Environmental Issues

[loomis41973]

Thanks for the link.

 

[Legacy]

Good article from AzCentral over the attempt to start a huge copper mine in Arizona that Arizonans have been fighting - and winning - until now.

The similarities to the Pebble Mine fight are striking.
- Billions of dollars worth to the mining company
- Mining company is a Canadian firm
- Millions spent on lobbying
- One of the lobbyists for the mine from 2011-15, David Bernhardt, is now the Secretary of the Interior and is now under an ethics investigation
- Potential ecological disaster
- EPA concluded in 2013 that EPA the Rosemont Mine will result in “significant, persistent degradation of the regional aquatic environment.” and in 2017 “EPA has concluded that the Rosemont Mine will result in significant degradation to waters.”
- The huge project encompasses 5,431 acres, including more than 3,600 acres of Forest Service land, nearly 1,200 acres of private land, and other lands owned by the state and federal government.
- Army Corps authorizes “dredged or fill material” on a total of 48.5 acres of streams and washes designated as “waters of the United States.”
-The mine would rely on groundwater. The company has a state-issued permit to pump up to 6,000 acre-feet, or 1.9 billion gallons, per year. (The largest nearby city, Tucson, gets 12" of rain a year)
- Area tribes would be impacted, saying the mine would desecrate their ancestral lands. Austin Nuñez, chairman of the Tohono O’odham’s San Xavier District, said it would be “raping our Mother Earth for short-term economic gain.”
- the local Pima County officials voted to oppose the mine

In Arizona’s Santa Rita Mountains, plans for the giant Rosemont mine have unleashed a battle
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPROVED A NEW COPPER MINE IN ARIZONA. OPPONENTS SAY IT WOULD DESTROY CREEKS AND DAMAGE WILDLIFE HABITAT WHERE JAGUARS ROAM.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Another example of power over citizenship.

This business has been set up for several years. The Canadian company is very smart. They know that no one wants a copper mine (with toxic tailings) nearby, so they have to be clever. Since this one is in Arizona, the have to be extra Water-clever.

... and they have been. Some time ago they moved into the Tucson/Sahuarita area and bought up several well sites. While prepping for drawing their own water, they buddyed up to people like the school system, offering scholarships and other financial aid and promises. "The Mine to come will be a huge property tax Golden Goose for the system."

But the plan couldn't pass the Corps of Engineers' Environmental Impact assessments. Why? Water is really a high risk game in the Tucson area. Any even low percentage risk at polluting any of the sources is playing with dynamite. ALL MINES have this potential, and this sort of mine (an open-pit/strip-in-a-cup) has greater risks than others. The Corps determined that at least locally this plan failed in three ways: risks to mountain streams water (a significant thing there); risks to seepage pollution of aquifer, and even if not pollution, a drawing down due to the influence of the cup; and destruction of some unique eco-systems created/sustained by those streams. There were also tourism and native american traditional land issues.

Suddenly however, the Corps, with no real explanation, simply reversed itself and approved the plan. Almost everyone, other than those in Washington, were stunned. The reversal was eerily synchronous with the current president's statements about having more plan-friendly reviewing for mining et al, and the appointment of a Rosemont lobbyist to the Department of the Interior, as stated above.

I personally don't have the data/studies to have an earned opinion about whether this project can be created without seriously harming water, people, or ecosystems. On the one hand, Copper is a very high dollar metal and will make the business a huge amount of money. I would give one small piece of knowledge to the locals who want to grab the bucks, though.

When mining companies exhaust the land and want to cut bait, they just move out and abandon the dependent community. This Canadian firm is doing exactly this in one of its Canadian operations right as we speak, leaving behind a dying economy on the way to a ghost town.

Dance with the Devil ..... at your peril.

 

[Legacy]

Three recent articles from the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News:

U.S. concludes lifting of coal sales ban will speed up release of greenhouse gases — but says it won’t affect overall emissions

Billings, Mont. • The Trump administration’s decision to lift a moratorium on coal sales from public lands could hasten the release of more than 5 billion tons of greenhouse gases, but officials concluded Wednesday it would make little difference in overall U.S. climate emissions

.
Study shows rise in ozone-related deaths in Salt Lake City
(Deseret News)

SALT LAKE CITY — The number of deaths caused by air pollution in the United States has gone down over the past decade, a new report shows, but while there have been some improvements made in Utah's air quality, Salt Lake City saw a sharp uptick in deaths linked to high ozone levels.

Salt Lake City was named the 23rd worst city in the country for "excess health impacts due to outdoor air pollution" — in other words, pollution-related deaths, serious illnesses and school or work days missed — in a study from the American Thoracic Society released Wednesday. The study also ranked Salt Lake City sixth in the country for the greatest increase in health impacts from ozone.

Did Interior break the law in eyeing oil, gas leases in the former Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument? Dems want new probe.

Washington • A New Mexico senator and Minnesota congresswoman are asking for an investigation of whether the Interior Department broke the law in conducting studies about possibly leasing land for oil and gas drilling in original boundaries of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

President Donald Trump cut 900,000 acres of the then-1.9 million acre monument in 2017, a move heralded by Utah’s GOP leaders but one that brought a swift rebuke by environmental groups who immediately sued the president.

The Bureau of Land Management, which maintains the monument area, has been in the process of creating a management plan for the region, which now includes three smaller monuments. One of the four potential management plans identified some 660,000 acres for possible leasing.

But a little-noticed provision tacked on to every budget for the Interior Department since 2002 says that it cannot use any taxpayer money to conduct pre-leasing studies on lands contained in monuments as they existed on Jan. 20, 2001.

