News

November 25, 2024

Can the world agree to a sensible treaty to end plastic pollution?

By Douglas Main

As the US faces the upcoming inauguration of a president known for opposing opposition regulations, delegates from the US and more than 170 countries are meeting this week try to finalize a global treaty to address plastic pollution, in a process organized by the United Nations Environment Program that launched back in spring of 2022.

Some advocates and countries say this meeting in Busan, South Korea, amounts to a last chance to set common-sense limits to prevent an upcoming wave of plastic pollution. The situation is already grim: The world makes approximately 430 million metric tons of plastic every year, more than the weight of all humans combined. Nearly three-fourths of this material ends up in landfills or the environment. If current trends continue, global plastic use and waste will nearly triple by 2060, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

On one side are the “high ambition” parties, led by Norway and Rwanda, and 66 other countries. They’re pushing for a legally binding treaty that caps production, addresses the design and makeup of products, limits toxic materials, and controls for the pollution and harm caused throughout the entire life cycle of plastic production and use.

Other countries, including those that produce a lot of oil and plastic — such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China — have been resisting limits on production and many of these other demands.

The U.S. position in unclear. The Biden Administration made waves this summer in saying they would support efforts to curb production. And last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new “National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution”, saying it aligned with the nation’s “commitment to negotiating an ambitious international agreement with the aim of protecting public health and the environment by reducing plastic pollution around the world.”

The EPA highlighted the “significant human health concerns” associated with exposures to plastic pollution, including cancers, reproductive health problems, heart attack, stroke and other problems. The EPA noted microplastics have been found in human breast milk and research has found them elsewhere in the body, including in the brain.

Still, this month, White House staffers reportedly told representatives of advocacy groups in a closed-door meeting that they would no longer support mandatory caps on production, and would take a more “flexible” approach to a deal, according to Grist.

November 22, 2024

Friend or foe? Environmental advocates eye Kennedy nomination warily

By Shannon Kelleher

In the wake of last week’s announcement that President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), some leading environmental and public health advocates say they’ve found themselves in a “difficult” position.

On the one hand, Kennedy is a lifelong environmental advocate himself and is pushing a platform called “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA), which sets an agenda strikingly similar to those of many groups on the political left – “prioritizing regenerative agriculture, preserving natural habitats, and eliminating toxins from our food, water and air.”

But on the other, Kennedy’s alignment with Trump – who touts his intention to roll back regulations and undo many hard-fought consumer protections – and Kennedy’s controversial views on certain health-related issues, have left leading environmental health groups unclear on whether he should be seen as friend or foe.

Kennedy has argued for tighter US pesticide regulations and has spoken out against glyphosate, the main ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup that has been classified as a probable carcinogen by a major international cancer research group. He has also been sharply critical of regulators for failing to protect kids from harmful additives in food.

He rails against cozy connections between big business and the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee them, and vows to work to eliminate conflicts of interest in the agencies he would oversee, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and others.

“I can get the corruption out of the agencies,” said Kennedy in a recent interview. “It’s what I’ve been doing for 40 years. Once [the regulatory agencies] are not corrupt, once Americans are getting good science and are allowed to make their own choices, they’re going to get a lot healthier.”

Kennedy has a background as an environmental lawyer with a decades-long track record of fighting for green issues – he was once named one of Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his work restoring the Hudson River, he founded the clean water advocacy group Waterkeeper Alliance, and he previously served as senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

But critics point out that Kennedy has no medical training and has been accused of peddling baseless conspiracy theories and making claims not supported by science.

winifred-helton-harmon-4GIF-BcmZlM-unsplash

November 22, 2024

Court deals setback to efforts to regulate pesticide-coated seeds

By Carey Gillam

A federal court this week dealt a blow to calls for new regulations on pesticide-coated seeds used in farming, ruling that US regulators were not acting improperly in exempting the seeds from registration review.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California on Wednesday granted a summary judgment in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and agrochemical industry lobbyist CropLife America, turning back arguments by the Center for Food Safety and other environmental advocates who have spent years warning of a range of “devastating effects” they say result from widespread use of the specialty seeds.

