimes even asymptomatic, its connection to microcephaly created pandemonium. As the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began issuing travel warnings and El Salvador recommended that women not get pregnant until the virus is controlled (estimated to take 2+ years), panic began to set in. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” scientists began developing a Zika vaccine and the world prepared for the next Ebola crisis.

Yet this past week some news outlets summarized a new Argentine report claiming that an insecticide, not Zika virus, is to blame for the increase in cases of microcephaly in Brazil. This report, written by doctors from the Argentine group Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages, claims widespread exposure to the insecticide pyriproxyfen is the cause of these birth defects. Beginning in 2014, Brazil added pyriproxyfen to its water supply to prevent mosquito development. The report states that this insecticide is dangerous and is distributed by “a subsidiary of Monsanto.” (Note: the company that produces pyriproxyfen is Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese company that is actually not a subsidiary of Monsanto, but has partnered with them in the past.)

The story told by Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages has the makings of the next Erin Brockovich case, fueling the ongoing fights against Monsanto and validating the outrage leveled at chemical companies. There’s just one problem: it doesn’t appear to be true.

Unlike WHO and that majority of the scientific community that are continuing to do research on the potential link between Zika virus and microcephaly before saying anything definitive, Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages published their report based on a correlation and only 12 sources (many of which were articles about dengue).

Although a definitive link between Zika virus and microcephaly still has not been found, a growing body of research appears to support the connection. Most significantly, a Brazilian study released this week found Zika virus in the amniotic fluid of babies with microcephaly, while previous studies have detected the virus in newborn saliva and urine. The CDC reported on a study that found the presence of Zika virus in the brains and placenta of babies that had died of microcephaly. Even when Zika virus was first explained in 1952 by G.W.A. Dick, he described how it affected the brain and the nervous system. The research has provided a mechanism, or process of causation, for Zika inducing microcephaly.

Conversely, the only mechanism the Argentine report provides is claiming that the insecticide pyriproxyfen is an endocrine disruptor (affects hormones and development) and therefore would affect pregnancy. However, pyriproxyfen affects the development from hatching to pupation, stages humans (and all animals with backbones) do not go through. Therefore, pyriproxyfen is highly unlikely to affect people.

Furthermore, even if we disregard the lack of science in the Argentine report, we can address their allegations. The main claim in the report is that the increased instance of microcephaly is found only in Brazil, where pyriproxyfen was used. While it is strange that Colombia does not yet appear to have increased rates of microcephaly, George Dimech, director of Disease Control and Diseases of the Health Department in Pernambuco, Brazil, stated that Recife, Brazil has had many cases of microcephaly, despite the fact that pyriproxyfen is not used there. Additionally, the 2013-2014 outbreak of Zika virus in French Polynesia has also been associated with central nervous system problems including Guillain-Barré Syndrome and microcephaly.

Various prominent scientists worldwide have disputed the allegations raised by Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages. Dr. Ian Musgrave, a toxicologist at Australia’s University of Adelaide called their argument “not plausible,” while NIH Director, Dr. Francis Collins, referred to the report as “sketchy.” Environmental activist Mark Lynas called it a “conspiracy theory.”

Science is difficult and public health risks add to the confusion that further compounds the difficulty of scientific testing. There are still unknowns regarding Zika virus and its connection to microcephaly, and looking for alternative explanations and environmental factors is necessary in order to address the risks. However, publishing claims with little scientific support does nothing for environmental health. Unsubstantiated research is not only academically unethical; it allows the crucial field of environmental health to descend into pseudo science and conspiracy theory.

The Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages report does make an important point that mosquito-borne viruses are much more prevalent in low-income communities because of fewer sanitation initiatives and less readily available potable water (a claim further substantiated by the Zika case in Texas). They connect the Zika outbreak to environmental justice. Environmental justice issues are significant and must be addressed, but jumping to conclusions without solid scientific backing hurts the movement. Without science to support our positions, industry and government can easily brush off our (very valid) concerns from pesticide use to landfill leaching. The Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Villages report is an unforced error; it makes us look like we have an agenda other than protecting human health.