 

[Irishize]

Ozone layer: Banned CFCs traced to China say scientists


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341

 

[brick4956]

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/01/chemours-genx-north-carolina-netherlands/
basically importing genx to the facility that has been dumping pfoa's since the 80s in Fayettville, NC

 

[brick4956]

I only drink bottled water since pfoa's were found in the area I live in ground water, and the company duke power was found to have been responsible for a chemical called chromium-6 being found in residents private drinking wells as a result of coal ash spills, 1, 4 dioxane an ether was also found in the city of Wilmington's drinking water supply

 

[Old Man Mike]

Both Carolinas have been "liberal" polluters for decades.

The environmental community has viewed the political usage of "liberal" and "conservative" (nature conservation in our sense) to be one of the worst "jokes" imaginable on the planet and humankind .

The Power of the Podium Rules.

Money rules The Podium.

Eat, Drink (chromium), and be (thoughtlessly) Merry. The Power Loves You (just listen to their commercials.)

 

[Legacy]

Trump, after a recent talk about climate change and the importance of clean water and air said:

"I did say, ‘Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are based on all statistics.’ And it’s even getting better because I agree with that we want the best water, the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean, has to be crystal clean clear.”

Western Governors urge President Trump to reject changes to state authority in Section 401 of Clean Water Act

"Western Governors are aware of reports that the White House is considering issuance of an executive order to address energy infrastructure development that may include provisions affecting the implementation of the state water quality certification program under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA),” states the Jan. 31, 2019 letter signed by WGA Chair Hawaii Gov. David Ige and WGA Vice Chair North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.

“We urge you to direct federal agencies to reject any changes to agency rules, guidance, or policy that may diminish, impair, or subordinate states’ well-established sovereign and statutory authorities to protect water quality within their boundaries,” the letter asserts.

Despite the bipartisan request of the Govs, Trump's EPA signed made those changes in the Clean Water Act, citing its "inherent authority" to change rules.

Trump administration tramples Clean Water Act, Washington state sues (Seattle PI, June 7, 2019)

The state is arguing that the Clean Water Act gives EPA authority only to strengthen water quality standards, not to weaken or eviscerate.

"EPA does not have inherent authority to ignore the process Congress established under the Clean Water Act to revise a state's existing water quality standards," the state said in a U.S. District Court filing.

"On May 10, 2019, nearly two and a half years after the effective date of Washington's existing human health criteria, EPA unilaterally decided to revise Washington's human health criteria to make the criteria less protective," the state said in its court filing.

The Clean Water Act lawsuit marks the 39th time that Washington state has sued the Trump administration. The state (and allied states) have chalked up 22 wins, including 12 cases that cannot be appealed.

"We keep beating the Trump administration in court and we haven't lost yet," said AG Ferguson.

Has any President lost so many times because he does not have that statutory authority - and every case so far? He just pays no attention to Governors. Such cases not brought by any environmental organization but the states are very expensive and the loser has to reimburse the plaintiff for legal costs with taxpayer monies. The President probably has to request increased budgets for and the size of the DoJ.

Trump's proposed 2020 fiscal budget for the EPA requests Congress slash their budget by 31%, following proposed budget cuts of 23 percent for fiscal year 2019 and 31 percent for fiscal year 2018. He keeps losing those battles and twice with a Republican majority in both houses.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Whereas all this stuff about State jurisdiction, costs, pollution et al are really important, the thing that utterly disgusts me is that we have a completely uncaring a$$hole with a 24/7 podium who spews bullsh!t that is not "just politics" but DANGEROUS to other people's health and lives. We are living with a sociopath and there is no way to avoid him. I pray every day that everyone somehow ducks his slow bullets.

"[our water] is crystal clean. Has to be crystal clean clear....." Right, you ba$tard.

 

[Irish#1]

Whereas all this stuff about State jurisdiction, costs, pollution et al are really important, the thing that utterly disgusts me is that we have a completely uncaring a$$hole with a 24/7 podium who spews bullsh!t that is not "just politics" but DANGEROUS to other people's health and lives. We are living with a sociopath and there is no way to avoid him. I pray every day that everyone somehow ducks his slow bullets.

"[our water] is crystal clean. Has to be crystal clean clear....." Right, you ba$tard.

All DJT has to do is say it, and it's true! lol

He recently took all the credit for signing a disaster relief bill, making it sound like no other president ever did that or that it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't in office.

 

[Legacy]

Regardless of whether Trump's environmental actions are illegal, which the vast majority aimed at eroding Acts which have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support are and result in wins for the states, he and his supporters have had to undo the federal government agencies with years of legal obligations for public protection.

A few articles:
The Clean Water Act and the Clean Water Rule

Trump’s Order May Foul U.S. Drinking Water Supply
Narrowing the Clean Water Rule could increase pollution in critical waters (Scientific American, March 10, 2017)

Trump wants to rescind or replace the Clean Water Rule to encourage economic growth and cut regulations, according to his order. James Salzman, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Los Angeles, says Trump’s order suggests the future rule will likely lift controls on these smaller “ephemeral and intermittent” streams—those that typically flow only when it rains, and those with segments that only flow certain times of the year, such as when snow melts. Even though ephemeral and intermittent streams do not run continuously—which some argue is why they do not qualify for protection—scientists have found they are still key to water quality of the larger bodies in which they flow. “These streams are connected” to waters downstream, says Ken Reckhow, professor emeritus of water resources at Duke University—and they can carry pollutants to places where communities may draw their drinking water.

