climate change
Top Story
Credit: Trump White House Archived
Op-ed: We mobilized to defend the EPA in Trump's first term. This time the stakes are even higher.
The rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes.
In early 2017 when the Trump administration was just starting to reveal its true intentions, I and other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alumni formed a resistance organization to mobilize a defense for our former EPA colleagues and the mission to which they, and we, had devoted our professional lives.
We fact-checked the Trump administration’s version of environmental protection and defended the integrity of the agency and its personnel. We provided critical information to reporters, environmental organizations and Capitol Hill.
I walked away when the Biden-Harris administration took power. The EPA was liberated to do its job, to continue the path that had been set decades before in the Nixon administration and pretty much continued since, with the glaring exception of the Trump years (and the first couple of years of Reagan, thank you, Anne Gorsuch).
We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy in which the EPA does its job (albeit under the surveillance of an unsympathetic Supreme Court; thank you, Neil Gorsuch).
Another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025, which would dismantle the expertise of the career civil service and set progress back to the time before we recognized that pollution does not respect state lines and that every citizen is entitled to environmental protections, wherever they live. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that Trump has disavowed but was, in part, crafted by several former Cabinet members of his first administration, would give “the primary role in making choices about the environment” back to state governments. It would remove climate protection from the EPA’s to-do list.
As we have already lived through this sad drama, I went back and read what I wrote two years ago in the Democracy Journalabout the organization we established to fight for environmental protections. Just as a reminder of what can and likely will happen with a Trump second term, I’d suggest you do as well.
The article describes the various attacks on both the substance and the process of environmental protection. It describes the tremendous effort it took to document and fight. The entire enterprise was predicated on the assumption that facts are facts and that making those facts available to people through a free press would be sufficient to help mobilize resistance and engage rationality, that information would help people understand what was at stake and nudge them toward action.
March for Science rally in Washington DC, April 22, 2017.
Credit: Susan Melkisethian/Flickr
To some extent, we had a bit of an advantage because the folks who were assigned by the first Trump administration to carry out this carnage were mostly novices. They had never before torn down government institutions.
Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.
In the last part of that article, I tried to think about whether the business model for our effort could work if the agency were again under attack. I have no doubt that EPA alumni could be mobilized. And there are still reporters willing to shine a light on injustices and violations of law.
Where I have doubt is whether the circumstances are so different that the same theory of the case and the same tools would be insufficient.
In 2017-2021, we could reasonably hope that Trump and Trumpism were temporary. A second round of Trump could “mean that we have misread our own country,” as I wrote, which would make it harder to organize and to keep up our spirits this time around.
There are so many uncertainties, such cratering of principles we thought we could rely on in our effort.
What does a second Trump election with his myriad lies say about the power of facts and truth? What happens to the EPA when its cadre of scientists, analysts, lawyers, economists and other specialists are removed from their jobs or intimidated? How can advocates for clean air and clean water rely on an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to provide the minute and specific instructions apparently required now that the Chevron doctrine has been disposed of? Does a Trump-dominated EPA even try to carry out its statutory duties, much less try to work its way around the restrictions recently placed on it by the Supreme Court?
As I said in my analysis, the rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes. It would be well to refresh our memories of the realities of those challenging days.
Keep reading...Show less
NOAA Satellites/Flickr/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/
Hurricanes can triple the amount of toxic contamination released into nearby communities
A new study in Environmental Science and Technology found that petrochemical manufacturers and refineries in Texas released higher amounts of toxic contamination during hurricanes.
In short:
- Compared to periods of normal weather, Hurricane Rita (2005) resulted in twice as many contamination releases, while Hurricanes Ike (2008) and Harvey (2017) caused releases to triple.
- Communities with a higher percentage of renters, higher poverty rates, and more Hispanic residents were more likely to experience an increase in contamination.
- Petrochemical refineries were responsible for the highest amount of contamination released during hurricanes.
Key quote:
“Low-income communities and people of color are disproportionately impacted by hurricanes and floods, leading to concerns that climate change will further exacerbate existing environmental health disparities.”