Science is our strongest weapon. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot with it?

Categories
Backyard Talk

Knock Knock Is Anyone Home at EPA?

EPA has gone dark. McCarthy is awaiting the end of her term and no one is protecting the American citizens or our environment.

It is outrageous that Administrator Gina McCarthy refuses to acknowledge the citizens living near the Bridgeton/West Lake Superfund site. What is wrong with her? Just Moms STL wrote a letter requesting a meeting in May of 2015 and never even received an acknowledgement that they asked for a meeting. They traveled to Washington, DC anyway in hopes of seeing McCarthy after their federal delegation of senators and congress representatives sent a letter to encourage McCarthy to meet with them. The community received nothing from the office of the Administrator. Not a call, a letter or even an e-mail saying she had a prior commitment or was on travel.

A second letter was sent this past fall to say the community leaders are planning to travel to Washington, D.C. in February and would she please meet with them to discuss the Superfund site which has been mismanaged by her regional staff. Again there was silence. I personally called every day but one in the month of January and February leading up to the date that local people were traveling to D.C. On many occasions when I called, all I received was a voice mail message that asked me to leave a message and someone would get back to me. I left message after message and no one, not a single person from the agency returned my call.

On a few occasions I actually talked to a woman who answered the phone. She was courteous and respectful and always promised to deliver the message to scheduling department. “Someone will call you back soon.” But no one ever called. The citizens living around the site began a telephone campaign to McCarthy’s office. It was only a week until they travel to D.C. and no one provided an answer if McCarthy would meet or not. The community sold cupcakes, brownies, t-shirts, and worked hard to raise the funds to visit D.C. and meet with the Administrator to explain what was going on from their perspective.

With a slim chance of meeting with McCarthy, now two years since their first request for a meeting was made, they climbed on a plane and came to D.C. While there they met with their congressional delegation, allies in the field but never had a meeting with McCarthy. Also they were never denied a meeting; it was deafeningly silent. My goodness if the answer is “NO” then say so. To say nothing is irresponsible, inexcusable and further victomizing the victims.

I stood outside of McCarthy’s office at 9 a.m. the last day of the groups visit. From the sidewalk I called her office and explained that local leaders are downstairs and waiting for a response from McCarthy before they need to leave for the airport. The public relations office sent down a two young people to receive the letter the community had for McCarthy, outlining their concerns. They apologized that McCarthy wasn’t available to meet. She couldn’t have told the citizens before they left St. Louis that she couldn’t meet? It is not a big request to ask for a simple yes or no of availability.

My take away . . . fire McCarthy. My tax dollars should not be spent on someone who works in government and ignores the citizens of the United States. All she had to do on both occasions is say I’m sorry I’ve got a previous engagement. Common courtesy should be a requirement of feredal employment.

Categories
Backyard Talk

National Coalition fights Burning of Military Waste

[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”]

Image from Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger

Community members in Colfax, Louisiana are dealing with an unconventional form of potential environmental contamination – outfall from the open air burning of hazardous explosive waste. The town of Colfax is the site of a commercial facility called Clean Harbors, which stores and treats energetic/reactive waste, whether it is solid, sludge or liquid. From fireworks to bulk high explosives to rocket motors, the facility is a storehouse for potentially explosive material.

This burning is, in fact, permitted by the US EPA, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which governs disposal and treatment of hazardous waste. There is a permit modification pending, which would increase the current threshold for open-air burning of explosives-contaminated waste from 480,000 pounds to over 2 million pounds per year. The permit is for dealing with waste that cannot be handled in any other manner.

Truth-out.org reported last month on a similar issue at Camp Minden, Louisiana. The Camp Minden military facility, which was storing, in addition to other materials, 42,000 pounds of a propellant used for firing heavy artillery, experienced an explosion in 2012 that resulted in “a 7,000-foot mushroom cloud” and damage to nearby homes and buildings. In this scenario, burning is seen as an emergency plan to prevent future explosions, but the outdated burning process is raising concerns of environmental pollution from munitions burning.