According to the EPA, about two thirds of U.S. stream miles only run seasonally or after rainstorms. The EPA estimates that one in three Americans—about 117 million people—draw all or some of their water from public drinking water systems that depend at least partly on the streams which the Clean Water Rule would protect.

Some previous posters have worked on cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay and have reflected on their experiences. So,

Rolling back Clean Water rules would devastate the Potomac, Bay

For nearly 50 years, the Clean Water Act’s definition of which water bodies across the country are protected from pollution enabled states and local communities to safeguard our nation’s rivers, streams, wetlands and other waterways.

The value of clean water was broadly appreciated and understood. President George W. Bush implemented his father’s vision of no net loss of wetlands. President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency sought to clarify and simplify the definition of “Waters of the United States” in 2015 to protect invaluable sources of drinking water and critical wildlife habitat.

But now, in the blink of an eye, President Trump’s EPA threatens to undo all of the progress we’ve made cleaning up and protecting our nation’s treasured waters.

The EPA is proposing to drastically limit the scope of the Clean Water Act and gut existing clean water protections at the behest of polluting industries that profit from weak regulation. The new rule would remove the federal protection of at least 40% of the country’s rivers, streams and freshwater wetlands, undermining the protection that provided greatly improved water quality in many of our waterways.

The Potomac River’s vast improvement in water quality, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities has largely been driven by implementation of the Clean Water Act, one of our nation’s most effective environmental statutes.

An example of state sovereignty over their clean water situation that could be undone. Illinois is in a precarious financial situation and recently listed as one of only two states that could not survive a recession. Those states and others near that situation and with cleanups of their water and air are most susceptible to changes at the federal level to restrictions and loosing limitations on polluters. They are also least capable to cover the costs incurred with lawsuits on those polluters for cleanups without federal legal and administrative support.

Illinois Passes Tougher Rules on Toxic Coal Ash Over Risks to Health and Rivers
A recent analysis found Illinois was the No. 1 state for coal-fired power plants leaching unsafe levels of coal ash contaminants into groundwater.

The first paragraphs:

Illinois is poised to become the latest state to crack down on power plants' coal ash waste, a hazardous byproduct of coal burning and source of groundwater contamination.

The state has more coal ash ponds leaching unsafe levels of contaminants into groundwater than any other state in the nation, a recent analysis of federally mandated water testing showed. That pollution can pose health risks for humans: Coal ash can contain chemicals and heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury and lead, that have been linked to cancer, heart disease, reproductive issues and brain damage in children.

Lawmakers passed legislation this week that, once signed by new Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, would amend the Illinois Environmental Protection Act to set stricter requirements for coal ash cleanup and to mandate public comment periods prior to closing coal ash sites. It also would give the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency funding to run cleanup programs through permit fees.

 

[Legacy]

An excellent video on the topic with impact on neighbors.

Why is Texas Burning Millions of Dollars of Natural Gas a Day (NBC video, 11 minutes)
In West Texas, an oil boom is creating a big problem for producers and locals alike: wasting natural gas by burning or flaring it, which sends billions of cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Commentary on the video by an oil and gas operator

and,

Oil Producers Are Burning Enough 'Waste' Gas to Power Every Home in Texas

- Flaring has reached record levels due to lack of pipelines
- Operators had to pay customers to take away gas this month

America’s hottest oil patch is producing so much natural gas that by the end of last year producers were burning off more than enough of the fuel to meet residential demand across the whole of Texas. The phenomenon has likely only intensified since then.

Flaring is the controversial but common practice in which oil and gas drillers burn off gas that can’t be easily or efficiently captured and stored. It releases carbon dioxide and is lighting up the skies of West Texas and New Mexico as the Permian Basin undergoes a massive production boom. Oil wells there produce gas as a byproduct, and because pipeline infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with the expansion, energy companies must sometimes choose between flaring and slowing production.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Pocket the Present, Follow the Money, Waste the Future.

The Economic Philosophy of a century.

.... there's no stopping this. And no rolling back either the damages or the wastes (these phenomena are linearities driven by entropy and not cycles which can be reconstituted). So ... Just turn on the games, die happy, and hope your kids can do the same. .... and those people in other countries who don't have the dollars to adjust? They're not Americans.

 

[Legacy]

I understand that when you drive anywhere just near the oil and gas Permian fields, the air is permeated with the smell of gas getting in your nose, lungs, clothes and hair due to the flaring and byproducts of the drilling and fracking.

Permian has 'serious air pollution problem'
Report by Environmental Integrity Project cites flaring as causing unhealthy levels of sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide (Midland Reporter Telegram)

As in other places like Wyoming the drillers swarm in, spend big money, the area is flush and life is good until they move on after devastating the area of resources leaving a desert with little value, health problems in residents, toxic water and worthless home values.

As previously posted, the pressure is to build larger pipelines through the Hill Country despite landowners and bigger terminals for shipping overseas. In the arid southeastern NM and west Texas water, wastewater spills and water disposal are huge issues in addition to the flaring waste of millions of dollars of gas a day.

AP Exclusive: Drilling boom means more harmful waste spills
First paragraphs:

CROSSROADS, N.M. (AP) — Carl Johnson and son Justin, who have complained for years about spills of oilfield wastewater where they raise cattle in the high plains of New Mexico, stroll across a 1 1/2-acre patch of sandy soil — lifeless, save for a scattering of stunted weeds.

