toxics
Ultra-runners retrace monarch butterflies’ endangered migration route
A group of marathoners, conservationists and filmmakers ran 4,000 kilometers from Ontario to Mexico to raise awareness about the environmental threats facing monarch butterflies, whose population has plummeted in recent decades.
In short:
- The Monarch Ultra Documentary captures a 2019 run tracing the monarch butterfly migration to highlight their population decline.
- Monarchs face habitat destruction, pesticide exposure and climate change as they migrate from Canada to Mexico.
- The documentary underscores how human activities impact wildlife and ecosystems, urging local conservation efforts.
Key quote:
“We make decisions on the environment from an office, or we talk so much about how we need to do this on the environment or that, from the comfort of our homes.”
— Rodney Fuentes, filmmaker
Why this matters:
The steep decline of monarch butterflies signals broader biodiversity loss. The documentary shows how conservation efforts and individual actions, like planting milkweed, can help protect the species and the habitats they rely on.
Related:
Scientists uncover cause of explosive craters in Siberia
A new study reveals that warming temperatures in Siberia are triggering explosive methane gas releases, creating mysterious craters.
In short:
- The craters are caused by methane gas bursts from underground ponds of salty water known as cryopegs, which destabilize as permafrost thaws.
- As the soil above these cryopegs defrosts, cracks open, leading to a sudden release of methane gas.
- While seldom experienced, the climate impacts of these potent greenhouse gas releases cannot be shrugged off as inconsequential.
Key quote:
“Although infrequent, the explosions release large amounts of methane and could have a significant warming impact.”
— Report from Geophysical Research Letters
Why this matters:
The explosive craters popping up across Siberia are another eerie signal of our warming planet. These methane time bombs, hiding beneath permafrost, have been stable for millennia, but rising temperatures are changing that. It’s an uncommon but dramatic reminder of how climate change is altering even the most remote corners of the planet, with methane—one of the most potent greenhouse gases—escaping into the atmosphere, amplifying the very cycle that caused the explosion in the first place. Read more: People are flocking to see melting glaciers before they're gone—bringing both benefit and harm.
Coal-based steelmaking in Pennsylvania causes up to 92 premature deaths and $1.4 billion in health costs every year: Report
Just three facilities near Pittsburgh cost the state $16 million in lost economic activity annually, according to a new report.
PITTSBURGH — Pollution from Pennsylvania’s three remaining coal-based steelmaking plants cause an estimated 50 to 92 premature deaths each year, according to a new report.
The report, published by Industrious Labs, an environmental advocacy organization focused on decarbonizing heavy industry, looked at pollution and health data to estimate the total, facility-level, and state-level costs of the 17 coal-based steelmaking plants that are still in operation across the U.S., located in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and Virginia.
Coal-based steelmaking involves heating coal to extremely high temperatures to convert it to coke, a key ingredient in steelmaking. The process emits large volumes of toxic pollutants, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM2.5), benzene and lead compounds. Exposure to coke oven emissions is linked to cancer, respiratory disease and heart disease.
“Steel communities have been sounding the alarm on harmful air pollution for years, and this report quantifies just how devastating and far-reaching the consequences are,” Hilary Lewis, steel director at Industrious Labs, said in a statement.
Pennsylvania has three coal-based steel plants in operation, all of which are located near Pittsburgh: U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works and Edgar Thomson Mill, and Cleveland-Cliff’s Monessen plant.
According to the report, every year these three facilities in southwestern Pennsylvania cause an estimated:
- 54 ER visits for respiratory problems
- 24,949 cases of asthma symptoms
- 3,988 missed work days
- 6,965 missed school days
- $800 million-$1.4 billion in health costs
- $16 million in lost economic activity
U.S. Steel has been fined more than $20 million for Clean Air Act violations at its Pittsburgh-area facilities since 2018, and the company recently settled a lawsuit with environmental advocacy groups for about $25 million over more than 12,000 air permit violations in the region.
The company’s failure to maintain its Pennsylvania facilities has resulted in both chronic and acute health problems for communities around the plants.