The concerns addressed in the case focus on seeds that are coated in insecticides before they are planted. Three specific types of insecticides that are part of a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids present particular threats to beneficial birds and insects such as butterflies, and can contaminate the air, soil and water with toxins, according to critics.

The court case ruled on this week focused on three types of neonics – imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidin.

“Neonicotinoid treated seeds are used on at least half of all croplands in the US but pose an extreme danger to birds, bees, and other pollinators,” the Center for Food Safety said in a statement issued Thursday following the ruling. “With the future of agriculture and entire food webs on the line, it is irresponsible and unlawful that these pesticides will continue to be exempted from registration.”

The European Union has banned the outdoor use of certain types of neonicotinoids, also called neonics, and the United Nations has said neonics are so hazardous that they should be “severely” restricted. But in the US, neonics remain widely used, typically as coatings on corn, cotton and soybean seeds, planted by farmers to protect crops from insects and disease.

Scientific research has shown they are contributing to a decline in important pollinators such as honeybees. Environmental advocates say numerous studies show neonics are not necessary.

November 20, 2024

A call for EPA action on climate risks to hazardous waste facilities

By Dana Drugmand

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be doing more to help address potential climate change-related risks to hundreds of hazardous waste facilities across the country, according to a recent government watchdog report.

The Nov. 14 report, issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), examined the risks to hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) from flooding, storm surge, sea level rise, and wildfires, events expected to intensify and/or become more frequent with climate change.

More than 700 out of 1,091 federally regulated facilities, or about 68%, are located in areas vulnerable to these weather-related events, the report found. Roughly half of these facilities could be at risk of flooding and more than one-third are in areas vulnerable to wildfire, while almost 200, or 17%, , are in coastal areas at risk of inundation from storm surge.

Chemical waste drums, petroleum storage tanks, toxic landfills and other facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are regulated by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. While EPA sets national standards, states implement the regulations and provide enforcement. But, according to the GAO, states currently lack clear direction from EPA on how to assess or manage climate-related risks to hazardous waste facilities, particularly during inspections.

“People at EPA know about the risks, but there has not been real forward-leadership on this,” said Judith Enck, who served as a regional administrator for EPA during the Obama administration. “I can’t tell you how many times I would flag something and was told, ‘well we don’t have the resources and we really can’t do that until headquarters tells us to do something.’”

The EPA has started to take steps to address climate change risks at hazardous waste facilities. In June, for example, it issued guidance on how states can require management of these risks when facilities are permitted. But the GAO said the agency should take additional actions to clarify requirements for climate risk management and to improve and help states implement the guidance.

GAO made nine recommendations to the EPA, including offering training and technical assistance to states to help them understand and manage climate-related risks at hazardous waste facilities.

But as the agency prepares to transition to new leadership under the incoming Trump administration, there are questions around whether it will ultimately act upon the GAO recommendations, or if it will even have the resources to do so. The GAO report identified resource constraints as one of several challenges for addressing climate change risks to hazardous waste facilities.

November 20, 2024

Bioplastics may be toxic to soil organisms, study calls for more testing

By Douglas Main

Bioplastics, often considered a safer alternative to synthetic plastics, may in some cases be toxic to soil organisms, a worrisome finding that indicates a need for more thorough testing, according to a new study.

The work adds to a growing body of research suggesting that bioplastics, which are derived from plant materials or other biological feedstocks, are not necessarily safer than plastics that come from petroleum.

The new study, published this month in Environmental Science and Technology, found that two types of bioplastic fibers were more toxic to earthworms than were bits of conventional polyester. While promoted as “environmentally friendly,” the alternative materials actually may be more harmful in some ways than the conventional plastic, the study determined.

“We need more comprehensive testing of these materials before they are used as alternatives to plastics,” said Bangor University researcher Winnie Courtene-Jones, who is lead author of the study.

Bio-based fibers like viscose and lyocell are used in clothing, especially in fast fashion, but also in wet wipes and a range of other products. The study said more than 320,000 metric tons were produced in the textile industry in 2022 and that is expected to continue to climb. When such clothes are washed, they can shed fibers into wastewater. Thousands of tons of sewage sludge are added to farmlands around the world, which can directly transmit such fibers into the soil.