Five years ago, a broken pipe soaked the land with as much as 420,000 gallons of wastewater, a salty drilling byproduct that killed the shrubs and grass. It was among dozens of spills that have damaged the Johnsons’ grazing lands and made them worry about their groundwater.

“If we lose our water,” Justin Johnson said, “that ruins our ranch.”

Their plight illustrates a side effect of oil and gas production that has worsened with the past decade’s drilling boom: spills of wastewater that foul the land, kill wildlife and threaten freshwater supplies.

An Associated Press analysis of data from leading oil- and gas-producing states found more than 175 million gallons of wastewater spilled from 2009 to 2014 in incidents involving ruptured pipes, overflowing storage tanks and even deliberate dumping. There were some 21,651 individual spills. The numbers are incomplete because many releases go unreported.

Permian Oil Boom Uncorks Multibillion-Dollar Water Play
First paragraphs:

- Producing oil produces even more water: two to five barrels of water for every barrel of fracked oil
- Produced water, as the industry calls it, is a noxious mix, a hypersaline brine that includes chemicals used during fracking and trace minerals and radioactive elements that are naturally present at depth
- IHS Markit, a research and consulting firm, reckons that the overall market for water in the Permian totaled $12.2 billion in 2018. That includes sourcing water for fracking, transporting, storing, treatment, and disposal of produced water
- Groundwater and surface water are under immense pressure in arid western Texas

The Permian basin, a chunk of western Texas and southeastern New Mexico that is larger than most eastern U.S. states, is the hottest thing in oil these days. Production there, spurred by growth in fracked oil from stacks of shale formations thousands of feet below ground, has helped drive America’s oil output to its highest level ever, nearly 12 million barrels per day.

The United States is now the world’s largest crude oil producer, and close to one-third of the country’s output comes from the Permian.

Oil is not the only liquid that emerges from the Permian’s wells. Producing oil produces even more water: two to five barrels of water for every barrel of fracked oil. (A barrel equals 42 gallons.) As oil production climbs to new heights, the basin is swimming in its own wastes.

Produced water, as the industry calls it, is a noxious mix, a hypersaline brine — much saltier than the ocean — that includes chemicals used during fracking and trace minerals and radioactive elements that are naturally present at depth. Disposing of produced water is one of the largest operating costs for an oil well. The financial outlay also makes it an underappreciated risk.

“Produced water can be the biggest disruptor of oil and gas,” Benjamin Reed, chief operating officer of SourceWater, a produced water data firm, told Circle of Blue. “You can’t just dump it on the ground.” Not having a means for getting rid of produced water “could literally shut down the oil industry,” he said.

The Permian is not at that point yet. There are several thousand disposal wells in the Texas section alone. But the basin is arid, produced water is plentiful, disposal regulations are tightening, and investors see an opportunity to consolidate a fragmented water disposal sector into cohesive units that resemble the pipeline networks that ferry oil and gas from the wellhead to refineries. As a result, the basin is attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in capital.

How many billions of barrels of toxic water need to be transported and where will it be disposed?

A byproduct of oil and natural gas production, water is often found with crude oil and natural gas in geological formations but because it is mixed with salts, metals, hydrocarbons and other compounds, it must either be cleaned or disposed. Because of high costs to recycle and clean produced water, most companies choose to dispose of it by injecting it deep underground using saltwater disposal wells. In addition to injecting it and put into disposal wells, at this time water is disposed by hauling it on tanker trucks from remote oil and natural gas wells.

Over the past several decades, U.S. industries have injected more than 30 trillion gallons of toxic liquid deep into the earth, using broad expanses of the nation's geology as an invisible dumping ground.

 

[Irish#1]

Other cities that have banned it include San Diego, Miami Beach, Seattle and Washington, DC. Seems like a program other cities should jump on.


New York will start enforcing its styrofoam ban today. Here's where else it's banned


https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/business/new-york-styrofoam-ban-trnd/index.html

 

[Old Man Mike]

I applaud the idealism.

I doubt the energy-saving thing he said near the end; that amount of transportation is WAY CO2 producing.

I instinctively doubt the use of metals vs plastics --- metals are intrinsically NOT ultimately sustainable. They "rust", chip, fragment, and they are mass-limited (i.e. you cannot mine their ore indefinitely.) Metals resource areas have and will create constant war-zones and really ugly repression for as long as we refuse to replace them. China vs USA; Russia's base strength; Zambia and Zaire; Amazonia; on and on and on............

The ultimate answer to materials sustainability is not in metals, but in recyclable plastics which are sourced from growing plants. Clever chemistry? Yes. But the only materials-forever way. ... and lots of lab-bench demonstration has proved that this is not a pipedream --- there are even plant-derived electrical-conducting materials. (The Japanese by the way are ahead of us by loads at least when I was attending the AAAS conventions regularly.)

 

[Legacy]

Whereas all this stuff about State jurisdiction, costs, pollution et al are really important, the thing that utterly disgusts me is that we have a completely uncaring a$$hole with a 24/7 podium who spews bullsh!t that is not "just politics" but DANGEROUS to other people's health and lives. We are living with a sociopath and there is no way to avoid him. I pray every day that everyone somehow ducks his slow bullets.

"[our water] is crystal clean. Has to be crystal clean clear....." Right, you ba$tard.

Our Liar-in-Chief strikes again. In recent remarks that touted his Administration has been "unlocking our American energy" while "My administration set the new global standard for environmental protections" and "We’ve refocused the EPA back on its core mission". Trump said "I’m a believer in solar energy. It hasn’t fully developed. It’s got a long way to go, but it’s really got a tremendous future."