Why this matters:
As climate change continues to alter global weather patterns, extreme weather events such as hurricanes are becoming more common and more severe. With hazardous petrochemical sites disproportionately located within low-income communities of color, this study highlights how extreme weather can have significant environmental justice implications, as well as the need for better protections for fenceline communities.
Related EHN coverage:
- Oil and gas production responsible for $77 billion in annual US health damages: Study
- Air pollution linked to over 700 health conditions
More resources: Environmental Health News reporter Cami Ferrell covers the petrochemical industry in Houston. See her most recent reporting, ExxonMobil, LyondellBassel and Chevron among Houston’s top polluters: Report (leer este reportaje en español) and WATCH: Enduring the “endless” expansion of the nation’s petrochemical corridor (en español).
Follow Cami’s reporting via Instagram @ehnewsroom and TikTok @CamiReports.
Berberian, Alique et al. for Environmental Science and Technology. July 30, 2024
Top Story
commons.wikimedia.org
Appalachian groups express frustration over first $30 million in federal hydrogen hub funding
“This award represents a continued commitment to invest in a natural gas industry that has added to the pollution and health burdens in the region.”
PITTSBURGH — On July 31, the federal government announced $30 million of funding for the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub, or ARCH2, which plans to create hydrogen from natural gas and other sources.
ARCH2 is one of seven planned, federally funded hydrogen hubs across the country, and one of two (along with the Gulf Coast hub) that will rely primarily on fossil fuel sources rather than renewables to create hydrogen.
The $30 million award represents the first round of funding for ARCH2, with a total of $925 million available for this project over the next seven to twelve years. In total, the seven planned hydrogen hub projects are slated to receive $7 billion in federal funding.
The $30 million will be used to “solidify planning, development, and design activities around site selection, technology deployment, community benefits and engagement, labor partnerships, and workforce training,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The announcement comes just weeks after Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro signed into law a controversial bill allowing carbon capture and storage in the state, which will be required for the development of the hydrogen hub.
The award announcement frustrated local environmental and community advocates, who say the DOE has not been transparent about the details of the project, its climate and economic benefits, or its potential to add pollution and cause health harms in environmental justice communities that are already overburdened with existing pollution sources.
“This award represents a continued commitment to invest in a natural gas industry that has added to the pollution and health burdens in the region while failing to deliver any measurable growth in jobs, income and population,” Sean O’Leary, senior researcher with the Ohio River Valley Institute, a progressive think tank, said in a statement.
Earlier this year, the Ohio River Valley Institute delivered a letter to the DOE on behalf of 54 Appalachian organizations and community groups calling for the suspension of ARCH2. The letter called on the DOE to release additional information about the projects and offer impacted communities more meaningful opportunities for engagement prior to awarding additional funds — neither of which has happened, according to the organizations that signed the letter.
“Affected communities know little about the proposed projects and their impacts,” the No False Solutions PA Coalition said in a separate statement about the award. “Nevertheless, millions of dollars are being awarded to projects that will surely impact our health and environment BEFORE affected communities have had a chance to weigh in.”
Critics of the ARCH2 project say that carbon capture and storage technology hasn’t yet proven effective as a climate solution and it remains unclear whether hydrogen energy will abate or worsen climate change.
“There’s been a lot of talk about how hydrogen will be a cleaner energy source, but that overlooks the entire picture which includes reliance on the natural gas industry, which we know pollutes and harms communities and drives climate change with methane leaks,” Talor Musil, a field manager with the Environmental Health Project, a public health nonprofit, told EHN.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Chris Yarzab/flickr
Op-ed: Ripe for disaster declarations — heat, wildfire smoke and death data
Currently, the federal data on extreme heat and wildfire smoke itself constitutes a major disaster.
Extreme heat and wildfire smoke should of course be defined as major disasters by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to the National Weather Service, heat kills more people in this nation than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and lightning combined.
The Washington Post reported that extreme heat recently killed at least 28 people across the nation.
Yet, despite several requests from states over the years, most recently California during a 2022 “heat dome” and wildfires, no White House has ever approved a disaster declaration for heat or smoke.
