Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Category: Backyard Talk

CHEJ Blog

Categories
Backyard Talk

Waste: Then and Now

By Michelle Atkin

“They just don’t make things the way they used to!” I’ve said it before, you’ve said it before, you’ve heard it before, and it is true. Devastatingly, it was not an accident. Product quality started to diminish in the 1950s when the editor of Modern Packaging Inc. said, “The future of plastics is in the trash can.” Products were designed durable, easy to fix, and limited in variation (such as color or style), so opportunities for growth and profit were declining when society focused on preservation, reuse, and frugality. Prior to 1917, a communal tin cup was used for water in train stations and before the 1920s, women used cloth and reusable pads before disposable sanitary pads were available.

Now Dixie Cups and Solo Cups are everywhere. Instead of reusing glassware, the marketing companies of the industrialized world have capitalized on a society of convenience. The disposability of cheap, single-use items have led us to the landfill capacity problems we have today. North Americans use 130 billion disposable paper coffee cups alone, which come from the loss of millions of trees and lead to 253 million pounds of waste. If we were able to exist in a reusable way before, we should be able to again, but the culture has changed and now you have everyone trying to keep up with the Jonses with the latest iPhone even though their old one still works perfectly.

This concept contributes to our ever growing amount of trash and is called planned obsolescence. Instead of building high quality cars, appliances, televisions and toys, inferior materials are often used in critical areas to limit the amount of time a product will be operable. Manufacturers then make repair costs so similar to replacement costs that it often makes more sense from a consumer’s perspective to buy a new product, regardless of how much space the television or refrigerator will take up at the dump.

The fashion cycle is another way customers are driven to buy more despite their perfectly functioning current wardrobe. The decrease in the perceived desirability of unfashionable pieces can be a powerful marketing ploy.

There is hope for the future of the environment with the extended product responsibility approach. This holds producers responsible for the environmental effects over the entire product life cycle – the cost of compliance cannot be shifted to a third party and therefore may be incorporated into product prices. As far as our clothing goes, hopefully reuse can be promoted through donations, yard sales and hand-me-downs.

To learn more about the historical roots of modern waste or what you can do to improve the future outlook, visit:

http://upstreampolicy.org/modern-waste-is-an-economic-strategy-07092014/

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/stewardship/basic.htm

Categories
Backyard Talk

American Health Still Protected Despite Ruling on Mercury Regulation

By Dylan Lenzen

In the wake of some truly momentous Supreme Court decisions regarding the Affordable Care Act and marriage equality, a small battle was lost for public health when the Supreme Court decided to reject the EPA’s regulation of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury. These regulations were enacted in 2012 under the Clean Air Act and have significant implications for coal-fired power plants. Following the June 29 ruling, industry groups and congressional opponents of the regulation claimed significant victory, freeing power plants from costly regulation. While it may appear as such on the surface, a careful reading of the decision implies that this will be but a small bump in the road for the EPA’s effort to protect Americans from the toxic effects of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The decision is also unlikely to have any effect on the more ambitious efforts to regulate other pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions that are expected to be released later this year.

When the EPA made the initial decision to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants, it did not take into account the costs that would be imposed on industry. Like other regulations, the exact emission limits were not established until later on in the implementation and it was not until the establishment of these exact limits that the EPA considered the full costs of the regulation. This is essentially what the ruling was concerned with. Justice Scalia, representing the majority, deemed that it was unreasonable for the EPA to fail consider the costs before making the initial decision to regulate emissions as opposed to later on in the process. Luckily, for citizens concerned for their future health, the rejection will not eliminate the important regulations on hazardous emissions. Instead, implementation of the regulation is likely to continue while the standards are sent back to the D.C. Circuit Court where the EPA will be forced to reassess the costs and benefits of the program. Since the standards were enacted back in 2012, most power plants have actually already established compliance under the regulation.

Public health will likely not be threatened with the loss of important protections from hazardous air pollutants. The EPA determined that these Mercury Air Toxics standards would prevent 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks each year. While the EPA did not assess the costs and benefits when proposing the standards, they were assessed later on and show that the overall benefits far outweigh the costs felt by industry. Because power plants would be forced to install methods to control mercury emissions that simultaneously reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and other pollutants, these co-benefits could result in almost $90 billion per year in savings. This figure compares to the estimated costs of compliance of $9.6 billion. Because these benefits vastly outweigh costs, the regulations are likely to remain in place.

