 Water
|
|
Before and after water quality using the Tactical Water Purification System at Hunter Army Airfield.
Photo: Spc. Scott Lindblom, 3rd CAB Public Affairs, via Task & Purpose
|
|
"PR Nightmare" Study Released Showing Danger of PFAS Exposure
The Centers for Disease Control finally published on its website last Wednesday the health study that the Trump Administration had been suppressing regarding the toxicity of the family of chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS. The 852-page report provides the most comprehensive scientific look at the dangers caused by these chemicals, which are found in fire suppressants and many household products like carpets and non-stick pan coatings, and it is not good. These chemicals, according to the report, can cause cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease in humans. The study recommends drastic reductions in the levels of exposure permitted -- as much as ten times less -- in order to ensure the public's safety. Several states, such as New Jersey and Michigan, have already enacted tougher standards for these chemicals based on other studies.
What makes Trump Administration's effort to hide the truth about these chemicals even worse is that many of those who are impacted in the U.S. are military service members and their families. As we reported in April and again in May, and tweeted last Friday, more than 600 military sites in the U.S. where the chemicals were used in firefighting foam are at risk of contamination. DoD has admitted in a report to Congress earlier this year that at least 126 drinking water systems on or near military bases were contaminated. But many other communities are also impacted -- in a 2016 study, researchers at Harvard estimated that contamination from PFAS is widespread and 6 million Americans got their drinking water from sources that exceeded the previous EPA health guidelines.
Why This Matters: This is a serious unsafe drinking water "epidemic" nationwide, and the public must be able to trust that the government is on the side of protecting the public's health, not saving its own skin. Those who have fought to keep our country safe, as well as those who live near military bases, deserve better from our elected leaders. I (Monica) am a veteran and so this story hits close to home for me. In order to restore trust, the EPA should quickly move to change the standards to provide better protection and should work to identify those drinking water systems that are unsafe and begin to clean them up. Everyone -- from residents of Flint to Standing Rock to military families -- should have safe drinking water.
To Go Deeper: If you want to see whether you or a family member lives near a previously identified PFAS contamination site, the Environmental Working Group has an interactive map, here.
|
|
 Climate Change
|
|
30 Year-Old Climate Predictions are Eerily Accurate
Saturday marked the 30th anniversary of NASA atmospheric physicist James Hansen's testimony to Congress signaling the dangers of the greenhouse effect. Hansen's testimony got the attention of the nation and of policymakers especially in the middle of a contentious presidential election. As Grist recounted, George H. W. Bush vowed to use the “White House effect” to battle the “greenhouse effect.” Four years later, with then-President Bush in attendance, the United States became a founding member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — which still guides global climate action today. The New York Times reported in 1988 that "[Hansen's] decision to come right out and say the greenhouse effect was here, Dr. Hansen knew he was risking his reputation as a cautious and careful scientist. But in an interview, he said he had no reason to soften his assessment.
He presented 3 emissions scenarios: Scenario A with very rapid increases in GHGs, Scenario B with more modest increases, and Scenario C which included almost no increases. Thirty years later we can compare Hansen's models to what actually happened and Scenario B eerily predicted the warming our planet has experienced since 1988.
Why This Matters: 'It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here," Hansen told reporters following his 1988 testimony. Sadly, policymakers still refuse to acknowledge the urgency of climate change--including the man tasked with protecting people and planet at the EPA. Their excuse is often that climate models cannot be relied upon, but Dr. Hansen's predictions 30 years ago defy this flawed argument. More urgently, climate scientists warn that we have just about 20 years to curb our emissions and stay within 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming which could help avoid massive human suffering--in America federal action on this front remains dismal.
Go Deeper: The good news is that young Americans wholeheartedly acknowledge the problem and are working to make climate change a major voting priority. On July 21st the Youth Climate March will take place in Washington DC. To learn more information or to donate to young people demanding climate action from our leaders, click here.
|
|
 Animals
|
|
|
Fin Whale Photo: International Fund for Animal Welfare
|
|
|
Iceland Resumes Commercial Whaling Ignoring Global Ban
Iceland promised last spring to resume commercial whaling for endangered fin whales after a three-year respite -- and this week they did, taking their first whale of the season. The sole person behind the whaling is Kristjan Loftsson, a multimillionaire fishing magnate who has argued that Iceland has a legal right to whale despite the global moratorium enacted by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) more than 35 years ago. Loftsson intends to kill as many as 240 of these majestic whales this summer -- these are one of the largest and also most endangered whale species.
The first whale killed this year was landed last week at the whaling station in Hvalfjörður, Iceland. Iceland prides itself on its well-managed fisheries and pristine environment. However, Iceland does not have a permit to whale from the IWC -- it grants itself a permit. And the whaling is hardly a big commercial success -- fin whale meat is not popular in Iceland. The major market for their meat is Japan -- and that trade of whale meat also flouts international law. According to Ecowatch, "[s]ince 2008, more than 8,800 tonnes of whale meat and blubber have been shipped to Japan, despite the ban on international trade in whale meat under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)."