Some states outright ignore the dangers in the name of greed. Over the last 13 months, Texas and Florida have enacted laws that block localities from issuing heat protection rules for workers. Nationally, the Biden administration proposed on July 2 new rules to protect workers from heat. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of construction and agricultural lobbying groups have opposed the prospect of rules for months and are sure to oppose them in the courts.
It is clear that the opposition is willing to risk sacrificing lower-wage construction and farm workers to the sun’s brutality as executives count the cash in air conditioned offices. Farm workers make an average $13.59 an hour. Hispanic construction laborers make $15.34 an hour, well below the $25-an-hour living wage for a family of four in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator. Farm workers respectively have 35 times and 12 times higher risk of heat-related injuries than in all other industries.
Making the latest case for disaster declarations is a consortium of 31 environmental, public health, labor, and justice groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a June 17 petition to FEMA, the groups warned that the record-breaking heat and fire disasters we are already experiencing are likely only the beginning. The world’s nations, particularly the top burners of fossil fuels such as the United States, have yet to unify to prevent uncontrolled global warming.
“These may be the coolest days and the cleanest air of the 21st century,” the petition said, “and it is already unbearably hot and unsafe for too many Americans.”
The petitioners hope that disaster declarations can unlock federal funds for short-term relief such as cooling centers, water supplies, emergency air conditioning and air filtration systems, and financial assistance for evacuations. Declarations could also lead to money for long-term, proactive mitigation, such as renewable energy storage and microgrids to withstand utility blackouts, and retrofitting of homes and buildings to be more energy efficient and weatherized.
That is vitally important for disadvantaged families who are more likely to live on shadeless, asphalt and concrete “heat islands.” Such communities are often already overburdened with pollution associated with fossil fuel burning and proximity to polluting industries. The petition called extreme heat a “harm multiplier” for these communities because of poor housing stock, difficulty in paying utility bills, and pre-existing poorer health.
In making their case, the 31 environmental groups cite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, projecting that financial cost of extreme heat in the United States will explode fivefold to half a trillion dollars a year by 2050.
There is something else that would make their case even stronger: Data on people. The federal government is woefully behind university researchers in calculating the current and future mortality of heat and smoke.
It should be just as much an emergency for the government to tell us the toll of heat and wildfire smoke. Especially since the government itself says “most heat-related deaths are preventable.”
Death behind closed doors
Property damage from tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods is easy to visualize and leaves the costs of emergency assistance and repair without much question. Because of the nation’s overall wealth, which gives us relatively sturdier dwellings and stronger rebuilds, deaths from those weather disasters are a fraction of the fatalities suffered in lesser resourced parts of the world. For instance, while Hurricane Katrina took 1,400 lives in the US in 2005, Cyclone Nargis in the Bay of Bengal made landfall in Myanmar in 2008 and killed 140,000 people—100 times more people than Katrina.
People perishing by heat or smoke one by one in the privacy of their homes or in the sterility of hospitals is relatively invisible. An analysis of heat deaths by the Cincinnati Enquirer found that about half of heat deaths happen at home, often to people who lack air conditioning, are elderly with pre-existing medical conditions, or who are socially isolated.
The petition by environmental groups points to the current invisibility of heat deaths. It cites federal data saying there were 2,300 deaths last year where heat was listed as a factor on death certificates. That by itself was a record in nearly a half-century of such record keeping. But left as is, that toll would seem to pale next to last year’s nearly 43,000 car fatalities, nearly 43,000 gun-related deaths, or 107,000 drug overdose deaths.
The number of heat deaths is assuredly far more. Heat is often not listed on death certificates as a contributing factor to the final cause of death, such as kidney failure, organ failure, and heart attack. There is no uniform protocol tying together how the federal government, the 50 states, or the nation’s 3,000 counties calculate heat-related deaths.
University scientists and health and safety groups are filling in the gaps as best they can.
