Fossil fuel planned expansions could thwart efforts to slow climate change, report finds
By Dana Drugmand
Plans for an expanded footprint of US fossil fuel-derived chemical production facilities would unleash millions of tons of heat-trapping emissions that could undermine efforts to confront the climate crisis, according to a report issued Tuesday.
The analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) determined that 70 projects in various stages of development would create total annual emissions exceeding that of US commercial aviation, and on par with the annual emissions of 39 coal plants.
“The planned petrochemicals buildout in the United States is a profound threat to the climate,” the CIEL report warns. “If built, these petrochemical facilities will generate huge greenhouse gas emissions and lock in fossil fuel production for decades.”
The petrochemical sector in the US already emits about 335 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent pollution annually – more than the annual emissions of entire countries like Spain – and the planned expansion is estimated to add at least another 153.8 MMT of annual emissions, the analysis finds.
As the new report explains, the petrochemical sector is a growing yet underrecognized source of climate pollution, set for rapid expansion as fossil fuel usage in the energy sector starts to wane. The International Energy Agency projects that petrochemicals will be the biggest driver of global oil demand, accounting for nearly half of the demand growth through 2050.
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the chief US trade association for the petrochemical industry, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. AFPM says on its website that it “supports the aspiration of the Paris Accord to address climate change through global cooperation and greenhouse gas emissions reductions” and that greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel and petrochemical industries are subject to federal and state regulations.
EPA inspector general says agency improperly retaliated against scientists
By Douglas Main
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s inspector general concluded in a report released this week that three government scientists who filed disquieting complaints about their work within the agency under the Trump administration were indeed improperly treated.
The report concluded that the EPA scientists experienced retaliation for speaking out and scientifically disagreeing with leadership and others in the agency.
Most of the scientists had spoken out, internally, about disagreements concerning the safety of various chemicals, which was part of their work within the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Among their concerns, the scientists claimed that the EPA was not doing enough to protect the public from health risks of multiple substances, and that industry pressure was affecting the agency’s ability to do its job properly.
The report notes that one scientist sought to classify a certain unidentified chemical as having “reproductive toxicity,” only for a senior advisor to remove this wording.
In response to the scientists’ disagreeing and speaking out, the EPA reassigned them, skipped them over for promotion, and generally harassed them, calling them “piranhas,” “problematic,” or “pot-stirrers,” according to the complaints. A copy of the employees’ complaint that identified them by name was sent around to senior leaders and individuals mentioned in the complaint, including former coworkers, according to the inspector general’s report.
“The Inspector General’s findings point to ongoing scientific integrity problems in EPA that directly endanger public health,” Kyla Bennett, a former EPA attorney and scientist who is now the science policy director for the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which helped file three of the complaints, said in a statement.
Wide variety of pesticides found in baby foods sold at major retailer
By Douglas Main
Samples of puréed apple and pear baby food sold online and at Target stores in San Francisco, Washington, DC and Minneapolis were found to contain a wide variety of pesticides, according to a new report by an environmental group.
All eight samples of the baby food products, which are made by the popular retail store’s house brand, Good & Gather, contained a class of chemicals called neonicotinoids, according to the study published this week, which was conducted by the nonprofit Friends of the Earth and has not been peer-reviewed. These pesticides are widely used in agriculture and considered toxic to insects such as honeybees. Evidence is accumulating that they may also have various negative effects on human health.
The neonicotinoids detected include imidacloprid, present in half of the pear products, and thiacloprid, present in 75% of the apple purée samples. Both are considered “highly hazardous pesticides” by the Pesticide Action Network, and each are banned for outdoor use in the European Union due to their toxicity, including to pollinators like bees.
The European Food Safety authority has stated that thiacloprid “is likely to damage fertility and the unborn child.”
Target did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Nathan Donley, a scientist who studies pesticides with the Center for Biological Diversity but wasn’t involved in the report, said the results show the regulators are failing to keep food safe, especially for infants.
“To see neurotoxins in children’s food, at any level, is unacceptable in my opinion,” he said. “Every child has different susceptibilities and sensitivities – the idea that a certain level of a poison is safe for every individual is outdated thinking.”
Controversial landfill in wine country expected to close
By Shannon Kelleher
A landfill in California’s wine country that has drawn scrutiny for its management of toxic chemicals may be poised to close, Napa County officials confirmed this week.
Waste Connections, the large national waste management company that owns the Napa Valley-area Clover Flat Landfill, is expected to submit a closure plan to the county’s Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) “near the end of this year,” Holly Dawson, the county’s deputy CEO for communications, said in an email.
Based on recent discussions with Waste Connections, the closure process is expected to take about three to four years, and there are no plans for future operations at the site beyond long-term monitoring, said Dawson.
The development comes as a growing coalition of local activists and nonprofit groups call for Clover Flat’s closure, citing concerns about the landfill’s numerous regulatory violations, environmental impact and social justice issues. The landfill has been the site of fires and is suspected of polluting waterways in the famous winemaking region with harmful chemicals, which drain into the river that irrigates local vineyards.
Confirmation from the LEA about the company’s intent to shutter Clover Flat follows a May email exchange between a Waste Connections employee and Napa County staff about the landfill’s future, which was uncovered in a recent public records request.
“There have been some internal developments on our end for the Clover Flat site, including early closure of the landfill – the details are still being worked out,” wrote the company’s California Regional Engineer.
Ronald Mittelstaedt, the president and CEO of Waste Connections, did not respond to a request for comment about plans to close the landfill.
If plans to shut down Clover Flat move forward, the landfill will be “capped,” said Dawson, a process that involves placing a cover over a waste site to keep harmful chemicals contained.
“The waste currently onsite will remain, covered with a final closure system designed to protect the environment and meet regulatory requirements,” said Dawson, noting that Waste Connections will “continue to maintain and monitor the landfill following closure” and that the LEA will conduct routine inspections.