It is also important to note that this recent Supreme Court decision will have no impact on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan that is expected to be finalized by the end of the summer. This plan will seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. As EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stated, “making a connection between the Mercury Air Toxics standards and the Clean Power Plan is comparing apples to oranges,” and went on to say in reference to the Clean Power Plan, “last week’s ruling will not affect our efforts.”

Categories
Backyard Talk Homepage

Helping can hurt: Complications and consequences of remediation strategies

Environmental remediation often involves a) moving large amounts of contaminated material from one place to another, b) treating the polluted material with chemical compounds, or c) both. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council says it best in their guideline document on managing risks during remediation: “Investigation and remediation activities have their own set of risks, apart from the risks associated with chemical contamination.” These risks range from spending time and resources on an ineffective remedy, to the chance of causing adverse ecosystem and health impacts through the cleanup process.

[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”]

Project risks - from ITRC document

I recently read a report from a site where engineers were pumping methanol into the groundwater to aid in breaking down the compound of interest, TCE. They soon found that their shipment of methanol was contaminated by PCE – another toxic compound with which they were effectively re-polluting their treatment area. Introducing further contamination through remediation may be less common, but dealing with large amounts of polluted material can potentially cause existing contaminants to become more mobile. Especially when remediation projects deal with contaminated sediments, a question of critical importance is whether to remove the offending substance or to leave it in place. Dredging of contaminated sediment underwater must be done very carefully so as to avoid remobilizing contaminants into the water column.  There are surprises, too; sometimes, the EPA says,  “dredging uncovers unexpectedly high concentrations of contaminants beneath surface sediments.”

When contaminated materials are left in place, or before they are removed, the remediation process often involves introducing new chemical compounds to the polluted material. These “additives” help cause reactions that break down toxic chemicals into less toxic forms. However, Lisa Alexander of the Massachusetts Department of the Environment writes that these additives can cause contaminants to migrate into water, or release potentially harmful gases.

[/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”]

Gulf Coast cleanup worker - from CNN

The complexities of remediation have been especially apparent in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Dispersants were released to break down oil in the Gulf, but years later the substances are still being found in tar balls washing up on the beach. The combination of oil and the dispersant Corexit has also proven to be more toxic to marine organisms than oil alone. Corexit, encountered primarily by cleanup workers after the tragedy, is also potentially toxic to humans, and its longterm health effects are unknown.

Cleaning up contaminated sites involves taking calculated risks of disrupting or polluting an already-damaged ecosystem. When even our most practiced remediation methods carry with them uncertain outcomes, how can we strike a balance between trying innovative treatment methods for contamination and avoiding unreasonable risk? I’ll explore one case in particular in my next entry: nanomaterials.

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

Categories
Backyard Talk

We Are Together & Together We’ll Make Change

As fracking bans and moratoriums or local ordinances become a reality across the country, it would be so powerful for those who are advocating change to one piece of the problem or solution, to include the other parts of the gas and oil industry’s problems, processes, etc. as well. Working together on alternatives, disposal, rights to know, exports and more will provide the holistic approach to the public. That can really make a bigger – deeper difference in how people respond to efforts that go beyond a backyard struggle towards a sustainable communities. It might even bring clarity to the public that is getting so many different messages and become confused.

At CHEJ we just celebrated the next step toward a ban in New York on fracking, but Obama is still pushing regulations. We’ve seen pipelines stopped, at least temporarily and ordinances passed. Most recently two counties in Ohio have passed local moratoriums on injection wells that will force the industry to find other ways to dispose of their wastes. Two other Ohio counties are in the mist of deciding to ban injection wells that activist say have a good chance of passing.

It appears from the “wide view” that our staff and Board can see as a national group, as we look across the country that there are serious efforts and real wins by ordinary people. What isn’t as obvious is a strong message that we are together and supporting other groups who have taken on different parts of the problems, are encouraged and inspired by the wins and share the vision of what could be. It’s not that people aren’t mentioning other segments of the struggle locally or at a higher level of government, but it’s not coming through as a unified struggle for a unified goal. No there will never be absolute agreement on goals but maybe we could get agreement on a unified message that works. At CHEJ we came up with Preventing Fracking Harms to address the different goals around wells, infrastructure and such. That won’t work in the bigger message but I think there are words that might.

As groups join together this fall at events like the one planned for October in Colorado it would be great to find an opportunity on or off the agenda to figure out how all the extraordinary work folks are doing can include a message – not a list serve – not a petition – but a message that gets tagged on everyone’s everything before they close their news release, blog, signs and more. Or maybe we have a massive e-mail conversation. Let me know what you think.