Trump is proud that

“From day one, my administration has made it a top priority to make sure America has among the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet. We want the cleanest air. We want crystal clean water. And that’s what we’re doing.”

To name just two examples, we’ve made great strides cleaning up damage near a paper plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan — something that was beyond fix-up. They thought it was never going to happen. And also, the West Lake Landfill in Missouri.

Trump complimented his Acting Deputy Director of the EPA, Andrew Wheeler, who was present and who had previously represented the coal industry. Wheeler is a denier of climate change and replaced Scott Pruitt, also a climate change denier and who sued the EPA fourteen times when he was the AG for Oklahoma. Wheeler's nomination has never been submitted to Congress for confirmation in their Constitutional role to advise and consent. Heritage Foundation says:

The principal concern of the Framers regarding the Appointments Clause, as in many of the other separation of powers provisions of the Constitution, was to ensure accountability while avoiding tyranny.

Trump has previously celebrated rolling back every EPA regulation he could find to undermine such legislation as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Trump's annual budget requests include cutting the EPA budget by over 30%.

Two Years of Overruling Trump.
The record shows that Trump’s efforts to weaken environmental regulations are no match for the law.

A coalition of state AGs have sued the Trump Administration thirty-eight times. Of the twenty-two decided cases, the AGs have won every case.

President Donald J. Trump is Promoting a Clean and Healthy Environment for All Americans (White House Statement)

Excerpt:

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: President Trump and his Administration have taken action to restore, preserve, and protect America’s land, air, and waters.

New Report: EPA Enforcement at Record Low in 2018

 

[Old Man Mike]

Kalamazoo Superfund Site(s) the real story:

!930s or so- through 1950s: era of general American ignorance about pollutants. polychlorine biphenyls (PCBs) created as a constant pollutant in the paper-making industry plus others. PCBs have (now) well-known and non-debatable health impacts on immune systems and reproductive systems. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring first made this a public issue through her work on song and water bird populations. The first major legal battles and successes occurred in Michigan in the 1960s over these issues, mainly by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Spiraling off these actions, the country raised consciousness about Air and Water pollution, and Congress passed the Clean Air and Clean water acts in the late sixties (Nixon era.)

1979: (Carter.) PCBs were banned entirely under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Science had found, among other things that PCBs concentrate in species the higher up the food chain they are. Since humans are top, we concentrate them most. (Mainly in liver and fatty tissues.)

1998-1999: (Clinton). The Kalamazoo River and connected water sites having been named superfund sites for several years, dredging of the River and Mill Pond and other areas began in earnest and has continued when testings indicated ever since. To date over 450,000 cubic yards of contaminated river and pond sediment has been dredged.

2007: (Bush-two). An EPA plan to dredge a contaminated area in Plainwell (all of these are papermill sites; I visited several myself including this one) was activated and completed.

2015-6: (Obama.) An EPA study was completed which approved and scheduled further clean-ups to begin in 2019. Pressure was placed on the contaminating parties (Georgia-Pacific, Weyerhauser, International Paper) to create feasible plans of action to accomplish this directive. Work was begun on obvious parts of this in 2016, and completed in 2018.


.... it escapes my science and my history as to just what the current A$$hole is claiming credit for, unless it is that his administration hasn't blocked previously ongoing clean-up programs. These LONG ongoing actions have ranged far across political lines, and I frankly can't remember those other guys trying to take credit for things that the government owed the citizenry to do.

 

[Old Man Mike]

West Lake Landfill, near St. Louis, MO: the real story. I don't live right next to this one so perhaps other people know more personally-acquired things.

WWII era: Mallinckrodt Chemical Corporation has the Top Secret assignment of reducing Uranium laden ores to create feeder stock for the Oak Ridge TN bomb-supplying scientists during the mid-1940s (Oak Ridge was tasked with taking "raw Uranium and "extracting" the fissionable U-235 isotope from the much more common U-238 isotope, which, unless you used it to "breed" Plutonium, was just a contaminant.) As a reward for WWII service, Mallinckrodt was given exclusive rights, under Pentagon/AEC supervision (mainly AEC) to manufacture Uranium metal for laboratory and industrial use (I myself, via a weird route, have a shielded can, unopened, of these metal disks.) Again, in the era of naivete about health effects, no one focused on the wastes.

1973: (Nixon) People became aware that Mallickrodt and then other responsible parties had dumped a large amount of radioactive waste into one of several landfill cells at West Lake. The contaminant, Barium Sulfate tailings, was kept separate from the rest of the landfill cells, but not thought much about.

1977: (Carter) Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer, and nuclear matters were a focus. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission noted the fact of undesigned containment at West Lake and demanded a remedy for it. The 1980s were a bad time for such concerns and nothing was done.

1989: (Bush One). GHWB changed that and the site was designated a superfund site, which made the EPAs priority list in 1990 and four responsible parties were designated --- the DOE itself and three companies (not including the long-gone Mallickrodt.) Studies began. Since this involved radiation, it takes longer.

2008: (Bush Two.) The EPA made its decision to create a whopper of a "tomb": a 40 acre multiply layered capped area which would hopefully assure long-term containment. This tomb was created. By now though citizens were thoroughly rattled, many moving away. An organization "St. Louis Moms" formed to create constant citizen oversite (nuisance? as far as some politicos were concerned) to keep pressure up for better solutions.

2010: A second cell in the landfill was burning (unknown) underground, and broke through to the surface, spewing smoldering black smoke regularly, and panicking citizens. This was not the primary radioactice cell, but nevertheless .....