In 2020, a study in the journal Environmental Epidemiology determined that 5,600 deaths a year were attributable to heat from 1997 to 2006, eight times higher than federal figures. In 2022, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Medical Center calculated that the number of people who died from heat-related causes between 2008 and 2017 was two to three times higher than federal figures. The Penn and Philadelphia VA researchers also found that extreme heat days were associated with “significantly higher” cardiovascular mortality among adults.
This spring, Texas A&M climate scientists Andrew Dessler and Jangho Lee told the Associated Press that last year’s real national annual heat death toll may be 11,000, nearly five times higher than the 2,300 cited by the government.
In the work world, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics says 43 workers died in 2022 from heat. But reports by Public Citizen, the most recent being in May of this year, estimate that as many as 2,000 workers a year (46 times more) die from heat and another 170,000 are injuries triggered by heat, such as becoming dizzy and falling off a roof.
But the injury might simply be listed as a fall without mention of heat. Public Citizen says government figures are “decidedly unreliable” and “notoriously problematic” because they are based on self-reporting surveys of employers and “less than half of employers even maintain the required records.”
No matter what number you’re looking at, all of them are likely to soar much higher without concerted global action on climate change. Without a drastic and immediate cut in fossil fuel emissions, the planet is currently staring at a 5-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures this century, with the U.S. being the world’s biggest historical contributor to global warming gases.
According to a study published last year by Lee and Dessler in the journal GeoHealth, the US suffered an average of 36,444 deaths a year from extreme temperatures a quarter century ago, with most of those deaths being cold-related. With a rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit, that number could explode to 200,000 a year this century, driven significantly by shifts of heat mortality to Northern cities. Among the cities with the highest projected temperature increases are Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Muskegon, Minnesota.
Smoking out data
Parallel to that, and arguably worse, there is virtually no federal data on the fatal impacts of wildfire smoke. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lists a mere 535 deaths directly from wildfires over the last 45 years in its list of “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.” But there are likely thousands more from the smoke, which is associated with cardiovascular, ischemic heart disease, digestive, endocrine, diabetes, mental, and chronic kidney disease mortality.
Such smoke is not covered by the Clean Air Act, and there is growing evidence that it is eroding decades of gains in the nation’s air quality under the act. A new study by researchers at UCLA found that the fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) in wildfire smoke that easily passes into the lungs and spreads throughout the body, contributed to the premature deaths of more than 50,000 people in California from 2008 to 2018, with an economic impact of between $432 billion and $456 billion.
Another study this spring by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 16,000 people a year died from smoke PM2.5 across the US from 2011 to 2020. That study found that elevated long-term smoke concentrations “increase mortality rates at both low and high concentrations.” Wildfire smoke, as the nation found out last year with its orange-brown skies that dulled the sun into a moon-like disk, spreads for so many thousands of miles from its source that the study projects a “large mortality burden not only in regions where large fires occur but also in populous regions with low smoke concentrations (e.g., the eastern US).”
Juan Aguilera, a physician researcher at the University of Texas School of Public Health in El Paso, found that wildfire smoke stresses immune systems and triggers inflammation. He told National Public Radio that living in a wildfire-prone area is “something equivalent to smoking like one pack a day, or 10 packs a week.”
Today’s 16,000 deaths a year from wildfire smoke could grow to nearly 28,000 by mid-century under a high warming scenario and take a cumulative 700,000 lives by 2055, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
“Our research suggests that the health cost of climate-driven wildfire smoke could be among the most important and costly consequences of a warming climate in the US,” NBER scientists said.
That concern is bolstered by a new study by Australian researchers who found that the number of extreme wildfires has doubled since 2003, with the last seven years including six of the most extreme. Lead author Calum Cunningham told the New York Times last month, “That we’ve detected such a big increase over such a short period of time makes the findings even more shocking. We’re seeing the manifestations of a warming and drying climate before our very eyes in these extreme fires.”
Adaptation could cut into the mortality risk, but it alone is likely not enough, given how Lee and Dessler noted in their study: “Many adaptive responses (e.g., installing air conditioning, improved health care, better urban planning) are too expensive for poorer individuals or communities, so adaptation will necessarily require society to pay for much of the adaptation. This would represent a huge transfer of wealth from richer to poorer members of our society, a dicey proposition in today’s political environment.”