A coalition of twenty-nine organizations has formed in response to the issue, ranging from coast to coast and including groups in thirteen states. The groups are objecting to both the current operations at the Clean Harbors facility, and to the expansion of the facility’s permit to allow greater amounts of waste to be burned.

According to the coalition, Colfax is only one of many communities – about 100 total – that are facing this issue. Truth-out.org also reports that munitions burning is far from just a Louisiana issue. In the early 1990s, community activists halted a plan to burn military waste in Merrimac, Wisconsin. The breadth of the coalition behind the Cease Fire campaign speaks to the universality of this problem.

How can you help?

A petition to EPA is circulating at http://cswab.org/get-involved/alerts/, and you can find more information about the Cease Fire Campaign at https://www.facebook.com/ceasefirecampaign/.

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Categories
Backyard Talk

Environmental Injustice in the Navajo Nation

By Dylan Lenzen

Experiencing the environmental injustice associated with the fossil fuel industry is not exclusive to minority and low-income neighborhoods within America’s largest cities. The same toxic living conditions can also be found on America’s remote and impoverished Native American reservations. Here, the health of individuals and communities that inhabit these regions subsidize the development of cheap electricity and water in surrounding cities that disconnected from their suffering.

An example of this remote environmental injustice can be found on the Navajo reservation in the Southwestern U.S. This sprawling reservation is home to the country’s largest Native American tribe, the Navajo Nation, with over 300,000 members.

The story of this region is defined by environmental injustice that stems from the vast coal resources found there and the large corporations working to exploit it. This wealth of coal resources has fostered a dependence on fossil fuel development with roots that go back nearly a century.

The region is currently exploited by two mines, both operated by Peabody Coal Company, the largest private-sector coal company. These mines create over 1,000 of jobs for local residents, but also contribute to high rates of cancer and lung disease in workers and surrounding communities. The coal extracted by these mines is then sent to the Navajo Generating Station, where the coal produces electricity for the surrounding region, much of it being utilized for transporting valuable water resources to Phoenix, Tucson, and other Southwest cities.

While it would be intuitive to think that this incredible amount of coal production and generation of valuable electricity would lead to a strong economy on the Navajo Reservation, but that is clearly not the case. While the mining and power plants provide a number of jobs, the community remains impoverished with a 45 percent unemployment rate and 77,000 people living below the poverty line. Many of the people living in the community cannot even afford access to the important services, such as electricity and running water, that their coal and power plants provide for the major cities that surround the reservation.

This widespread impoverishment is a result of the fact that, despite the health and environmental sacrifices associated with coal mining and coal-fired power plants, the Navajo Nation receives but a small fraction of the profits that Peabody and the Navajo Generating Station produce. The land that is leased to Peabody for mining, and transporting the coal is leased to them for a fraction of its true value. The Navajo Generating Station that burns the coal produced by Peabody is not even owned by the Navajo Nation.

While this is just one of many examples of the environmental, economic, and public health outcomes of fossil fuel generation in America, the results on Native American reservations like the Navajo Nation are particularly acute. Because of the remote nature of these reservations, it is especially easy to overlook the role they play in subsidizing the development of excess for the rest of society.

Examples like the Navajo Nation offer a great source of motivation for a transition of our energy system towards one that does not pollute and destroy the environment and health of minority and low-income communities. Whether these communities reside in some of America’s largest cities, or it’s most remote locales, they deserve better.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Super-Polluters Responsible for Most Environmental Health Risks

Environmental justice is a familiar concept to the communities that CHEJ works with, who experience racial and socioeconomic disparities in health as a part of daily life. Among the general public, this concept is not always understood. If there is any positive associated with the tragic water contamination in Flint, MI, it is that environmental injustices may continue to gain more research attention and spotlight in the national media as a result.

Today, EJ research was front-page news. Just a few days ago, researchers with the Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center in Annapolis, Maryland, released a study that combined computational science and sociology to investigate the impacts of a class of polluters known as ‘Super Polluters.’ These sources are responsible for disproportionate amounts of air pollution. The study was a huge undertaking, assessing the emissions of 600 chemicals from close to 16,000 facilities, and the results were unsurprising: the highest-polluting facilities were located in low income communities and communities of color.