2011-2015: (Obama.) Citizen objections went through the roof. The EPA was tasked to get the original responsible parties to revisit the situation and do better. Studies on ground and through overflights seemed to indicate that the radiation cell was not venting any dangerous levels to the outside --- i.e. despite the sister cell's fire (these things are, by the way superhot underground and nearly impossible to stop without thorough excavation.) Citizens were still near hysterical, and in 2015 a plan was proposed to excavate a large portion of the radioactive cell and transport it "elsewhere." Elsewhere was not designated specifically and (to my knowledge) still isn't. Nevertheless, the local citizens are moderately happy with the idea of sticking some other location with the waste.

2016: The control of the project was "offered" to the Army Corps of Engineers who said politely get lost. EPA still has the responsibility.

2018: (the Lying A$$hole era.) EPA decided NOT to go forward with the plan he's bragging about but to "make more studies." This miracle plan, the resultant of practically Everyone-Except-TheLA, has not yet gotten into motion.


People don't want to see this guy as any different from anyone else, BUT HE IS. All those other guys listed above told you straight (or their EPAs did) exactly what the status of these projects were, whether particularly good news or not. The only even slightly similar time in the last 80 years was the Ann Gorsuch EPA (1980-...) and she at least would simply tell you that she thought you were the a$$ in the situation and that her EPA was going to do whatever they pleased (at least being a philosophically honest a$$hole) --- even Reagan couldn't take this for two terms and had her resign after one.

 

[Legacy]

Good article on the evolution of the petrochemical area east of Houston in SE Texas with the recognition of the danger of their by-products, while interweaving one person's disease. The area borders on waterways leading to the Gulf and is home to Superfund sites. Disaster plans have been drawn up in case of flooding or hurricanes hitting the area with its storage tanks of toxic waste.

The Cancer Belt (Texas Monthly)
People around Port Neches like to say that the odor from the chemical plants nearby is the smell of money. But it could also be the smell of death. (Dated 1981, but good background)

Excerpt:

What is significant about Carlos Stokes’s widow’s ideas about her husband’s death is that if they are true, then it is risky even to live in the prosperous area where the petrochemical plants are concentrated. In other words, she is saying that whole communities—not just certain chemicals or certain workplaces—can be hazardous to your health. Statistics seem to bear her theory out. The four counties that make up metropolitan Houston (Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, and Montgomery) and the two that make up the Golden Triangle (Jefferson and Orange) have some of the highest rates of cancer death in the state. Texas as a whole is well below the national average in cancer deaths, with 158.6 deaths per 100,000 population compared to 174 per 100,000 for the United States. But the rate in Harris County is 179 per 100,000; in Jefferson County, where Carlos Stokes lived, it is 187 per 100,000. The lung cancer death rate in Texas is 38.4 per 100,000; Harris County’s rate is 48.8 and Jefferson County’s 62.1, both higher than the national rate of 42 per 100,000. The upper Gulf Coast is Texas’ cancer belt.

That raises some disturbing questions: Does the high concentration of petrochemical plants on the upper Texas Gulf Coast cause—or at least contribute to— the high rate of cancer there? Is then economic force that created twentieth- century Texas—the oil and petrochemical industry—coming back to haunt us? Does benefiting from the source of our prosperity require that segments of our population live at risk?

A study by the Stanford Research Institute found that six million people living in the general vicinity of petrochemical plants in Texas, California, Louisiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were exposed to atmospheric benzene in the 0.1 to 1 ppb range. The study also found that the 64,000 people who lived closest to the plants were exposed to atmospheric benzene concentrations as high as 2 ppb. These exposures are considerably below the current federal standard of 10 ppm for benzene. But government health and safety agencies have tried unsuccessfully to lower the standard to 1 ppm, and if those who challenge the concept of TLVs are right, any exposure to benzene should be avoided.

The current permitted level has been lowered to 1 ppm, though many scientists believe the level should be 0.

The official cause of the death of Carlos Stokes was acute myelogenous leukemia. In the late fifties, researchers in the United States, following up on earlier European findings, had begun turning out studies showing apparent links between exposure to benzene and the onset of leukemia—specifically, acute myelogenous leukemia. In 1963 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare published findings that blood cancer death rates were 54 per cent higher among synthetic rubber workers than among workers in other industries. In 1970 the newly created Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted a “consensus standard” for benzene of 10 ppm with permissible excursions up to 50 ppm. But according to one later government report, occupational health hazards in the rubber industry were still considered “minimal or nonexistent” in the mid-seventies. Besides, in the case of Carlos Stokes, who never worked in a petrochemical plant, there was no history of exposure to industrial chemicals—or so it first appeared.

In March, a fire at a chemical storage facility (Intercontinental Terminals Company or ITC) in Deer Park, Texas near Houston released toxic plumes into the air containing benzene and other toxic chemicals. The state issued a shelter-in-place for nearby residents as the fire burned for three days. In 2008, the company agreed to pay $103,500 in civil penalties and attorney fees and signed a permanent junction to “avoid future violations of Texas air quality and water quality laws.” But about a year later, ITC began committing additional environmental violations, according to court records. From September 2009 to July 2010, state regulators cited the company for unauthorized releases of butadiene, butene and the flammable chemical irritant butyl acrylate into the air. Additionally, court records stated that the company released more than 1,450 pounds of toluene into the ground and storm drains after overloading a rail car. The company has been sued by the state, city and residents for intentionally dumping hazardous chemical waste into the waterways when Hurricane Harvey headed towards Houston. After the storage facility fire, Harris County and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality sued the Intercontinental Terminals Company twice for violations of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act.