Even better, of course, would be a serious drive toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency says no new gas, oil or coal investment is necessary as renewables, energy efficiency and electrification already can deliver the vast majority of emissions reductions.
New mentality needed at FEMA
Though all heat-related disaster declaration requests to FEMA thus far have been denied, agency spokesperson Daniel Llargues told National Public Radio that “there’s nothing specific” in federal law that precludes such a declaration. “If a circumstance did occur where an extreme heat incident exceeded state and local capacity, an emergency or major disaster declaration request submission could be considered,” Llargues said in an email.
And the White House can make a disaster declaration regardless of FEMA’s recommendation. In May, President Biden overruled a FEMA denial of a major disaster declaration so parts of Massachusetts could get federal aid to recover from severe storms and flooding last September.
The process of FEMA better understanding a “circumstance” where extreme heat and wildfire smoke constitutes a disaster starts with a better understanding of the danger. Some parts of the government are trying to mine the data, such as the National Institute of Health’s Heat Information System.
Extreme heat and wildfire smoke also offers FEMA a fresh chance to create new paradigms of aid, to avoid inequities seen in other disasters. Current FEMA storm funding often maintains systemic racism, putting communities with more white residents and higher property values back on their feet, while low-income people and communities of color, historically hemmed into lower property values by redlining, are left on their knees.
As Politico wrote in 2022, FEMA grants to help richer families raise homes above flood levels “have helped turn dozens of wealthy or overwhelmingly white areas into enclaves of climate resilience. The communities are seeing rising property values and economic stability, while much of the nation faces devastating effects of rising seas and intensifying floods.”
One can only imagine the results if the same mentality is ultimately applied to communities marooned on “heat islands.” Seniors and Black adults are at disproportionate risk of cardiovascular deaths from extreme heat according to a Penn study last year. A 2022 Penn study warned, “As extreme heat events increase, the burden of cardiovascular mortality may continue to increase and the disparities between demographic subgroups may widen.”
The same can be said for those lower-wage farmworkers, construction workers and other industries where heat is a major risk. Often, the workers in those industries are disproportionately of color and immigrants. Other trades where heat is a high risk include landscaping, and indoor jobs in warehouses, restaurant kitchens, mills, and doing maintenance.
And let’s not forget public school teachers and staff, as huge percentages of the nation’s public school buildings are not equipped for the rising heat.
Better data needed
There are scientists, including UCS’s Juan Declet-Barreto, who have long called for standard methodology to more accurately determine whether excess deaths originated with heat or smoke exposure. Last year, Ashley Ward, the director of Duke University’s Heat Policy Innovation Lab, wrote in STAT that we need much better and uniformed coding for external causes of injuries and incentives for health systems to apply the codes for cases involving extreme heat. Without uniform coding, the public is left to weigh the emerging body of studies that have different estimations and may “add to the incorrect assumption that there is a lack of scientific consensus.”
Seconding the call for data collection is the Federation of American Scientists. Among its major list of recommendations is a “whole-of-government strategy to address extreme heat.” The federation said that true mortality counts are “essential to enhancing the benefit-cost analysis for heat mitigation and resilience.”
But having heat- and smoke-related mortality data is more than that. Knowing the true toll might help jolt the nation into action on climate change sooner and lessen the mitigation and resilience we will need. One only need think back to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and how critical data was to devise public health policy. Currently, the federal data on extreme heat and wildfire smoke itself constitutes a major disaster.
This post originally ran on The Union of Concerned Scientists blog and is republished here with permission.
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Anna Zivarts
Op-ed: The climate crisis demands a move away from car dependency
Power shutoffs or wildfire evacuations can be deadly for disabled people, especially nondrivers who may not have a way to get to a cooling center or evacuation point.
My nightmares about waves started the night our building flooded.
I was living in a commercial loft in Red Hook, Brooklyn, when Hurricane Sandy hit. None of us living in the squat, two-story cinder-block warehouse across the street from the cruise ship terminal took the mandatory evacuation order seriously.