Though the study demonstrates a known concept within the environmental justice community, it supports past findings with a massive body of data, and demonstrates that the effects of super-polluters on low-income and minority communities are worse than previously thought. As one of the researchers shared on SESYNC’s blog, “If you’re non-white or poor, your community is more likely to be polluted by arsenic, benzene, cadmium, and other dangerous toxins from industrial production…What’s new and surprising is that industry’s worst offenders seem to impact these communities to a greater extent than might already be expected.”

The study also sheds light on who to blame for the situation. According to the study, fewer than 10% of the facilities they assessed were responsible for more than 90% of human health risks from excess pollution. These findings are relevant for policy-making; if a subset of facilities are causing the majority of the harm, it’s possible that targeted emissions-limiting efforts could be more impactful for promoting environmental justice than large-scale regulatory efforts. Placing more emphasis on protecting the most vulnerable communities, it seems, goes hand-in-hand with reducing the most extreme of environmental pollution in the U.S.

The Washington Post reported on the study today, while placing the Flint tragedy in the context of the larger problem of environmental injustice. This study contributes to our growing understanding of environmental injustice, and will hopefully continue to shed a spotlight on vulnerable communities like Flint, MI. As Dr. Sacoby Wilson of the University of Maryland commented to the Post that the Flint situation “is really going to raise attention around environmental justice issues around the country, and also how you have these other environmental justice disasters that are looming out there.”

Categories
Backyard Talk

People or Pollution – Which Came First?

Researchers at the University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment published a paper last month that examines an important question about environmental disparities: Which came first – The people or the pollution? More specifically, are present-day disparities around hazardous sites the result of a pattern of placing hazardous waste sites, polluting industrial facilities, and other locally unwanted land uses disproportionately where poor people and people of color live? Or are they the result of demographic changes that occur after the facilities have been sited? Their answer published in the December issue of the journal Environment Research Letters points to a clear pattern of disproportionately placing hazardous waste facilities in people of color communities at the time of siting.

The authors used a national database of commercial hazardous waste facilities sited from 1966 to 1995 and examined the demographic composition of host neighborhoods at the time of siting and demographic changes that occurred after siting. They found strong evidence of disparate siting for facilities sited in all time periods, though they did find some evidence of post-siting demographic changes. According to the authors, these changes “were mostly a continuation of changes that occurred in the decade or two prior to siting, suggesting that neighborhood transition serves to attract noxious facilities rather than the facilities themselves attracting people of color and low income populations. Our findings help resolve inconsistencies among the longitudinal studies and builds on the evidence from other subnational studies that used distance-based methods. We conclude that racial discrimination and sociopolitical explanations (i.e., the proposition that siting decisions follow the ‘path of least resistance’) best explain present-day inequities.”

This study examined the processes by which racial and socioeconomic disparities in the location of polluting industrial facilities can occur. According to the authors, “prior studies have had mixed results … principally because of methodological differences, that is, the use of the unit-hazard coincidence method as compared to distance-based methods.” This is the first national-level environmental justice study to conduct longitudinal analyses using distance-based methods.

The authors came to conclude that “Our findings show that rather than hazardous waste TSDFs ‘attracting’ people of color, neighborhoods with already disproportionate and growing concentrations of people of color appear to ‘attract’ new facility siting. The body of distance-based research suggests that government policies, industry practices and community empowerment measures are needed to ensure fairness in the siting process and to address disparities in risks associated with existing facilities. In addition, more studies that use reliable methods to assess such racial and socioeconomic disparities in the location of other types of environmental hazards could also improve our understanding of the processes and factors that contribute to environmentally unjust conditions in the United States and around the world.”

The authors also published a review paper in the same issue of this journal that summarized previous environmental justice studies that demonstrated the existence of racial and socioeconomic disparities in relation to a wide range of environmental hazards.