The EPA recently changes their rules and is now allowing certain facilities to be subject to less-stringent regulations and is letting companies use friendlier math in calculating their expected emissions. The monitoring company favored by industry in measuring levels after a disaster like Deer Park has subsequently been found to have mishandling of data measuring pollutants after disasters. The company was used after Katrina, a coal ash spill in Tennessee and the BP oil spill. According to initial reports, 9 million pounds of pollutants were released from the ITC facilities in just the first day of the fire. ITC had said that its air quality testing data showed conditions “below levels” that would raise health concerns. A new memo from the EPA give guidance that states that they will no longer “second guess” companies’ calculations of their expected pollution output after certain big projects, meaning they will no longer take action should a companies calculations be wrong. The Trump EPA did not join in the lawsuit. Trump has annually requested the EPA budget decreased by 30%. The EPA's fines in Trump's first year are less than half those in GW Bush's first year.

UPDATE: Texas Sues Deer Park Petrochemical Company For Violations Of Clean Air Act

Some 500 chemical plants, 10 refineries and more than 6,670 miles of intertwined oil, gas and chemical pipelines line the nation's largest energy corridor.

Ask yourself would you want to live nearby? Would you want to drink the tap water? Would you want to breathe the air?

 

[Irishize]

No. I also wouldn’t live in a city that is below sea level, yet we continue to see millions affected each time Mother Nature gives New Orleans another bath. What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over & over yet expecting a different outcome?

 

[NorthDakota]

https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1154436729530662913?s=09

Cant embed from my phone but I got a kick out of this asshole. This is the definition of someone whose behavior/attitude is counterproductive to his goals.

 

[Irish#1]

https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1154436729530662913?s=09

Cant embed from my phone but I got a kick out of this asshole. This is the definition of someone whose behavior/attitude is counterproductive to his goals.

How in the world does he connect people flying with shooting a gun into a crowd? dude loses all credibility. Besides, I have never met anyone who flys simply because the fare is cheap. You fly because, it's business, vacation or a family emergency.

 

[Old Man Mike]

My perspective on this fellow and the general ideas:

A. He's an eco-guy who has been embedded in all these matters for years (especially the atmospheric issues as that is his training.) What he has learned/believed has scared the crap out of him and he decided to become an activist. He's very emotional and therefore not very good at presenting his worries, but he's so (in his heart) "morally concerned" (I believe that he's honest in his extreme rhetoric and that none of this is "put on",) that his language is so on the edge that he has no chance of actually dialoguing with anyone --- which is his actual intent.

He has become so emotional about what is to him a very real major concern, that he uses difficult to swallow analogies without taking time to clarify them. He pretty much immediately recognized part of this in the twitter thread, and apologized for his crudest characterization.

B. As far as the general air traveler is concerned: The huge quantity of travel is, of course, business or recreation. The business traveler, as an individual, usually has no choice in his/her plans. They are embedded in a far-flung global economy and are forced to go. Most "frequent flyers" do not relish this --- some hate it, some simply tolerate it, a few actually like it (talking about merely the flying experience --- planes/airports etc.) Given choice, most of this sort of travel would not take place. The companies don't like it either as it is a big line item on the expense sheet.

This is the reason why many companies would like to push "virtual reality" board meetings and "sales/contracts" meetings to move information rather than mass. I have seen these virtual meetings and some of the tech is impressive. (even neat.) This is or will be done not for environmental reasons though but for dollars reasons. Business is currently buried in a large scale system which it cannot deal efficiently with.

What the environmental twitter guy is concerned about (if he'd be calmer and more clear about it) is the recreational traveler. He wants that entity to become aware of the negative effects of using air travel and perhaps choose a different vacation destination, which he/she could get to by other means. (The equivalent on a small scale of walking to a local store rather than driving further away.) By immediately characterizing the fellow as an "a$$hole", he however loses his truth teller pulpit and most of his audience.

As one of the respondents said (after others had further fouled the non-discussion with more emotion of their own):

""Might it be more helpful to address a stranger this way? "Hey. You may not know, but air travel is a huge part of our climate crisis. If you really don't need to go, you might consider a more local trip. I'd be happy to explain more if you'd like.""

C. Has this fellow any reason for his concerns? This of course depends entirely on one's understanding of the Global Climate Change conundrum. I was the Kalamazoo area's "expert" (such as I could be) on GCC in the 1980s-1990s while teaching in the WMU Environmental Studies program, and attending all the relevant symposia at the annual AAAS meetings. This issue is very real. It is not WHETHER it is real but to what extent it will grow over time. This is not a dead simple matter --- almost no one I meet has any real personal clue about the underlying theoretical and actual field studies going into this. Rather, people are doing what comes natural and emotionally understandable: This is BAD news and who-in-the-He!l would WANT it to be true? Believe me: Environmentalists don't.

GCC is a very risky dice-roll that we are playing and we're WAY into this game --- and our "debt" is looking worse and worse every year. But it's a hateful idea. It challenges the heartblood (Oil, etc --- think of Oil as the blood coursing through an integrated Giant that is the world agricultural and industrial system) of our whole economics. Do you want to stab that in the Heart? It's nearly the worst "vision" that one could conjure.