The study authors said they exposed worms to fibers from polyester, as well as viscose and lyocell, which are made from cellulose and used in “natural” fabrics. They found that after three days, 30% of the first group died, while the death toll was 60% for viscose, and 80% for lyocell.

November 18, 2024

Despite critics, organic farming thrives in heart of US corn country

By Keith Schneider

WEST BEND, Iowa – People searching for ways to limit the toll industrialized American agriculture takes on communities, land, and water may want to make a visit to Clear Creek Acres in northern Iowa.

With just shy of 800 residents, West Bend, Iowa is barely a blip on a prairie landscape, but it has become home base for an uncommonly large expanse of organically grown crops- operations that have found success in challenging the popular convention that pesticides and other agricultural chemicals are needed to feed the world.

Towering grain bins are surrounded by close to 50,000 acres of corn, soybeans, oats and other crops grown without the use of synthetic chemicals. Farmers fertilize the land with chicken litter and hog manure and weed much of the land by hand, or with non-chemical tools, such as new laser weeders.

What’s occurred here since 1998, when farmer Barry Fehr experimented with raising chemical-free soybeans on 45 acres, is the development of the most expansive and profitable area of organic grain production in Iowa, and possibly the United States. Most of the land is farmed by multiple generations of the Fehr family. The family also manages about 3,000 organic acres in Colorado. Generating millions of dollars annually in a “sustainable income,” the success of the organic operations here in the heart of corn country defies long-held conventions about a need for chemicals in farming.

The agrochemical industry, led by Monsanto-owner Bayer, Syngenta and other global seed and chemical giants, maintains that weed killers, insecticides and other pesticides are essential to robust food production, and that a growing global population requires use of the chemicals in agriculture.

But 71-year-old Dan Fehr, who has been farming more than 50 years, says “that is debatable.”

The Fehr family farms are nearly matching the yields of crops grown conventionally, perhaps seeing only about a 10% yield decline in comparison, Fehr said. Their costs are lower because they’re not buying pesticides and the high-priced genetically modified seeds designed to be used with certain weed killing pesticides.

And the prices they reap are higher because organic crops command premiums in a marketplace where consumer demand for organic foods is climbing. About 25,000 acres of the Fehr farms in Iowa generate approximately $40 million a year in crop sales.

“The premium we got from selling organics is the key reason,” said Fehr. “The demand for organic has definitely grown a lot. That is why we do it.”

And, he added – “Nobody has died of not using pesticides. I don’t think it will hurt anything not to use pesticides.”

November 15, 2024

Can anything be done to Trump-proof the environment?

By Douglas Main

As advocacy groups brace for a new administration under President-elect Donald Trump —fearing a slew of deregulation and policy changes that would undermine a range of environmental health measures —some are pondering ways to try to “Trump-proof” the planet.

Trump racked up the worst environmental record of any president during his first term, according to several advocacy organizations, and many worry his second time around will be even worse.

They expect across-the-board cuts to federal budgets and staff, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, and other agencies that play key roles in protecting human and environmental health. And they forecast efforts to reverse environmentally friendly policies protested by powerful corporate players.

“I suspect Trump will be less restrained than last time… more aggressive and damaging,” said Brett Hartl, with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’ll wait for the storm to hit and fight back,” he added.

These concerns come after the Biden administration has implemented of many hard-fought measures such as new standards to address widespread contamination of US drinking water with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and environmental justice initiatives to better protect marginalized communities from industrial pollution.

The current administration has, just this month alone, completed a series of steps lauded by conservationists and environmentalists that include finalizing rules to limit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and finishing a proposal to restrict oil exploration and grazing in 65 million acres of sage grouse habitat.

November 14, 2024

US EPA enables polluting plastics plants by failing to update wastewater limits, report says

By Shannon Kelleher

Federal regulators have enabled US plastics plants across the country to dump dangerous chemicals into waterways by failing to update wastewater limits for over 30 years, according to a new analysis by a watchdog group.

While the Clean Water Act requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review wastewater discharge limits every five years to keep up with advances in water treatment technologies, the agency has not updated its guidelines for the plastics sector since 1993.