Categories
Backyard Talk

Snowmageddon 2016 Brought to You by Climate Change

By: Katie O’Brien

Mega winter storm Jonas, also referred to as Snowzilla or Snowmageddon, is just starting to hit the Eastern U.S. The D.C. metro area (where CHEJ is located!) is the bull’s-eye of the storm, expecting up to a whopping 30 inches. It is expected to snow for about 36 hours and will affect over 60 million people. Many of these people are under a blizzard warning, meaning the storm will have long hours of strong wind gusts and extreme reduced visibility. In some areas it will snow at a rate of 2-3 inches per hour. The DC area has not seen this much snow in the forecast since 1922.


But why have storms such as Jonas, and others like Superstorm Sandy become so severe? Many scientists believe that human induced climate change is to blame.  The Director of Penn State’s Earth Systems Science Center, Michael Mann, says that “unusually warm Atlantic ocean surface temperatures” can cause high amounts of moisture in the air and are contributing to these severe storms.

“When you mix extra moisture with “a cold Arctic outbreak (something we’ll continue to get even as global warming proceeds) you get huge amounts of energy and moisture, and monster snowfalls, like we’re about to see here”, says Mann.

Scientists are in the process of completing additional studies showing that climate change is causing the increased length and severity of these life-threatening storms. Many of them believe that climate change is altering the patterns of weather by affecting the jet streams in which they travel. This slows down storms immensely, causing heavy precipitation to essentially “dump” on certain areas at increased rates. Climate change is changing our world in big ways.

While some may use huge snowstorms like Jonas to deny climate change, this storm actually supports climate change science.

It’s time to fight back against the affects of climate change. Click here to learn more about how you can personally reduce your carbon footprint.

Click here to learn more about climate change and Blizzard Jonas.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Obama takes action against coal extraction—but it’s not enough

by Vesta Davis


About 40% of coal in the United States is mined on public land. Last Friday, President Obama and his administration stopped all new leases for coal companies to mine on public lands. The goal is to verify the coal industries’ efficiency with taxpayer’s money and coal’s impacts on climate change.  This review could lead to higher costs for coal companies and thus an overall slowdown in extraction.

This means that coal companies can still mine active properties, but they can’t create new mines on public land until there has been an extensive overhaul of the coal program. The current reserves under lease are expected to last at least another 20 years, according to Luke Popovich—spokesperson for the National Mining Association.

Still, this is a big setback for the coal industry. Not only is it stopping production, but it will also push away long-term investors. It’s bad timing too since 2015 was the worst financial year in coal history due to the increasing popularity of natural gas.

Obama’s action to hold the leases will continue to fuel the fire Republicans have against the president and his regulations against coal—regulations that have been called the “war on coal.” It will also perpetuate the debate over control of public lands, and probably the never-ending debate about federal vs. state government authority in public issues.

In his final State of Union address, Obama proclaimed: “I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”

This is one of the many steps Obama has taken to use his executive order to combat climate change while he still can. Coal is the fossil fuel most responsible for climate change—and because of this, Obama’s administration has proposed a “production fee” for coal. Economists estimate that this cost would be around $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced. That fee would completely shut down the industry on federal lands—according to Alan Krupnick, an environmental economist at Resources for the Future. But, even a charge of a few dollars would have an impact on the industries.

In 2014, the leasing rate for each acre of public land was $3. This brought the federal government’s total revenue to about $1.2 billion from leases, royalties, and other fees for coal mining on public land. However, in a 2013 report, the Government Accountability Office showed that the rates might not be accurately representing market values. Dan Bucks, a former director of Montana Department of Revenue, says that leases are “notoriously known for being paid below market value.”

The current system is not open, public, nor competitive. If it were a competitive process, then it would get up to market prices. And thus it would be fair to the taxpayer.

But who is really suffering here? Yes, taxpayers shouldn’t be cheated out of their hard-earned money and coal corporations and their CEOs mustn’t cut corners. They must be held accountable. That is absolute. But in the end, where is the representation of the frontline communities who work tirelessly in the mines every day, suffer from severe health issues, and have been economically tied to the coal industry for generations? The environmental justice component of this situation is undeniable—and yet so often overlooked.