During Hurricane Irene the year before, we waded through the large puddle that formed on our corner, laughing at how scared we had been and how hard it was going to be to get all that masking tape off the windows we’d so carefully taped in giant asterisks.
I felt safe in a big city. Natural disasters were things experienced by people in the country, or other countries. This was New York City. We were protected.
Within the course of a few hours that night, eight feet of water surrounded our home. It came in around the edges of the plate glass door. For a bit, the street lights were still working, and the water on the far side of the door glowed like an eerie fish tank as it rose higher and higher. Then the power was gone and we watched nervously, peering around the corner to the now-inundated mezzanine landing. Would it reach the second floor? At what point should we try to make an escape across the adjacent rooftops?
Eventually, it got late enough and the water didn’t seem to be coming as quickly, so we tried to sleep. But all night I had nightmares of monstrous waves from the harbor crashing through the cinderblock building. To this day, I have trouble sleeping when I can hear the noise of waves or running water. I try to reason with myself, but the destructive power of the ocean is hard to forget.
We woke up the next morning after Sandy to the smell of flooding. The rank scent of seawater blended with gasoline from submerged cars inundated everything: the drywall of our building, the belongings of everyone who lived in first floor or basement apartments, the piles of clothing and furniture and old photos and books that were dragged from ruined apartments and piled on the sidewalks.
I try to reason with myself, but the destructive power of the ocean is hard to forget.
For my job with the Communication Workers of America (CWA) union, I was asked to interview union members whose homes had been destroyed to create a fundraising effort for rebuilding. On Staten Island, I spoke to a woman whose one-story house had flooded to the ceiling. She pointed above her head to the line of grime on the blue wall of her living room. Luckily, she had made it out; her neighbors didn’t.
As I traveled to the edges of NYC documenting these stories, it wasn’t hard to see that the places with the worst flooding and most destruction were the working class, poor or Black neighborhoods. In affluent Park Slope, life continued mostly untouched, the streets full of Halloween trick-or-treaters. In the flood zone of Red Hook, power was off for weeks, and in one of the largest public housing complexes in the country, destroyed boilers left residents without heat or hot water through the winter.
These unequal impacts repeat with each climate change-induced disaster. In Washington State, every summer now we hold our breath, wondering when the wildfire smoke will arrive. For wealthier folks with weather-sealed homes and air filtration systems, it’s liveable.
For everyone else, it can mean weeks of breathing unhealthy air, and, depending on the health of your lungs and heart, it can even be fatal. Power shutoffs or wildfire evacuations can be deadly for disabled people, especially nondrivers who may not have a way to get to a cooling center or evacuation point.
Nearly a third of people in the U.S. can't drive or can’t afford to drive because of age, income or disability. But instead of interventions that would move us away from car dependency–better transit, safer and more comfortable places to walk, bike and roll, and denser and more inclusively zoned communities–much climate funding has focused on swapping out gas-powered cars for electric.
Just as the public health impacts of climate change are much more acutely experienced by poor and disabled people and Black and brown communities, the public health impacts of car dependency fall on the same populations with less power, fewer resources, and less reliable mobility access. People who live near highways or busy roads are exposed to air and noise pollution, the lack of pedestrian access and connectivity, and an increased risk of being hit by a car. Preserving car dependency does and will continue to perpetuate profound public health and access disparities. People who can’t drive and can’t afford to drive will continue to bear these substantial public health burdens so the status quo of easy car-based mobility can be preserved for those it’s working for.
This week I’m at a conference in northern Idaho surrounded by forests of half-dead and dried-out trees. While the Canadian wildfires last summer were massive, it’s difficult to appreciate how much forest across the west still waits – a lightning strike or cigarette butt away from conflagration. As I walk through the woods, I’ve noticed all of the larger stumps have burn scars from a previous fire. When this area burns again, the smoke will blow east. Those who live in airtight homes with nice new HVAC systems will hunker down and be fine, but there will be many apartments with the windows cracked open: better to breathe bad air than roast without air conditioning.
