Polluting industries, such as coal power plants, mining, and oil and gas corporations are receiving financial and regulatory relief across the globe, but specifically in the US, as governments aim to provide relief during the pandemic. These moves threaten progress that has made to combat polluters over the years and puts the globe at risk for rapid deterioration caused by climate change. Read More
Photo by Mike Marrah on Unsplash
Tag: climate change
By Paolo Padova, Science Intern
Last week the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, released his climate and energy plan. Biden’s plan puts an emphasis on environmental justice and its intersection with racial inequality. The plan commits to creating a new Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice to hold contaminating corporations accountable. Building on the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool, Biden will “create a data-driven Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool to identify communities threatened by the cumulative impacts of the multiple stresses of climate change, economic and racial inequality, and multi-source environmental pollution.” The plan includes several aggressive targets such as achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035. Biden also set a goal for disadvantaged communities to receive 40 percent of all clean energy and infrastructure benefits he was proposing.
The plan is clearly an attempt to appeal to younger and more progressive voters who have, thus far, been a challenge for Biden. Many progressives have been uneasy about a Biden presidency because of his refusal to adopt a range of progressive priorities such as medicare for all, defunding the police, and the legalization of marijuana. His record on issues like criminal justice has drawn significant criticism from the left. Some view a Biden presidency as “harm reduction” while others are even less optimistic. Nonetheless, the appeal seems to be working, at least with some. Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, a prominent environmentalist called the plan “visionary.” In response to the plan Sunrise Movement executive director, Varshini Prakash said “It’s no secret that we’ve been critical of Vice President Biden’s plans and commitments in the past. Today, he’s responded to many of those criticisms.” This progressive shift in Biden’s environmental policy is a direct result of the progressive voters who have conditioned their vote on policy concessions from the former vice-president.
Biden’s plan also makes several references to Native American communities. Elizabeth Kronk Warner, the dean of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and a citizen of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, said she was pleasantly surprised by Mr. Biden’s plan.
On the other hand, some have been critical of the fact that the plan does not include the use of a carbon tax, which many see as the most effective and socially equitable way to decrease carbon emissions. This may be a result of an effort to altogether avoid the word ‘tax’ out of fear of alienating moderate voters. Trump’s allies have been quick to attack the plan, depicting it as a threat to jobs in the energy sector and some have attempted to link the plan with the significantly more progressive Green New Deal. According to Trump, Biden’s “agenda is the most extreme platform of any major party nominee, by far, in American history.” While Biden’s plan is less progressive than the Green New Deal and Biden has not fully endorsed the Green New Deal, his plan does follow a similar strategy of emphasizing how aggressive climate action could create jobs. Specifically, the plan presents itself as a response to the economic crisis brought on by COVID-19. Biden foresees one million new jobs will be created making electric vehicles and charging stations and perhaps millions more union jobs could come from building greener infrastructure.
Photo Credit: Matt Slocum/AP
Air pollution and increased temperatures are not only tied to climate change but have also been tied to the increased likelihood of having premature, underweight, and stillborn babies. Given that many low-income and minority communities are disproportionately impacted by industrial pollution and many can’t afford air conditioning in their homes, they are at a much higher risk for pregnancy risks. Black mothers have been specifically impacted by these risks. In addition to the risks of increasing temperatures and air pollution exposures, minority mothers tend to have less access to medical care and unequal levels of treatment when getting care. In order to address systemic racism, we need to also make sure that the environment in which people live is equitable. Read More
Photo by Tembinkosi Sikupela on Unsplash
Climate change has resulted in devastating flooding and natural disasters that have overwhelmed and greatly impacted communities. The Edenville dam along the Tittabawassee River in mid-Michigan collapsed due to large amounts of rainfall on May 19th, resulting in the collapse of another nearby dam. The resulting impacts of these events led to extreme flooding and the evacuation of nearly 10,000 residents in the surrounding areas. Communities with Superfund sites are in specific danger due to the potential mass movement of toxins into communities during flooding. Mary McKSchmidt, an author, photographer, and community member in Midland County, Michigan reflects on extreme flooding events that have put surrounding communities at risk for exposure to toxic chemicals from a Dow chemical complex and a large Superfund site. The Government Accountability Office has recommended that Superfund sites should be actively protected by planning for possible climate change events. However, the EPA has yet to address this issue. Read More
Flooding from two breached dams on Wednesday, May 20, has created problems for the Dow chemical plant in Michigan. Downriver from the plastics plant is a Superfund site located on the Tittabawassee River. Allen Burton, a professor at the University of Michigan explains that the flooding water creates concern for the site cleanup because it can stir contaminated sediments with the river water and carry the contamination further downstream. Further concern is raised at how climate change could impact Superfund site cleanup efforts with increases in flooding, severe storms and wildfires. Read More.