“It's completely unacceptable and untenable for a community to be subjected to thousands of violations of the Clean Air Act for decades,” Matt Mehalik, executive director of the Breathe Project, a coalition of more than 40 environmental advocacy groups in the region, told EHN.
U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works alone is responsible for up to 66 premature deaths, 41 emergency room visits for respiratory problems, 18,664 asthma symptoms and 5,786 missed school days, according to the report.
The report also found that Allegheny County, which is home to U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works and Edgar Thomson Mill, ranks eighth for health risks among all Pennsylvania counties. Westmoreland County, home to Cleveland-Cliffs Monessen, ranks ninth.
"For decades, communities near steel and coke plants have been forced to choose between their health and good jobs, enduring toxic pollution, chronic illnesses, and premature deaths," Yong Kwon, senior policy advisor for the Industrial Transformation Campaign at the Sierra Club, said in a statement.
National costs of coal-based steelmaking
U.S. Steel's Clairton Coke Works.Credit: Mark Dixon/flickrIndustrious Labs used self-reported industry data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a risk assessment modeling tool from the agency for its report.
Beyond Pennsylvania, the analysis found the 17 remaining coal-based facilities in the U.S. are estimated to cause up to 892 premature deaths, 250,500 cases of asthma symptoms, and $13.2 billion in health costs.
In 2020 alone, these 17 plants released an estimated:
- 24,400 tons of nitrogen oxides
- 32,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
- 9,000 tons of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
- 177,000 tons of carbon monoxide, and
- 7 tons of lead
The EPA is in the process of finalizing new regulations for coke plants meant to curb harmful emissions, but the industry has pushed back against these rules, while health advocates say they aren’t stringent enough.
“The EPA has consistently failed to safeguard the health of these communities from the dangers of coal-based steelmaking,” Lewis said. “It’s time for stronger regulations that recognize the opportunity of cleaner steelmaking technologies and tougher enforcement of penalties on polluters to truly protect public health.”
Many steel companies are shifting toward cleaner steelmaking. About 70% of steel produced in the country is made with electric arc furnaces, which do not use coal, while the remaining 30% still use coal.
But U.S. Steel — and Japan-based Nippon Steel, which is working to acquire U.S. Steel — have both fallen behind when it comes to cleaner steelmaking.
"By embracing cleaner technologies, we can prevent harmful pollution while also securing good jobs in the growing green economy, ensuring that no one has to choose between a healthy environment and a strong livelihood,” said Kwon.
Anger grows as fracking resumes in Pennsylvania town with poisoned water
The restart of fracking in Dimock, Pennsylvania has sparked outrage among residents whose water became dangerously contaminated years ago, as political candidates continue to support the industry.
In short:
- Fracking in Dimock was halted for years after toxic contamination in 2009, but has now resumed under a new agreement.
- Residents continue to suffer from dangerous levels of contaminants in their water, with many blaming health issues on the pollution.
- Fracking remains a divisive issue in Pennsylvania's political landscape, with both major parties defending it to appeal to voters.
Key quote:
“We are back to square one from before the moratorium came into effect – there’s massive drilling like crazy. I don’t care who you are, rich, poor, or whatever, without water and clean air and clean soil, we’re all freaking dead.”
— Ray Kemble, Dimock resident.
Why this matters:
Fracking-related pollution in Dimock shows the ongoing risks of hydraulic fracturing for local communities. While politicians court voters in this energy-heavy state, the health and environmental impacts of fracking persist.
Related EHN coverage: In the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania, new poll finds 90% of respondents support stricter fracking regulations
Pollution is one of the top drivers of biodiversity loss. Why is no one talking about it at COP16?
“Chemicals are really at the center of this triple planetary crisis of pollution, biodiversity and climate change.”
At the meeting, 196 countries will transform the goals of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal agreement, signed during the last biodiversity summit, into concrete actions to stop the main drivers of biodiversity loss.
To read a version of this story in Spanish click here. Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en español.
However, researchers and advocates have denounced the lack of planned conversation surrounding one of the main drivers of species vulnerabilities, which the UN itself recognizes: chemical pollution.
While the Kunming-Montreal agreement sets out to reduce pollution risks and negative impacts by at least half by 2030, theofficial agenda of the current COP16 meeting doesn’t include a single debate on chemical pollution, and there’s onlyone side event addressing pollution and biodiversity links.