Our reliance on driving means that transportation is the leading cause of carbon emissions in the US. There’s an urgency to address this, but rather than entrenching us further into car dependency by promoting individual electric vehicle ownership, now is our chance to channel climate investments away from a mobility system based around driving. Among those for whom driving is accessible and affordable, a life with less driving may seem both unimaginable and inconvenient. But for those of us who can’t drive or can’t afford to, we are a living demonstration that it is possible. Relying on transit, walking, rolling and biking might not be safe or convenient yet, but with the scale of investments we are putting towards fighting climate change, we could make it a whole lot easier.
With the right housing, land use and transportation incentives we can retrofit our communities so it’s possible to get everywhere you need to go without driving. It’s an open question whether we value that inclusivity more than we value preserving the status quo.
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: The White House
Biden administration unveils plan to wean US government off single-use plastics
“Because of its purchasing power … the Federal Government has the potential to significantly impact the supply of these products.”
The U.S. government will stop using single-use plastics in all federal operations by 2035, according to a strategy released by the Biden administration on Friday.
The announcement also set a goal for the federal government to stop buying plastic for food service, events and packaging by 2027. While the strategy isn’t enforceable by law and could change under future administrations, it is the first government-wide strategy aimed at reducing plastic pollution and recognizes that the plastic pollution “crisis” encompasses the entire lifecycle: from the fossil fuels used as building blocks in plastic manufacturing to the microplastic bits lining our shorelines.
“With its multitude of environmental impacts across its supply chain, broad global effects, and severe public health consequences, plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing and consequential environmental problems in the U.S. and around the globe,” said Brenda Mallory and Ali Zaidi, two White House environmental and climate officials, in the joint letter accompanying the strategy document.
Changes in federal purchasing can have huge impacts: The U.S. federal government is the largest buyer of consumer goods in the world, with nearly $600 billion in annual spending. “Because of its purchasing power, by reducing the demand of plastic products through procurement changes, the Federal Government has the potential to significantly impact the supply of these products,” the strategy reads.
The document also points to already underway federal efforts to curb plastic pollution’s impact — including an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule set in April to tackle chemical emissions, a Department of the Interior order to phase-out single use plastics on public lands by 2032, ongoing EPA recycling grants, and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration effort to tackle marine debris.
"Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing and consequential environmental problems in the U.S. and around the globe." - Brenda Mallory and Ali Zaidi, White House officials
The announcement comes as the plastic crisis continues to grow. The world generates roughly 400 million tons of plastic waste each year, and less than 10% of plastic ever made has been recycled. Plastic waste is set to triple by 2060.
The crisis has garnered international attention as more than 175 countries are negotiating a global plastics treaty. The talks have stalled over issues such as regulating the chemicals in plastic, production caps, and the role of chemical recycling and bioplastics. There is a High Ambition Coalition of countries that want an end to plastic pollution by 2040. There is also a Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability — made of nations economically reliant on fossil fuels — that is pushing for a larger focus on addressing plastic waste (via chemical and mechanical recycling and other means) rather than plastic bans or production limits. The U.S. — the largest exporter of oil and gas in the world — is not part of either and has been criticized for not taking a stronger stance on limiting production.
The new strategy similarly does not call for any plastic production caps, but many environmental groups said it is a step in the right direction.
“This report is the clearest articulation to date from the White House of the scale and urgency of the plastic pollution crisis and the threat it poses for our ocean and communities,” Jeff Watters, Ocean Conservancy’s vice president of external affairs said in a statement.
Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business for the World Wildlife Fund, praised the strategy for focusing on the entire lifecycle.
“We’re heartened to see this report doesn’t shy away from the negative impacts that plastics have on human health and analyzes the problem through the full life cycle of plastic,” Simon said in a statement. “Cleaning up the global plastic mess must start at home. And today under President Biden and Vice President Harris’ leadership, the U.S. government is doing exactly that."
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Commonwealth Media
30 environmental advocacy groups ask PA governor to veto carbon capture bill
“Putting resources toward carbon capture and storage instead of renewable energy is wasting time we don’t have.”
PITTSBURGH — A group of more than 30 environmental and health advocacy groups have asked Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to veto a bill that would pave the way for carbon storage in the state.