The following story is reprinted on the CHEJ website from the New York Times and written by Hiroko Tabuchi.
Dam Failure Threatens a Dow Chemical Complex and Superfund Cleanup
By
Floodwaters from two breached dams in Michigan on Wednesday flowed into a sprawling Dow chemical complex and threatened a vast Superfund toxic-cleanup site downriver, raising concerns of wider environmental fallout from the dam disaster and historic flooding.
The compound, which also houses the chemical giant’s world headquarters, lies on the banks of the Tittabawassee River in Midland, where by late Wednesday rising water had encroached on some parts of downtown. Kyle Bandlow, a Dow spokesman, said that floodwaters had reached the Dow site’s outer boundaries and had flowed into retaining ponds designed to hold what he described as brine water used on the site.
The Superfund cleanup sites are downriver from the century-old plant, which for decades had released chemicals into the nearby waterways. The concern downriver, according to Allen Burton, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Michigan, is that contaminated sediments on the river floor could be stirred up by the floodwaters, spreading pollution downstream and over the riverbanks.
“You worry about the speed of the current, this wall of water coming down the river,” he said. “It just has a huge amount of power.”
Mr. Bandlow did not provide information on the status of the cleanup sites.
Over the years the Dow complex has manufactured a range of products including Saran Wrap, Styrofoam, Agent Orange and mustard gas. Over time, Dow released chemicals into the water, leading to dioxin contamination stretching more than 50 miles along the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and into Lake Huron. Research has shown that dioxins can damage the immune system, cause reproductive or developmental problems, and cause cancer.
There is also a tiny nuclear research reactor on the site, used to create material that can be used in product experiments. Overnight, Dow filed an “unusual event” report with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission warning of potential flooding at the site. But the reactor had already been shut down because of the coronavirus crisis, and there were no indications of flood damage on Wednesday.
A federally funded Superfund cleanup of the Tittabawassee River began in 2007, and was slated for completion next year. Cleanup of other contaminated waterways is set to take longer.
“I would hate to see 13 years of work literally go down the drain if this flood wipes away the effort,” said Terry Miller, chairman of the local environmental group, Lone Tree Council, which has for years campaigned for a cleanup. “We were almost nearing the end.”
A former lawyer for Dow who oversaw the cleanup for more than a decade, Peter C. Wright, now runs the federal government’s Superfund cleanup program within the Environmental Protection Agency. A 2018 New York Times investigation found that while Mr. Wright led Dow’s legal strategy relating to the cleanup, the chemical giant was accused by regulators, and in one case a Dow whistle-blower, of submitting disputed data, misrepresenting scientific evidence and delaying cleanup.
Mr. Wright has pledged to recuse himself from cleanups related to his former employer, and was not involved in the government’s response to the flooding, said Francisco Arcaute, a Chicago-based spokesman for the E.P.A.
The agency was prepared to assist Michigan “in assessing and responding to any public health and environmental impacts from the Tittabawassee River Superfund Site and Dow’s Midland facility due to the ongoing flooding,” Mr. Arcaute said, including dispatching emergency personnel to the area.
Dow has not reported chemical releases into the river, Mr. Arcaute added. He said that the company’s Superfund agreement with the agency would require the company to survey for recontamination or any other effect on cleanup efforts after the flooding.
Dow agreed last year to pay another $77 million to fund projects that would attempt to restore nearby fish and wildlife habitats to compensate for decades of pollution from its plant. Signs along the river warn locals not to eat fish caught there, and to avoid contact with soil and river sediment.
The threat to the Dow complex highlights the risks to Superfund and other toxic cleanup sites posed by the effects of climate change, which include more frequent and severe flooding. A federal report published last year found that 60 percent of Superfund sites overseen by the E.P.A., or more than 900 toxic sites countrywide, are in areas that may be affected by flooding or wildfires, both hazards that may be exacerbated by climate change.