Marine plastic pollution – which has increased tenfold since 1980 – has already affected at least 267 species, “including 86% of marine turtles, 44% of seabirds and 43% of marine mammals,” the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reported in 2020. Other sources of pollution, like untreated urban and rural waste, pollutants from industrial, mining and agricultural activities, oil spills and toxic dumping, have also had “strong negative effects” on soil, water and air, the researchers wrote.
The lack of programming about chemical pollution could be explained by the difficulty of linking specific pollutants to declines in biodiversity, insufficient data on chemicals and industry pressures, multiple researchers told EHN. The absence of an international scientific body that evaluates available evidence, like the IPCC does for climate change or IPBES for biodiversity, has created a fragmented research landscape for chemical pollution.
All of this has made it hard for policymakers to fully understand the scope of the problem and create policies aimed at addressing it, Gabriel Sigmund, an assistant professor at Wachenen University in the Netherlands, told EHN.
Pollution and biodiversity: an fragmented field
While the Kunming-Montreal agreement sets out to reduce pollution risks and negative impacts by at least half by 2030, the official agenda of the current COP16 meeting doesn’t include a single debate on chemical pollution.
Credit: UN Biodiversity
It is estimated that around 25% of all animal and plant species are currently threatened, with one million species already on their way to extinction, the IPBES report found. The biggest drivers are climate change and habitat reduction, but pollution was also identified as one of the five main threats in the report.
Chemical pollution is a constant stressor, Sigmund said. Adapting to chemical exposure might leave organisms unable to adapt to other environmental changes, like higher temperatures or a different water pH, which are both consequences of the climate crisis. Additionally, those climate-fueled environmental changes can alter the toxicity of chemicals.
“Chemicals are really at the center of this triple planetary crisis of pollution, biodiversity and climate change,” Therese Karlsson, science and technical advisor for the non-profit advocacy group International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), told EHN.
However, “while we do have an understanding that the influence is there, to pinpoint which specific pollutants are linked to specific declines in biodiversity has been difficult,” Ksenia Groh, a researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, told EHN. “There are a lot of effects happening which we do not yet fully understand.”
From agriculture to cosmetics,it is estimated that industries produce and use more than 350,000 artificial chemicals, with around 13,000 used in plastics,according to the UN. But there is little to no evidence of their potential impacts on the environment, Sigmund said. In fact, “less than 1% — 128 of 13,000 chemicals — of the chemicals used in plastics are currently regulated under existing international multilateral environmental agreements,”according to IPEN. To add a layer of complexity, there’s no inventory on where, when and how much of these chemicals are released in different ecosystems.
“There are a lot of effects happening which we do not yet fully understand.” - Ksenia Groh, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
So, while climate change researchers have specific variables — such as temperature increase in an environment — this mixture of pollutants and the lack of information on where they are and their potential harms create a messy landscape for researchers. And “for those that we know that do cause harm, the effects can have many, many different faces, so to speak,” Sigmund added.
The few links between pollution and biodiversity loss are usually published in a “notably low number of scientific journals” specialized in ecotoxicology, where papers about biodiversity loss are rarely found, researchers found ina paper analyzing the absence of chemical pollution research in biodiversity conservation. As a result, chemical pollution research is siloed and isolated, which “stands in marked contrast to the publication patterns for climate change, habitat loss and invasive species,” the authors wrote in the paper, which was published in Nature Ecology and Evolution.
The science-policy dialogue on chemical pollution faces similar issues, the researchers added. There is no universally acknowledged authoritative scientific body on chemicals, and international efforts are fragmented into several international conventions: Basel, which regulates the movement and disposal of hazardous wastes; Rotterdam, which promotes cooperation in the international trade of hazardous chemicals; Stockholm, which aims protect human health and the environment from the effects of persistent organic pollutants; and the Minamata Convention, which regulates the mercury trade.
“Ambitious but not realistic”
Opening ceremonies at COP16 in Cali, Colombia.