Categories
Backyard Talk

By: Katie O’Brien


Congratulations New York! The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued their Findings Statement on June 29, 2015, bringing their seven-year review of fracking to an end. This is big news because the state sits on 12 million acres of Marcellus shale. This formation of rock has natural gas reserves that have put states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia on the energy production map. New York is the first state with significant potential to produce major natural-gas resources that has banned fracking.



It wasn’t easy for New York to achieve this ban. Although there are many known and unknown health effects of fracking, the industry yields high profits which allows some people to see a pay raise instead of the threat that stands before them. Energy companies and some local communities fought the ban. Some NY towns even threatened secession. Many people in those communities were hoping to lease their land to energy companies and reap the economic benefits. Some states are even banning fracking bans. In May, both Oklahoma and Texas signed bills that prohibit towns from banning oil and gas operations. According to the National Law Review, Oklahoma’s ban was signed even amid “warning from the state’s own government that a recent dramatic spike in earthquakes is linked to wastewater injection”, which is a main process of fracking. Against all the odds, New York won the right to protect their communities from the aftermath of fracking.

The state of New York reviewed the process and health repercussions of fracking for seven years. New York DEC commissioner Joe Marten said based on the Findings Statement, “prohibiting high-volume hydraulic fracturing is the only reasonable alternative. High-volume hydraulic fracturing poses significant adverse impacts to land, air, water, natural resources and potential significant public health impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated. This decision is consistent with DEC’s mission to conserve, improve and protect our state’s natural resources, and to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state.”

The DEC’s Findings statement is based on a lengthy report about the fracking process that began in 2009. The DEC has been working on the statement since December 2014, when Marten stated that too little was known about the health impacts of fracking to support the ban. The statement concluded that there are no alternatives to the environmental and health risks that fracking causes. Because of this, New York joins Vermont in outlawing the risky practice.

Opponents of the ban are expected to file lawsuits, and although the fracking ban can be rescinded, Earthjustice, the attorneys representing the case, guarantee “to stand alongside the state in any legal challenge”. This is a big win for both the state of New York and the environmental justice community as a whole.

Click here to view the DEC’s full Findings Statement.


Categories
Backyard Talk

The 2000s Really Are a New Era

By: Amelia Meyer
At the beginning of the last century, about 95 years ago, women earned the right to vote. That was a milestone that took effort and dedication. Now, not even a hundred years later, on June 26th, 2015 our nation has given homosexuals the right to get married. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 allowing same sex couples to be married in every state. This is an extremely important part of our social history. Within the past decade, America has elected an African American President, has women running for president, legalized marijuana in a few states, and given homosexuals the right to marriage. All of these achievements are remarkable and really shape our society today and what the future has in store for it. It is really important to stop and realize how different our society is from 50 years, 100 years, or even 20 years ago. One significant part of our progress is social media; it has become a spectacular tool for freedom of expression, connectivity, and publicity that really helps movements like gay rights and climate change. Instead of just protests and calling people one by one, justice movements can be achieved through the internet, social media, blogs, cell phones, protests, and even profile pictures.

This past weekend was full of achievements for gay rights and for our society. We are all one nation and everyone deserves to love and be loved. On Friday there were tears of joy and ecstatic embraces not only outside of the Supreme Court, but around the world. President Obama made a speech on Friday and said “Today, we can say in no uncertain terms, that we have made our union a little more perfect.” Progress is very important in our nation and throughout the world. This ruling is not only important for the gay rights campaign, but it is vital for the stability of our society. The future promises change and improvement. Last week the Pope also openly supported the climate change movement combining the ultimate figure of religion and the most important topic of science today. Also today New York banned hydraulic fracking which is another step forward in climate justice.
Our nation reacted wonderfully throughout the weekend – there were parades around the country supporting the fact that “Love Wins.” Just walking around in different towns and cities, restaurants and stores had signs saying things like “Equality Wins.” Justice has been achieved. As our world progresses, it will be very intriguing to see what other forms of justice we can achieve.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Chemical Mixtures May Lead to Cancer

A recently published scientific paper came to a striking conclusion – “the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies.” In other words, exposure to multiple chemicals at low doses, considered individually to be”safe could result in various low dose effects that lead to the formation of cancer. This is a remarkable observation and conclusion. It is also an important advance in the understanding of the risks chemicals pose to society.