The Trump administration rejected the report’s recommendation that the federal government provide more clarity on how it intends to incorporate climate research into readying these sites to withstand a changing climate.
Hiroko Tabuchi is an investigative reporter on the climate desk. She was part of the Times team that received the 2013 Pulitzer for explanatory reporting.
Two colleges in Pennsylvania, Allegheny College and Dickinson College, have reached their goals to become completely carbon neutral. In 2008, both colleges were emitting nearly 20,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air of the fifth largest carbon dioxide emitting state in the country. To achieve their carbon neutral goals, each college took to implementing new systems such as planting trees, using renewable energy credits, using student engaged challenges, and more. The two colleges explained that the entirety of their goal was not to become completely carbon neutral, but rather establish an environment that encourages the community to partake in sustainable practices. Read More.
I look out my window every day and see that plant putting out black smoke, dark clouds of smoke. And now we’ve got this virus going on. I joke we’ve got a double whammy going on, but this is serious. We were in battle over here. We’ve got a war going on. Keisha Bowns interview with Katherine Webb-Hehn a freelance multimedia journalist in the South.
Do you have friends or family members who live in a vulnerability zone? Check out the map below.
The first map looks at high risk facilities across the U.S. These high risk communities are especially important now that Trump’s EPA is no longer requiring monitoring and will not take enforcement actions.
Across the United States, almost 12,500 high-risk chemical facilities place 39% of the U.S. population, 124 million people, who live within three miles of these facilities at constant risk of chemical disaster. The full vulnerability zones for these industrial and commercial sites can extend up to twenty five miles in radius. You can click on the link below to see if your community is at risk.
Whether you live in these areas or not CHEJ could use your help signing and circulating this petition. The petition is demanding that President Trump revokes EPA’s decision to not enforce environmental laws and regulations and allow dangerous industries to operate without monitoring what they are putting into the air. Allowing polluters to spew more toxins will exacerbate the suffering and death toll from pollution and COVID19. This is a cruel, cynical, and unneeded attempt to put polluter profits before public health. We have to fight back.
Those dots on the first map and the dark purple areas on the second represent the type of communities CHEJ works with. Our No More Sacrifice Zones Campaign is about reducing the toxic pollution in air of vulnerable communities. We need your support to gain the people power we need to create the policy changes we need to protect innocent families. Join our No More Sacrifice Zones campaign to create a solution from the bottom up.
Virginia has become the first southern state to establish carbon-free energy goals by the year 2045. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed into action the Virginia Clean Economy Act that will require such utility powerhouses as Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to transition to carbon free operations. Read More.
The following article is reprinted on our webpage from the Washington Post written by Gregory S. Schneider.
Virginia becomes the first Southern state with a goal of carbon-free energy
By Gregory S. Schneider
April 13, 2020 at 9:26 p.m. EDT
RICHMOND — The coronavirus is scrambling Virginia’s budget and economy, but it didn’t prevent Gov. Ralph Northam (D) from signing legislation that makes it the first Southern state with a goal of going carbon-free by 2045.
Over the weekend, Northam authorized the omnibus Virginia Clean Economy Act, which mandates that the state’s biggest utility, Dominion Energy, switch to renewable energy by 2045. Appalachian Power, which serves far southwest Virginia, must go carbon-free by 2050.
Almost all the state’s coal plants will have to shut down by the end of 2024 under the new law. Virginia is the first state in the old Confederacy to embrace such clean-energy targets.
Under a separate measure, Virginia also becomes the most Southern state to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — a carbon cap-and-trade market among states in the Northeast.
The actions “will create thousands of clean energy jobs, make major progress on fighting climate change, and break Virginia’s reliance on fossil fuels,” state Sen. Jennifer L. McClellan (D-Richmond), a sponsor of the omnibus bill, said in an emailed statement.
Democrats promised to do more to protect the environment during elections last fall in which they won control of the state legislature for the first time in a generation.
They used their new power to pass a mountain of ambitious legislation in this year’s General Assembly session, and Northam had until midnight this past Saturday to sign bills into law, suggest amendments or veto them. He proposed delaying some actions — such as raising the state’s minimum wage — and freezing all new spending in anticipation of the impact of the pandemic, which is likely to cost the state about $3 billion over the next two years.