Credit: UN Biodiversity
Since specific chemical offenders often can’t be pinpointed, regulation is hard, Groh said. She and some of her colleagues believe that's what happened when world leaders drafted the first version of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal agreement, which only addresses chemical pollution’s impacts on biodiversity in one out of 23 targets (target number seven), and only mentions pesticides, fertilizers and plastics.
The omission of other well-known hazardous chemicals, like per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” heavy metals like lead or mercury, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, worried several researchers in the chemical pollution field, Sigmund said. There’s evidence linking these chemicals to an array of health problems in humans and other species, including hormonal imbalances, impaired reproduction, birth defects, cardiovascular and renal effects, and neurotoxicity, among others.
So these researchers publishedcommentaries andpolicy briefs calling for a modified target seven that explicitly mentions these chemicals, and then had conversations with countries’ representatives and policymakers, said Sigmund, who’s also a board member of the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP).
During those conversations — which the IPCP was part of — researchers and advocates realized policymakers had a hard time thinking of effective policies to propose, Sigmund said.
“To create policies is complicated by itself. But if the problem that you need to address is intricate and complex, it’s much more difficult,” he added. In the background, petrochemical and other industries pushed against mentioning specific pollutants, he explained.
In the end, researchers and advocates achieved a partial victory: thefinal version of target seven mentions excess nutrients, pesticides, and “highly hazardous chemicals,” which opens the door to including PFAS, EDCs, heavy metals and emerging pollutants in policies. However, some researchers, like Groh, see the phrasing as deficient.
“This term, ‘highly hazardous chemicals’, creates one huge loophole of doing nothing about it. There was no legal definition of [a] ‘highly hazardous [chemical’ provided in the text]. Therefore, it is not clear what is being meant by this, and since this is not clear what is being meant, every country can interpret it differently, or not interpret it at all,” she explained.
She also noted the ambitious nature of target seven – to halve excess nutrients lost to the environment and the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by 2030.
“What does it mean to reduce the risk by half, you know? Like, do, they say, aim to reduce production? Or reduce use of pesticides by half?” she asked. “It sounds good. But in my opinion, these targets are also absolutely unrealistic [to achieve by 2030]. And nobody actually has a problem with setting the target and then missing it.”
Now that countries are deciding on actions to achieve the lofty goals, researchers and advocatesare proposingthey follow policy recommendations like setting up transparent data inventories about production, transport and emissions, grouping similar chemicals when designing policy, reducing the use of chemicals with non-essential uses, developing less hazardous chemicals from the get-go and considering the full life cycle of chemicals when regulating them, among others.
“I’m agnostic. My gut feeling is that chemical pollution will not take center stage, but we have to have hope,” Sigmund said about COP16.
His hopes are focused on the creation of an intergovernmental science-policy panel on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention, which will assess existing research, just as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does with climate change research. Such an effort, researchers anticipate, would finally put chemicals at the same level as the other two planetary crises. However, during the last round of conversations to create the panel,it is suspected that private conversations between Russia, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. blocked a final decision. The effort is alive but on hold.
“The triple planetary crises are all interconnected. The climate crisis would not be possible without industrial chemicals, or at least it would not have the dimension it has without industrial chemicals,” Sigmund said. “And the same holds true for the biodiversity crisis.”
La contaminación es una de las principales amenazas de la biodiversidad. ¿Por qué nadie habla de ella en la COP16?
“Las sustancias químicas están realmente en el centro de esta triple crisis planetaria de contaminación, biodiversidad y cambio climático”.
CALI, COLOMBIA– Más de 23.000 líderes, activistas ambientales e investigadores se reunirán esta y la próxima semana en Cali, Colombia, para la COP16 de las Naciones Unidas sobre biodiversidad, un evento trascendental para el futuro de los animales, plantas, hongos y microorganismos del mundo en declive.
En la reunión, 196 países transformarán las metas del Marco Kunming-Montreal de 2022, firmado durante la última cumbre de biodiversidad, en acciones concretas para detener a los principales motores de la pérdida de especies.
Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en inglés. To read and watch a version of this story in English click here.
No obstante, investigadores y activistas han denunciando la ausencia de conversaciones programadas alrededor de uno de los principales motores de la vulnerabilidad de las especies, reconocida por las mismas Naciones Unidas: la contaminación química.