Of course we hate it. Of course we (often deliberately) remain ignorant of the realities and the risks. Of course some few will crack and become manically emotional. We hope that the Science geniuses will once again rise up with their dependable brilliance and rescue the story (as they have partly done with finding more fossil fuels, finding energy efficiencies, finding new crop production methods etc --- but in all of that, those who study those areas KNOW that the crises there are real too, and the geniuses have just given us more time till the next looming failure point.)

This world's huge populations and accelerating resource demands and water shortages cause real trouble even if these are not in-the-faces of the typical middle class Americans. To us, ALL those ideas are uncomfortable at best, so it's preferred to turn away and keep the pleasant lifestyle wondering what to eat, drink, play next and where to go on vacation. Who wouldn't rather have it that way?

But some like this guy "make the mistake" of becoming involved. Some like him crack emotionally. They don't help in the end --- as we can see right here on IE and on that twitter. I used to be helpful and as moderate as I could be in my explanations of GCC to groups and interested parties. In the end, the Power of the System was so dominant that I faced continued disappointment that anything could ever get done --- some things like Consumers Energy dropping coal plants for Traverse City wind power were uplifting, but in the large picture it was one depression after another. So, at age 78, I've quit. I can't dent the Crowd and I can't dent the Issue, so I go and "tend my garden."

Would I ever take another plane flight? If I had an significant gathering to attend, my old body would probably require it. Would I feel good taking it? No. Would I do anything about it? Maybe --- there are a small number of ideas out there where one might support Carbon-offset programs with donations. Maybe i could do that.

Was this fellow out of line? In his name-calling yes; in his concerns (badly explained) no. Do I understand him? Yes (the science and fieldwork) and no (his near mania for a cause... since he defeats himself.)

 

[Legacy]

An Airline That Doesn't Want You to Fly. That's New
KLM is urging people to take trains or do video calls where possible. This might just be marketing but it may also reflect the folly in aviation’s growth targets. (Bloomberg)

Clean electricity overtaking fossil fuels in Britain (BBC)

 

[RDU Irish]

Plane is flying with him on it or not. What is the marginal fuel usage of maybe 250 pounds on or off a commercial airliner?

If you want to impact behavior - show me how flying versus driving some distance is different. If I go 1000 miles from Raleigh to Wisconsin I burn maybe 80 gallons of gas round trip how does that compare to 5/250 seats on an airplane for my family?

On the surface though - you aren't winning anyone over saying nobody should fly/travel anywhere, ever unless "absolutely necessary" - which would be nobody. You can teleconference your dying relative or facetime a funeral/wedding just as well as the business folks can for their meeting if we want to be real about "needs" in this world.

 

[RDU Irish]

Probably should go in the "grinds my gears" thread but I am sick of the straw thing. Throw your garbage away and it won't end up in a sea turtle's nose. Especially if you are in Chicago or anywhere more than a few miles from any tributary or beach for that matter. It makes no sense to me and frustrates the crap out of me when I given a useless paper straw or some moron brandishes their (probably unsanitary) metal straw like they are freaking SuperMan or something drinking their $8 latte that way.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I've seen the fly vs drive calculations (and they take the numerous variables into account.) Flying is more CO2 polluting by a significant margin --- the fuel type and engine efficiency are two of the variables.

Please don't ask me to do the resource link work --- as said, I'm trying to quit. This is not hard to look up; just hard to make the time to concentrate on the science/math behind the calculations. I don't really blame anyone much for not doing it --- but if not maybe less "strength of opinion" on the issues is intellectually appropriate.

All of this depends, as said, on whether one believes the GCC over-all threats. KLM is a Dutch airline --- The Netherlands is a government among those greatest concerned about GCC (think Zuider Zee and Ocean swelling and wholesale Dyke restructuring en masse and maybe beyond doing if not economics.)


as to straws: pretty minor business all around. I haven't used one for thirty or more years --- don't even like the things. Hard for me to get emotional on that one.

 

[Legacy]

The Houston Chronicle with the Associated Press did a couple of articles on the toxic contamination after Hurricane Harvey.

Silent Spills
Part 1: In Houston and beyond, Harvey’s spills leave a toxic legacy

As first responders and residents struggled to save lives and property during the record-shattering deluge of Hurricane Harvey, the toxic onslaught from the nation’s petrochemical hub was largely overshadowed.

But nearly seven months after floodwaters swamped Houston, the extent of the environmental assault is beginning to surface, while questions about the long-term consequences for human health remain unanswered.

County, state and federal records pieced together by the Associated Press and the Houston Chronicle reveal a far more widespread toxic impact than authorities publicly reported after the storm slammed into the Texas coast in late August, then stalled over the Houston area.

Nearly half a billion gallons of industrial wastewater mixed with stormwater surged out of just one chemical plant in Baytown, east of Houston on the upper shores of Galveston Bay.

Benzene, vinyl chloride, butadiene and other known human carcinogens were among the dozens of tons of industrial chemicals released throughout Houston’s petrochemical corridor and surrounding neighborhoods and waterways following Harvey’s torrential rains.

In all, reporters cataloged more than 100 Harvey-related toxic releases — on land, in water and air. Most were never publicized, and in the case of two of the biggest releases, Arkema and Magellan, the extent or potential toxicity was initially understated.

Only a handful of the industrial spills have been investigated by federal regulators, the news organizations found. Texas regulators say they have investigated 89 incidents, but they have yet to announce any enforcement action. Testing by state and federal regulators of soil and water for contaminants was largely limited to Superfund toxic waste sites. ...

If you get a paywall, here's two from the AP:
Hurricane Harvey’s toxic impact deeper than public told

AP Exclusive: Evidence of spills at toxic site during floods