Climate change disproportionally affects low-income communities of color, and when assessing pollution and public health, it often goes 1 of 2 ways:

1. Low-income families are forced into residential areas that are near toxic power plants or waste sites because the property values are significantly lower than average prices.

2. Governments and large corporations purposefully build these toxic sites within low-income residential communities because the land values are low and they don’t believe locals will be able to recognize their rights—and even if they do—have the resources to act on them.

Fossil fuels are the number one cause of global warming and climate change. And as stated above, the leading fossil fuel in that race is coal.

The extraction and burning of coal is detrimental to the physical environment, the sustainability of natural ecosystems, and most of all, to the health and well-being of the human communities that reside within extraction areas. More than a dozen independent researchers and universities have concluded that mountain top removal (MTR) coal mining leads to substantially higher rates of birth defects, cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases among those living near the extraction sites. In 2014, researchers showed that toxic dust particles from MTR sites cause the growth of cancer cells in human lungs. This was the first established direct link, rather than just a correlation.

It has been reported that 68% of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant—a distance that is known as the “zone of maximum exposure” and causes the severe health issues of heart and birth defects. Further, people of color breathe in nearly 40% more polluted air than whites.

It has been 30 years since the last comprehensive review of the coal mining program, and according to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, the US government has an “obligation” to the American public to make sure the program is fair to taxpayers and “takes into account its impact on climate change.” But how about also making explicit efforts to represent and account for the frontline communities that experience the severe health impacts of coal extraction and burning every day?

If the federal government can’t do this, then hopefully CHEJ and other grassroots organizing organizations can strengthen and escalate efforts until each frontline community can have a voice of their own.


Categories
Backyard Talk

Climate Change – What In The World Are We Doing

Climate Change Actions are moving forward to reduce impacts across the globe. But at the same time, some of the most destructive practices of the gas and oil industry continue as fossil fuels are extracted, stored and transported. Creating as much or maybe even more damage than society is reducing. It is a living contradiction. What in the world are we (society) doing?

As I visit communities or take calls from leaders I’m told their water is poisoned from fracking. No one will take responsibility, no one will provide clean drinking water for families and  families can’t afford to pay for a new water supply themselves. Well heads leak methane and other chemicals on a daily basis. Leaders are still being told natural gas is the answer to coal. Always and either or situation instead of none of the above choices are acceptable.

I hear from community leaders that there was a train accident that destroyed their home, community and sense of safety. Pipelines have cause explosions, fires and contamination across the country in record numbers.

All of these problems significantly contributed to our climate crisis either in production, transport or accidents. Moreover, people are speaking out in record numbers about the need for change, not only in Paris but in communities that dot the world which no one even has heard of before. It’s confusing, infuriating, and just plain insane.

Let’s look at what’s happening in California. A massive amount of methane gas is currently erupting from an energy facility in Aliso Canyon, at a startling rate of 110,000 pounds per hour. This has led to the evacuation 1,700 homes so far. The gas involved in this leak is methane, the main component of natural gas, which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to climate change impact. About one-fourth of the anthropogenic global warming we’re experiencing today is due to methane emissions.

Leaks like the current one in California, are a major contributor. In Pasadena, for instance, just 35 miles from the leak in Aliso, investigators found one leak for every four miles.

So far, over 150 million pounds of methane have been released by the Aliso Canyon leak. The cause of the leak is still unknown however more than 38 percent of the pipes in Southern California Gas Company’s territory are more than 50 years old, and 16 percent are made from corrosion- and leak-prone materials.

The company said, their efforts to stop the flow of gas by pumping fluids directly down the well have not yet been successful, so we have shifted our focus to stopping the leak through a relief well. Alright how long will that take, the relief well process is on schedule to be completed by late February or late March.

Let me remind you that the gas is now leaving the facility at a rate of 110,000 + pounds per hour. Multiply that with 24 hours a day and several months it’s astonishing. And this is just one leak in California.

So how exactly is society worldwide going to directly impact/reduce climate changes when we have one thumb in the hole to plug up the releases while the other hand is digging through the earth to intentionally release greenhouse gases?