Si bien el Marco Kunming-Montreal busca reducir los riesgos e impactos de la contaminación a la mitad para 2030, la agenda oficial de la COP16 no incluye un solo debate sobre la contaminación química, y solo hay un evento paralelo acerca de las conexiones entre la contaminación y la biodiversidad.
La contaminación marina por plásticos, que se ha multiplicado por diez desde 1980, ya ha afectado a al menos 267 especies, “incluyendo al 86% de las tortugas marinas, el 44% de las aves marinas y el 43% de los mamíferos marinos”, reportó la Plataforma Intergubernamental Científico-normativa sobre Diversidad Biológica y Servicios de los Ecosistemas (IPBES) en 2020. Otras fuentes de contaminación, como los residuos urbanos y rurales sin tratar, los contaminantes procedentes de actividades industriales, mineras y agrícolas, los vertidos de petróleo y los vertidos tóxicos, también han tenido “fuertes efectos negativos” en el suelo, el agua y el aire, escribieron los investigadores.
La falta de programación sobre contaminación química podría explicarse por la dificultad de conectar a contaminantes específicos a la pérdida de biodiversidad, información insuficientes sobre los químicos y el lobby de la industria, varios investigadores le dijeron a EHN. La inexistencia de un panel científico internacional que evalue la evidencia disponible, tal como lo hace el IPCC sobre el cambio climático o el IPBES sobre la biodiversidad, ha creado un panorama de investigación atomizado sobre la contaminación química.
Todo esto ha dificultado que los responsables políticos comprendan la magnitud del problema y elaboren políticas dirigidas a abordarlo, explicó a EHN Gabriel Sigmund, profesor adjunto de la Universidad de Wachenen en Países Bajos.
Contaminación y biodiversidad: un campo atomizado
Si bien el Marco Kunming-Montreal busca reducir los riesgos e impactos de la contaminación a la mitad para 2030, la agenda oficial de la COP16 no incluye un solo debate sobre la contaminación química, y solo hay un evento paralelo acerca de las conexiones entre la contaminación y la biodiversidad.
Crédito: UN Biodiversity
Se estima que alrededor del 25% de todos los animales y la especies de plantas están amenazadas, con un millón de especies en vía de extinción, encontró el reporte del IPBES de 202. Los mayores montores de esta pérdida son la destrucción de hábitats y el cambio climático, pero la contaminación también fue identificada como uno d elso cinco principales motores por el reporte.
La contaminación química pone un estrés permanente en los ecosistemas, dijo Sigmund. Adaptarse a la exposición química podría dejar a los organismos incapaces de acomodarse a otros cambios ambientales, como temperaturas más altas o un pH del agua diferente, ambas consecuencias del cambio climático. Asimismo, esos cambios ambientales causados por la crisis climática pueden alterar los niveles de toxicidad de las sustancias químicas.
“Las sustancias químicas están realmente en el centro de esta triple crisis planetaria de contaminación, biodiversidad y cambio climático”, dijo a EHN Therese Karlsson, asesora científica y técnica de la organización sin ánimo de lucro Red Internacional para la Eliminación de Contaminantes (IPEN).
“Aunque sabemos que la influencia está ahí, señalar qué contaminantes concretos están relacionados con descensos específicos de la biodiversidad ha sido difícil”, dijo a EHN Ksenia Groh, investigadora del Instituto Federal Suizo de Ciencia y Tecnología Acuáticas. “Se están produciendo muchos efectos que aún no comprendemos del todo”.
Desde la agricultura hasta los cosméticos, se estima que las industrias producen y usan más de 350.000 químicos artificiales, con 13,000 de ellos usados en la industria plástica, de acuerdo con las Naciones Unidas. Pero hay poca o nula evidencia de sus impactos potenciales en el ambiente, dijo Sigmund. De hecho, “menos del 1% - 128 de 13.000 sustancias químicas - de las sustancias químicas utilizadas en los plásticos están reguladas actualmente por los acuerdos multilaterales internacionales vigentes en materia de medio ambiente”, según el IPEN. Para añadir una capa de complejidad, no existe un inventario sobre dónde, cuándo y qué cantidad de estas sustancias químicas se liberan en los distintos ecosistemas.