But Northam cast the energy legislation as an antidote, saying in a statement that it would prove “that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand-in-hand.”
In addition to the clean-energy goals, the legislation sets energy efficiency standards for the state’s electricity providers, mandates the development of offshore wind energy and opens the door to more rooftop solar.
Some consumer advocates have criticized the legislation for continuing to allow Dominion Energy to pass costs along to customers and insulating the giant utility from regulatory oversight of its rates. Dominion is the most influential corporation in Richmond, and many of the Democrats who won last year had promised to disrupt the utility’s special status.
Although Dominion participated in crafting the legislation, it was not the driving force. Instead, a coalition of alternative-energy companies and advocacy groups worked with lawmakers on the idea.
Many environmental groups praised Northam for signing it.
“This is undoubtedly the boldest climate action legislation ever to come out of the South,” Southern Environmental Law Center lawyer Will Cleveland said via email. “We look forward to continuing to work together to ensure the best possible implementation of this groundbreaking legislation and to ensure that this transformation of our energy landscape benefits all Virginians equally.”
Gary Moody, director of state and local climate strategy at the National Audubon Society, said that the legislation “shows the success of a pragmatic, market-based approach in achieving state economywide solutions.”
Plus, he said, it’s good for the birds. “Even in this time of uncertainty, both threatened communities and vulnerable birds like cerulean warblers and saltmarsh sparrows will have a fighting chance against climate change.”
The Trump administration is set to finalize a rule that will weaken the federal government’s gas mileage standards for cars put in place during the Obama Administration. With the new rule, the cost of vehicles will be lowered and fuel prices will rise over the long term. It will also release over 1.5 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles over just five years.
The Administration claims that the new rule will decrease the number of car accidents and accident related deaths connected to older, less safe cars. By decreasing the price of cars, more people will be able to purchase new, more safe car models. It is predicted, however, that with the rule change more people will die from the increase in air pollution than from car accidents. Read More.
The following article is reprinted on our webpage from the Washington Post written by Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis.
Trump promised his mileage standards would make cars cheaper and safer. New documents raise doubts about that.
By: Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
March 30, 2020 at 8:03 p.m. EDT
The Trump administration is set as soon as Tuesday to undercut President Barack Obama’s most significant effort to combat climate change, finalizing a rule that would weaken the federal government’s gas mileage standards for the nation’s cars and pickup trucks, according to two federal officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the rule was not yet public.
The rule will require U.S. cars, pickup trucks and SUVs to improve average fuel efficiency by 1.5 percent per year between model years 2021 and 2026, compared to a nearly 5 percent annual increase put in place under the Obama administration.
“They’re doing a rule to damage public health,” said Chester France, a former senior career official at the Environmental Protection Agency who helped oversee the Obama-era mileage standards and now works as a consultant for the Environmental Defense Fund. “In this crisis that we’re having, it’s unconscionable.”
Asked about the change, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule, EPA spokeswoman Corry Schiermeyer said in an email that she could not comment on specifics because it is still under review.
“This rule when finalized will benefit all Americans by improving the U.S. fleet’s fuel economy, reducing air pollution, making new vehicles more affordable for all Americans and save lives,” she said.
The revised mileage standards will affect drivers across the country, partly by lowering the sticker price of new vehicles but also by causing fuel costs to rise over the long term. It also would release an additional 1.5 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions into the air over five years, according to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund — equivalent to the pollution released by 68 coal plants operating during that time.
The Trump administration has argued that forcing automakers to increase the fuel economy of their fleets to Obama-era standards would make new vehicles more expensive and encourage people to drive older, less safe cars and trucks. By contrast, the new rule — part of a joint effort between the Transportation Department and the EPA — estimates there will be fewer accident-related deaths over the lifetime of vehicles sold between 2021 and 2029 as more people trade older cars for newer, safer ones.
However, the government’s own estimates say more Americans will die as a result of increased air pollution during that same period than if the existing standards remained in place, according to two people briefed on the rule who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it was not yet public.
This week’s finalization of the federal fuel-efficiency standards began nearly two years ago, when the Trump administration first proposed weakening the 2009 requirements. The Obama administration argued that higher fuel-efficiency standards would improve public health, combat climate change and save consumers money without compromising safety.