“Most folks don’t know that the plastics industry is not required to use modern wastewater treatment controls to limit the amount of pollution they pour into our waterways,” Jen Duggan, the executive director of EIP, said in a press call Thursday. “It’s long past time these plants clean up.”

In its analysis, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) focused on 70 plants that make raw plastics called “nurdles,” tiny pellets later used to make products such as water bottles, food containers and toy

Over 80% of the plants violated pollution limits in their permits at least once between 2021 and 2023, according to the report, yet the EPA only issued financial penalties to 14% of violators, the report found. The Chemours Washington Works plant in West Virginia received 115 violations over this period – more than any other plant studied – but was not issued any penalties by regulators, the EIP analysis found.

Additionally, 40% of the plastics plants are operating on outdated water pollution control permits, the study found.

The EPA said it is reviewing the report and would “respond appropriately.”

November 13, 2024

What’s hampering federal environmental justice efforts in the hydrogen hub build-out?

By Kristina Marusic and Cami Ferrell

This is part 2 of a 2-part series originally published at Environmental Health News. Read part 1: Hydrogen hubs test new federal environmental justice rules

One Wednesday evening last May, Yukyan Lam stared into the camera on her computer, delivering carefully prepared remarks during a virtual listening session convened by the US Department of Energy (DOE).

The goal of the event was for the federal agency to hear concerns and questions from communities that could be impacted by the Mid-Atlantic hydrogen hub, one part of a massive federal program working to establish a national hydrogen energy network.

Lam, the director of research at The New School’s Tishman Environment & Design Center, had just three minutes to present research on a wide range of potential health impacts associated with carbon capture and storage and hydrogen energy deployment, including increased rates of respiratory issues, premature mortality, cardiovascular events, and negative birth outcomes. Later, after reading the DOE’s public summary of the event, she felt frustrated.

“I didn’t feel like they accurately summarized the research I shared, or that the DOE really heard or valued what was said in the listening session,” Lam said. “They’re moving these projects forward but they haven’t meaningfully engaged with communities yet.”

Lam, who had been providing research and technical assistance to the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, a nonprofit following the development of the hub, wasn’t alone in her frustration.

The Mid-Atlantic hub is one of seven proposed, federally funded networks of infrastructure — an initiative borne from the Biden administration’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — that aim to use both renewable and fossil fuel energy to create hydrogen for energy use by heavy industries that are difficult to electrify like steelmaking, construction and petrochemical production. The hubs support the administration’s objective of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and achieving a 100% clean electrical grid by 2035.

November 12, 2024

Hydrogen hubs test new federal environmental justice rules

By Kristina Marusic and Cami Ferrell

(This is part 1 of a 2-part series originally published at Environmental Health News.)

On a rainy day in September, Veronica Coptis and her two children stood on the shore of the Monongahela River in a park near their home, watching a pair of barges laden with mountainous heaps of coal disappear around the riverbend.

“I’m worried they’re not taking into account how much industrial traffic this river already sees, and how much the hydrogen hub is going to add to it,” Coptis said.

Coptis lives with her husband and their children in Carmichaels, Pennsylvania, a former coal town near the West Virginia border with a population of around 434. The local water authority uses the Monongahela as source water. Contaminants associated with industrial activity and linked to cancer, including bromodichloromethane, chloroform and dibromochloromethane, have been detected in the community’s drinking water.

Coptis grew up among coal miners, but became an activist focused on coal and fracking after witnessing environmental harms the fossil fuel industry caused.

Now, she sees a new fight on the horizon: The Appalachian Regional Hydrogen Hub, a vast network of infrastructure that will use primarily natural gas to create hydrogen for energy. Part of the new Appalachian hydrogen hub is expected to be built in La Belle, which is about a 30 minute drive north along the Monongahela River from her home.

“I have a lot of concerns about how large that facility might be and what emissions could be like, and whether it’ll cause increased traffic on the river and the roads,” said Coptis, who works as a senior advisor at the climate advocacy nonprofit Taproot Earth. “I’m also worried that because this will be blue hydrogen it will increase demand for fracking, and I already live surrounded by fracking wells.”