Why This Matters: Loftsson's Trump-like stubbornness on commercial whaling may ultimately backfire against him and against the entire country. In Iceland, commercial whaling is incredibly unpopular -- a 2018 poll found that only 34 percent of Icelanders support their whaling program. "It is unfathomable in this day and age that a country so well known for its nature tourism is tarnishing its image by allowing commercial whaling to continue in the face of growing domestic and international opposition," said ocean campaigns leader Clare Perry. And Iceland may find itself on the wrong side of NGO campaigns in Iceland this summer as a result, creating a stigma during their tourist season.
To Go Deeper on Giant Whales: We recommend this excellent piece in the NY Times about great whales and how they evolved.
|
|
|
|
Iceland's illegal whale hunt. Video: Environmental Investigations Agency
|
|
 Food
|
|
Porky Farm Bill Squeaks by in House of Representatives
The 2018 Farm Bill took a big step forward on Thursday, narrowly passing in the House 213-211. The provisions in the bill are extremely favorable to Wall Street bankers and big agribusiness interests like the pesticide manufacturers, and mining and timber businesses too. Environmental groups roundly criticized the bill as bad for sustainable farming programs, research on invasive species, and endangered species. Ecowatch reports that, according to an Environment America analysis, this bill would:
- end a requirement that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assess a pesticide's impact on endangered species before the Environmental Protection Agency can approve its use;
- eliminate completely the Conservation Stewardship program, which funds farmers who engage in conservation on their land;
- repeal the Clean Water Rule that defines what intermittent streams and wetlands are covered, thus eliminating federal protections for half of our nation’s streams and millions of acres of wetlands;
- permit mining, drilling, and roadbuilding in National Forests in Alaska, including the Tongass, which is the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world;
- exempt farmers who release pesticides into rivers and streams from the Clean Water Act;
- pre-empt state and local laws that are more protective than federal law when it comes to the health and environmental impacts of factory farms; and
- cut public process and environmental impact reviews for a wide range of activities on public lands.
Environment America senior attorney John Rumpler reacted to the bill, saying, "[p]oisoning our water and land to grow our food makes no sense. Congress should reject this dirty Farm Bill and start over with legislation that promotes both healthy food and clean water."
Why This Matters: This bill is terrible policy for all the reasons listed above. It has been called a "major win" for pesticide manufacturers, who reportedly spent $43 million on lobbying Congress this year. Worse yet, the bill restricts the eligibility of the 42 million Americans currently receiving food stamps by requiring that aid recipients either work 20 hours per week or enroll in job training programs or else they will be cut off from those benefits. And states will not be allowed to waive those requirements either. At the same time, according to Fox News, the bill is "packed" with subsidies for even wealthy farmers. After the vote, Network, the Washington, D.C.-based Catholic social justice lobby, called it "grossly immoral" and criticized it as "a fully partisan vote." Let's hope the Senate bill won't be the same.
|
|
 Sustainability
|
|
What To Do with 111 Million Tons of Trash?
China has imported 106 million tons of old bags, bottles, wrappers, and containers worth $57.6 billion since 1992, the first year that it disclosed data. Since China's announcement that it will stop importing much of the world's recyclable materials, nations have been scrambling to figure out what to with their trash and for just how much of it they'll have to find alternative means of disposal. As Bloomberg reported late last week, by 2030, a newly estimated 111 million metric tons of used plastic will need to be buried or recycled somewhere else—or not manufactured at all. That's the conclusion of a new analysis of UN global trade data by University of Georgia researchers.
Nearly four-fifths of all the world's plastic has been thrown into landfills or the environment. A tenth of it has been burned and still, several million tons reach our oceans every year, polluting beaches and killing marine life. Sadly, just 9 percent of the total plastic ever generated has been recycled. While other nations like India, Vietnam, and Malaysia take in recyclable waste it's nowhere near the scale of China (which took in just over half of all plastic waste in 2016--7.4 million metric tons). Making matters worse, Vietnam recently halted imports of scrap plastics as the shipments were clogging the nation's ports.
Why This Matters: We noted on Friday that for the United States this means that we will have to deal with 37 million metric tons of extra waste by 2030, which is an amount we're not prepared to handle. To put this further into perspective, up until China's recent announcement the US shipped nearly 4,000 shipping containers full of recyclables to China each day. We're going to be forced to rethink the massive quantities of single-use plastics that we use each day as we will have no immediate space to dispose of them. Of course, saying this is far easier said than done as it's currently nearly impossible to avoid this waste. Hopefully, the EU's recent crackdown on single-use plastics can pave the way for other nations to follow suit.
|
|
 Energy
|
|
One Cool Thing: Gasoline Made from Carbon Sucked from the Air
As NatGeo reported, Carbon Engineering, a Canadian company, is making a liquid fuel by sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and combining it with hydrogen from water. This is an engineering breakthrough on two fronts: A potentially cost-effective way to take CO2 out of the atmosphere to fight climate change and a potentially cost-competitive way to make gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel that doesn’t add any additional CO2 to the atmosphere.
“This isn’t going to save the world from the impacts of climate change, but it’s going to be a big step on the path to a low-carbon economy,” said David Keith, a Harvard Professor of Applied Physics and founder of Carbon Engineering.
|
|
|
|