Organized by the non-profit Getting to Know Cancer, a group of 350 cancer research scientists came together in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 2013 to address the question of continuous multiple chemical exposures and the risks these exposure pose. Referred to as the Halifax Project, this effort merged two very distinct fields – environmental toxicology and the biological mechanisms of cancer – and provided the opportunity for researchers to look at the diversity of environmental factors that contribute to cancer by examining the impact that exposure to very small amounts of chemicals can have on various systems of the body.

A task force of nearly 200 scientists formed at this meeting took on the challenge of assessing whether or not everyday exposures to mixtures of commonly encountered chemicals have a role to play in cancer causation. The researchers began by identifying a number of specific key pathways and mechanisms that are important in the formation of cancer. Then they identified individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals that are commonly found in the environment that had some potential to disrupt these systems. A total of 85 environmental chemicals were identified.

The authors found that 59% of these chemicals (50/85) had low dose effects “at levels that are deemed relevant given the background levels of exposure that exist in the environment.” They found that only 15% of the chemicals reviewed (13/85) had a dose-response threshold and that the remaining 26% (22/85) could not be categorized due to a lack of dose-response information. The authors concluded that these results help “to validate the idea that chemicals can act disruptively on key cancer-related mechanisms at environmentally relevant levels of exposure.”

This is an incredibly important observation because it challenges the traditional thinking about how cancer forms in the body. It challenges the notion that all cancers share common traits (considered the “hallmarks of cancer”) that govern the transformation of normal cells to cancer cells. The authors also discuss how the results in this paper impact the process of risk assessment which even its most sophisticated model fails to address continuous exposures to mixtures of common chemicals.

The authors point out how surprisingly little is actually known about the combined effects of chemical mixtures on cancer related mechanisms and processes. This effort however seems to be a very positive step forward.

To read the full paper, go to <http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/Suppl_1/S254.full.pdf+html>.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Climate Change is Important, But What About the Rest of Pope Francis’ Message?

By: Rachel Oest

Discussions surrounding Pope Francis’ recent Encyclical, Laudato Si, appear to focus on his discussion of global warming, but it would be a huge mistake to neglect his multiple other points. Global warming, or as he titled it, “climate change” is only part of the first of five major sections dealing with ecological problems. Specifically under reported, is the issue of global inequality. This is the systematic inequalities that exist between countries, allowing for the simultaneous existence of inequalities within counties.
Pope Francis begins by stating he wants “to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” (paragraph 3). Typically, encyclicals are addressed to bishops and parties of the Church, but Laudato Si calls on everyone, regardless of religion, because we as humans share the responsibility to protect our planet. We inhabit the same land and yet the global market prevails at the expense of the poor and future generations. People have this distorted notion that an increase in profit can solve the world’s problems. But Pope Francis rejects this mind set by noting the true concerns of the income obsessed individuals: increased revenue or the environmental damage they leave behind? Simply put, businesses are not willing to give up thousands of dollars to protect people they don’t know.
Some rely on the idea that new technology will rectify the damage done to the Earth and air. However, technology is created from the interests of certain powerful groups, and products are not neutral in a consumer based world. The encyclical acknowledges the need for developing countries to increase energy production and improve agriculture systems; but, it also recognizes the need for developed countries to help finance innovations in clean energy production. Just because some areas of the world don’t witness first-hand the environmental impact their lifestyles are creating, doesn’t excuse them from the blame. The environmental hardships our world is facing hit the poor first and the hardest by exacerbating their already existing vulnerabilities. This includes the poor’s lack of access to safe drinking water.
Like most people, the Pope claims safe drinking water is a basic and universal human right. However, we see news articles every day about water sources being polluted and groups organizing to fight the corporations that did it. Developed countries are fortunate because they have advanced systems that allow people to get their water from somewhere else if need be. But some developing countries don’t have this luxury. Often poor areas are forced to ingest chemical infused water, sometimes without even realizing it. The encyclical tells us “our world has a grave social debt towards the poor who lack access to drinking water, because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity” (paragraph 30).
Pope Francis delivered a clear message calling for change. Society needs to reevaluate the way we relate to one another and to the environment in order to create a healthy and safe world. It is important that the public sees Laudato Si as more than a “global-warming encyclical.” It contains a variety of major environmental arguments being hidden behind just a few climate related paragraphs. Climate Change is important, but the problems our world face goes far beyond that.
To read Pope Francis’ Laudato Si please visit:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Categories
Backyard Talk

EPA Can Map Environmental Justice Communities – Can They Stop The Poisoning?