Así que mientras que los investigadores del cambio climático evalúan variables específicas – como el aumento de temperatura en el ambiente– esta mezcla de contaminantes y la falta de información sobre dónde están y sus posibles impactos crean una pintura desordenada para los investigadores. Y “para aquellos que sabemos que sí causan daño, los efectos pueden tener muchas, muchas caras diferentes, por así decirlo”, añadió Sigmund.
Los escasos vínculos entre contaminación y pérdida de biodiversidad que se han podido establecer suelen publicarse en un “número notablemente bajo de revistas científicas” especializadas en ecotoxicología, donde rara vez se encuentran artículos sobre la pérdida de biodiversidad, según constataron investigadores en un paper que analizó la ausencia de investigaciones sobre contaminación química en la conservación de la biodiversidad. Como resultado, las investigaciones sobre contaminación química está aislada, lo que “contrasta notablemente con los patrones de publicación sobre cambio climático, pérdida de hábitats y especies invasoras”, escribieron los autores en el artículo, publicado en Nature Ecology and Evolution.
El diálogo entre la ciencia y la política pública sobre la contaminación química enfrenta problemas similares, agregaron los investigadores. No existe ningún organismo científico reconocido a nivel global en materia de sustancias químicas, y los esfuerzos internacionales están fragmentados en varios convenios internacionales: Basilea, que regula el movimiento y eliminación de residuos peligrosos; Rotterdam, que fomenta la cooperación en el comercio internacional de productos químicos peligrosos; Estocolmo, cuyo objetivo es proteger la salud humana y el medio ambiente de los efectos de los contaminantes orgánicos persistentes; y el Convenio de Minamata, que regula el comercio de mercurio.
“Ambiciosas pero no realistas”
Crédito: UN Biodiversity
Dado que no se puede señalar a culpables químicos específicos, la regulación es complicada, dijo Groh. Ella y algunos de sus colegas creen que eso fue lo que pasó cuando los líderes mudniales escribieron la primera versión de acuerdo de Kunming-Montreal. Este borrador solo incluía los impactos de la contaminación química en la biodiversidad en una de las 23 metas (la meta número siete) y solo mencionaba a los pesticidas, fertilizantes y plásticos.
La omisión de otras sustancias químicas riesgosas, como como las sustancias perfluoroalquiladas y polifluoroalquiladas, también conocidas como PFAS o “sustancias químicas eternas”, los metales pesados como el plomo o el mercurio, y las sustancias químicas alteradoras endocrinas (EDC) como el bisfenol A (BPA) y los ftalatos, preocuparon a varios investigadores del campo de la contaminación química, según Sigmund. Hay evidencia que conceta a estos químicos con una gran cantidad de problemas de salud en humanos y otras especies, incluyendo problemas hormonales, alteraciones de la reproducción, defectos de nacimiento, efectos cardiovasculares y renales, y neurotoxicidad, entre otros.
Por eso, estos investigadores publicaron comentarios e informes políticos pidiendo un objetivo siete modificado que mencionara explícitamente a estas sustancias químicas. Luego, mantuvieron conversaciones con los representantes de los países y los responsables políticos, dijo Sigmund, que también es miembro de la junta directiva del Panel Internacional sobre Contaminación Química (IPCP).
Durante esas conversaciones – en las cuales participó el IPCP – los investigadores y activistas se dieron cuenta de que a los líderes políticos les costaba pensar en políticas públicas efectivas sobre sustancias químicas, dijo Sigmund.
“Crear políticas es complicado de por sí. Pero si el problema que hay que abordar es intrincado y complejo, es mucho más difícil”, añadió. En un segundo plano, la industria petroquímica y otras industrias presionaron para que no se mencionaran contaminantes concretos, explicó.
Al final, lograron una victoria parcial: la versión final de la meta siete menciona el exceso de nutrientes, pesticidas y “sustancias químicas altamente peligrosas”, lo que abrió la puerta a que se incluyan los PFAS, EDCs, metales pesados y contaminantes emergentes en la regulación. Sin embargo, algunos investigadores como Groh, consideran que la redacción es insuficiente.