The Trump administration’s move follows its attempt to revoke California’s long-standing ability to set its own, more stringent tailpipe standards — and have other states follow its lead. California, joined by nearly two dozen states, is suing the administration for the right to set its own fuel efficiency standards.
The new rule has also caused a rift within the auto industry, as a handful of companies have forged a deal with California to abide by tougher mileage standards, while other automakers have sided with the White House in the ongoing legal tug-of-war.
“The auto industry has consistently called for year-over-year fuel economy and [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”][greenhouse gas] improvements,” said John Bozzella, president of the Alliance of Automotive Innovation, an industry group.
Still, he said, the standards developed a decade ago under the Obama administration made assumptions that “aren’t supported by the data today.” Fuel prices have remained low, and buyers have gravitated to SUVs and pickup trucks in far larger numbers than smaller, more efficient cars.
“The standards that were originally developed are no longer appropriate in light of shifting market conditions and consumer preferences,” Bozzella said.
The new mileage rule is just one in a suite of efforts officials are undertaking to ease environmental protections in the last months of President Trump’s first term, even amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Power companies don’t want the EPA to change this mercury pollution rule. It’s doing it anyway.
On Friday, for example, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management finalized an environmental analysis that marks a key step in building a private mining road through the wilds of Alaska.
The administration is pursuing other rollbacks, including increasing offshore drilling and altering a regulation that limited mercury and other pollutants from power plants. The White House has yet to finalize an overhaul of how it conducts environmental reviews of major federal decisions, as well as another effort to relax an Obama-era regulation on methane emissions.
Agencies within the Interior Department are moving ahead with plans to expand development on public land. While environmental groups have called on the government to cancel federal oil and gas auctions altogether — or at least extend comment periods for them — the Bureau of Land Management recently raised about $3.5 million by selling off the right to drill on a total of about 87,000 acres in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming.
Administration officials have changed at least one policy on how the public can comment on rule changes during the pandemic.
BLM’s New Mexico office said last week it would allow those who oppose an oil and gas lease sale scheduled for May to submit formal complaints online, instead of by mail or in person.
On Thursday, the EPA issued a memo instructing petrochemical plants, power companies and other major industries that they could monitor their own pollution levels during the virus outbreak.
Cynthia Giles, who headed EPA’s enforcement division during Obama’s second term, said in an interview that the new memo failed to emphasize that facilities need to keep complying with existing pollution rules.
EPA spokeswoman Andrea Woods, however, said the new policy only states that companies will not be held liable “for routine compliance monitoring and reporting. It is not a nationwide waiver of environmental rules.”
“During this extraordinary time, EPA believes that it is more important for facilities to ensure that their pollution control equipment remains up and running and the facilities are operating safely, than to carry out routine sampling and reporting,” she added. The agency added that the policy is “temporary and will be lifted as soon as normal operations can resume.”
The expected rollback this week of federal fuel-efficiency standards brought a wave of criticism from environmental advocates and vows of legal action on Monday, even before it was made official.
“In the middle of a national crisis, the Trump administration is moving forward with a legally flawed, environmentally damaging rollback that will unleash regulatory uncertainty and mire the automotive industry in more economic disarray,” Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement.
Even if the rule gives many automakers a measure of regulatory certainty for the moment, Bozzella said the industry is now awash in a moment of massive uncertainty due to the coronavirus.
“We’re facing a demand shock. People are not buying cars, understandably,” he said. “Frankly, the biggest uncertainty we’re facing right now is what will the industry look like? How long will this market uncertainty be with us?”
Dino Grandoni and Josh Dawsey contributed to this report.
Juliet Eilperin
Juliet Eilperin is The Washington Post’s senior national affairs correspondent, covering the transformation of federal environmental policy. She’s authored two books, “Demon Fish: Travels Through The Hidden World of Sharks” and “Fight Club Politics: How Partisanship is Poisoning the House of Representatives.” She has worked for The Post since 1998. Follow
Brady Dennis
Brady Dennis is a national reporter for The Washington Post, focusing on the environment and public health issues. He previously spent years covering the nation’s economy. Dennis was a finalist for the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for a series of explanatory stories about the global financial crisis. Follow
[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]