The bill, SB831, which was passed by the state legislature on Friday, creates a legal framework for climate-warming carbon emissions captured from burning fossil fuels to be injected underground and stored indefinitely to prevent them from escaping into the atmosphere. Some environmental advocacy groups support the bill, while others oppose it.
Carbon capture and storage infrastructure is being advanced across the country thanks to federal funding and tax credits through the federal Inflation Reduction Act, but the technology remains controversial.
Proponents say it can reduce carbon emissions while protecting the power grid, while opponents say the technology is unproven and will divert resources from the rapid clean energy transition needed to slow climate change. The debate over the Pennsylvania bill has mirrored the national and global debates about carbon capture and storage.
“Inviting this technology into the state is just setting us up for more fossil fuel extraction, which is what it’s actually all about,” Karen Feridun, co-founder of the Better Path Coalition, a Pennsylvania-based environmental advocacy group, told EHN. “Putting resources toward carbon capture and storage instead of renewable energy is wasting time we don’t have.”
On July 16, the Better Path Coalition submitted a letter on behalf of more than 30 environmental advocacy groups calling on Governor Shapiro to veto the bill.
“Inviting this technology into the state is just setting us up for more fossil fuel extraction, which is what it’s actually all about." - Karen Feridun, Better Path Coalition
“The bill strips Pennsylvania landowners of their subsurface property rights, shifts liability to the state, and exposes everyone to a new and very dangerous generation of fossil fuel Infrastructure,” the letter reads. “SB 831 should not be enacted for the sake of the Commonwealth and the people who depend on you to make the courageous choice to protect them.”
The letter also references a previous letter the group sent to lawmakers prior to the vote on the bill that outlined scientific concerns about the shortcomings of carbon capture and storage technology.
“There are a lot of unanswered questions about how to do carbon storage safely and effectively in general, and even more about doing it in Pennsylvania where we have unique geology and hundreds of thousands of abandoned [oil and gas] wells, many of which are in unknown locations,” Feridun said. “It’s premature at best to pass a bill allowing this and saying it’s in the public interest when this process has never been done successfully.”
Several lawmakers, including state Senator Katie Muth and state Representative Greg Vitali, made remarks opposing the bill prior to its passage.
“This bill is deeply flawed and does not provide the necessary safeguards for communities or our environment nor does it provide an actual solution for combatting the climate crisis,” Muth said.
The bill received support from business and labor organizations including the Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades Council, the AFL-CIO, and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.
“Carbon capture technology has the potential to create a significant number of good paying jobs in the construction industry while simultaneously creating family-sustaining permanent jobs for the citizens of our commonwealth,” said Robert Bair, president of the Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades Council, in a statement.
A handful of other environmental advocacy groups, including the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Environmental Defense Fund, the Clean Air Task Force, and the Nature Conservancy, worked with lawmakers in the House to amend the bill and ultimately supported its passage.
“Carbon capture technology has the potential to create a significant number of good paying jobs in the construction industry while simultaneously creating family-sustaining permanent jobs for the citizens of our commonwealth.” - Robert Bair, Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades Council
The amendments included public land protections, special provisions for environmental justice communities, community engagement requirements, improved landowner rights, preventative requirements for induced seismic activity, extending the default post-injection site care period, and enabling the Department of Environmental Protection to promulgate and enforce additional regulations as needed to protect the people and environment of the Commonwealth.
“The future of [carbon capture and storage] in Pennsylvania remains to be seen, but we cannot forgo the opportunity to adopt necessary performance standards,” the Pennsylvania Environmental Commission said in a statement. “Now we have the basis to make that happen.”
Feridun said of the amendments, “They’re like putting on cologne when you have really bad body odor… the bill is still fundamentally a bad bill.”
Carbon capture and storage are necessary to pave the way for Pennsylvania to be part of two proposed, federally funded hydrogen hubs — the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub and the Appalachian Hydrogen Hub — which would rely on the technology. Both projects have the potential to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to industry partners, which include numerous fossil fuel companies.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