“Este término, ‘sustancias químicas altamente peligrosas’, crea un enorme vacío legal para no hacer nada al respecto. En el texto no se ofrece una definición jurídica de ‘[sustancia química] altamente peligrosa’. Por lo tanto, no está claro qué se quiere decir con esto, y como no está claro qué se quiere decir, cada país puede interpretarlo de manera diferente, o no interpretarlo en absoluto”, explicó.
También destacó el carácter ambicioso del objetivo siete: reducir a la mitad el exceso de nutrientes que se pierden en el medio ambiente y el riesgo global por plaguicidas y productos químicos altamente peligrosos para 2030.
“¿Qué significa reducir el riesgo a la mitad, sabes? Por ejemplo, ¿pretenden reducir la producción? ¿O reducir el uso de pesticidas a la mitad?”, preguntó. “Suena bien. Pero en mi opinión, es absolutamente ilusorio alcanzar estos objetivos [para 2030]. Y en realidad nadie tiene problemas con fijar el objetivo y luego no alcanzarlo”.
Ahora que los países están decidiendo qué acciones tomarán para alcanzar estas metas ambiciosas, los investigadores y activistas proponen que sigan las recomendaciones de política pública como crear inventarios transparentes de datos sobre producción, transporte y emisiones, agrupar a las sustancias químicas similares a la hora de diseñar legislación, reducir el empleo de sustancias químicas en usos no esenciales, desarrollar sustancias químicas menos peligrosas desde su diseño mismo y tener en cuenta el ciclo de vida completo de las sustancias químicas a la hora de regularlas, entre otras cosas.
“Soy un agnóstico. Mi corazonada es que la contaminación química no ocupará un lugar central, pero tenemos que tener esperanza”, dijo Sigmund sobre la COP16.
Sus esperanzas están puestas en la creación de un panel científico intergubernamental sobre sustancias químicas, residuos y prevención de la contaminación, que evaluará la investigación existente, al igual que hace el Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático con la investigación sobre el cambio climático. Tal esfuerzo, creen los investigadores, pondría por fin a las sustancias químicas al mismo nivel que las otras dos crisis planetarias. Sin embargo, durante la última ronda de conversaciones para crear el panel, se sospecha que conversaciones privadas entre Rusia, Arabia Saudí y Estados Unidos bloquearon una decisión final. La iniciativa sigue viva, pero en pausa.
“Las tres crisis planetarias están interconectadas. La crisis climática no sería posible sin los compuestos químicos industriales, o al menos no tendría la dimensión que tiene sin ellos”, dijo Sigmund. “Y lo mismo ocurre con la crisis de la biodiversidad”.
Transitioning away from refrigerants that drive global warming is possible, study says
A new study published in Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts affirms that moving away from the use of fluorinated gases (F-gases) for refrigeration - which contributes to global warming - is both possible and already happening in some sectors.
In short:
- Compared to F-gases, non-fluorinated gases are more efficient and do not break down into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a toxic byproduct of F-gases that’s harmful when inhaled.
- While switching to non-fluorinated gases may come with some trade-offs in initial costs and operating capacity, these are outweighed by improved environmental safety and reduced expenses over time.
Key quote:
“F-gases represented 2.5% of the total EU greenhouse-gas emissions in 2023 and reducing their direct emissions is an important element in efforts to limit global warming.”
Why this matters:
Despite their high global warming potential, F-gases are used in everything from fridges to air conditioners, heat pumps, dehumidifiers and dryers. Strong regulatory action has proven effective in eliminating ozone-depleting refrigerants in the past, but the substances that have replaced them - including F-gases - have their own dangers. The authors of this study emphasize that when searching for solutions to the issues caused by F-gases, any trade-offs on efficiency should be considered unacceptable due to the potential for environmental harm.
Related EHN coverage:
- Flaw in Montreal Protocol allows U.S. facilities to pollute
- Senate aims to redefine PFAS to protect key chemicals from regulation
More resources:
- Bangor Daily News:How to find home appliances that don’t emit ‘forever chemicals’, which shares guidance on shopping for appliances free of F-gases.