Today we know how to identify Environmental Justice communities but what is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doing to relieve their community burdens? A new mapping tool created by the EPA, called EJSCREEN was recently released. This tool is great for academia or researchers but how does it help environmentally impacted communities? Why is generating information, that community already know because they are living with the pollution and associated diseases daily, more important than helping them?

CHEJ, for example, has worked for over thirty years with Save Our County in East Liverpool, Ohio This community in the 1990’s was defined by EPA as an Environmental Justice community, through their evaluation process which is the same as the mapping categories. Yet nothing has changed as a result of this definition.

  • The hazardous waste incinerator, WTI, still operates and remains for most of the time in violation of air and other standards.
  • Other industries continue to pollute with little enforcement.
  • An elementary school was closed due to the air emissions from the WTI Incinerator stack which is almost level to the school windows (incinerator is in the valley) stack peeked over the embankment. The City was force to shoulder the costs of relocating students and staff.
  • In the past several years new wells were drilled for natural gas extraction and infrastructure.
  • The community has the highest number of cancers in their county than other similar counties in the state.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed in East Liverpool, Ohio as a result of being defined an environmental justice community.

  • No decision to stop new polluting industries from setting up shop.
  • No action on denying permits, when they have been a significant repeat violator of the laws and regulation, when up for renewal permit.
  • No fee data and information when requested under the freedom of information requests.
  • No additional public comment meetings for new or existing permits. Absolute nothing changed in East Liverpool, OH and so many other communities.

    Thank you EPA for providing a tool for academics, for communities to say yes our community qualifies (although they already knew) and for real estate and banking institutions to provide information that will make it more difficult for families in Environmental Justice communities to secure a home improvement loan or sell their property.

    Now can you spend some time and money on reducing the pollution burdens and assisting with the medical professionals for disease related injuries.

    • Categories
    Backyard Talk

    The Environmental Injustice of Electronic Waste

    By Michelle Atkin

    An increasing number of electronic devices continue to escalate the number that are disposed of each year – in 2012 the United States produced 3.4 million tons of electronic waste! Discarded phones, tablets, computers, televisions and even washers, dryers and refrigerators are an enormous problem and only 1 million tons are recycled. Anything disposed of with an electrical component is considered e-waste and the United Nations estimates that 20-50 million tons are produced around the world each year.

    The U.S. disposes of 25 million TVs, 47.5 million computers and 100 million cell phones each year. If we recycled this quantity of cell phones alone, 3500 pounds of copper, 77,200 pounds of silver, 7500 pounds of gold and 3300 pounds of palladium could be salvaged.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reports show an increase in recycling from 30.6% in 2012 to 40.4% in 2013, potentially in response to their Sustainable Materials Management Electronics Challenge.

    In order to safely process e-waste, it costs a developed nation approximately $2500 per ton; however, some developing countries accept imports for as little as $3 per ton. Unfortunately, they do not have the means to properly handle these materials, yet the United States, Europe, Japan, South Korea and Australia continue to ship e-waste to vulnerable countries.

    Public health and environmental concerns stem from open-air burning and acid baths used to recover valuable components from electronic equipment. The most greatly impacted population is children (as young as five to 18), sent by their parents to make a couple of dollars by burning the plastic coatings off copper wires for example, often with their bare hands.

    The toxic fumes and dust inhaled during hazardous retrieval and massive plastic scrap yard fires (to reduce volume) contain lead, phthalates and chlorinated dioxins. The poor air quality has a detrimental effect on nearby food markets and deteriorates the water quality of the area rivers, lagoons and even the ocean.

    Jim Puckett reminds us, “Wherever we live, we must realize that when we sweep things out of our lives and throw them away… they don’t ever disappear, as we might like to believe. We must know that ‘away’ is in fact a place… likely to be somewhere where people are impoverished, disenfranchised, powerless and too desperate to be able to resist the poison for the realities of their poverty. ‘Away’ is likely to be a place where people and environments will suffer for our carelessness, our ignorance or indifference.” As a founder of the Basal Action Network non-profit, they focus on confronting the global environmental injustice and economic inefficiency of toxic trade and its devastating impacts.

    To learn more about the problem of e-waste, visit EPA’s web page here. Or to learn what you can do to help, visit Electronics Take Back Coalition.