nrdc

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.”

August 9, 2024

Deadline looms for California airports to stop using PFAS firefighting foams

By Benjamin Purper

A majority of California airports known to be contaminated with toxic PFAS chemicals are continuing to rely on PFAS-laden foams for firefighting, despite a looming state deadline to phase out the foams due to the risks they pose to human and environmental health.

Only four out of 30 contaminated airports in the state have confirmed that they have stopped using foams containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – also known as “forever chemicals” – and moved to a PFAS-free alternative. The majority are still struggling to transition, The New Lede has learned.

Though there is some indecision by state officials over the deadline for compliance, the airports could potentially face civil action against continued use of the PFAS-containing foams after September.

On Thursday, state Senator Ben Allen sent a letter to the California’s Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) stating that the airports should halt all use of the foams by Sept. 13 at the latest to be in compliance with state law.

“We can no longer delay our transition away from these dangerous forever chemicals,” Allen told The New Lede. “I look forward to working closely with the State Fire Marshal over the next month to ensure a smooth transition to a cleaner future.”

The OSFM has indicated, however, that an additional grace period may be allowed. The agency said in an emailed statement that it will provide airports with “expected” final compliance dates after it receives updated information from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about new foam alternatives.

Exposure to PFAS has been linked to numerous health issues, including cancer, liver damage, developmental damage to infants, and other health problems. The federal government has said that “tackling PFAS” pollution is a “top priority.”

May 16, 2023

US efforts to turn farm animal poop into biofuel spark scrutiny

By Shannon Kelleher

Industrial-sized livestock operations have long been known for contaminating the environment and mistreating animals. Now, amid growing government incentives to turn the manure generated at these operations into climate-friendly biofuels, there are mounting concerns that the efforts could make industrial farming bigger and more dangerous.

Critics say government support for the production of biogas through the use of what are known as manure digesters comes with an array of well-documented risks. The digesters break down manure and capture methane gas, which can be used as fuel, but they come with a history of fires, explosions, hydrogen sulfide poisoning, methane leaks, and even drowning.

Methane digesters “exacerbate the dangers that are already endemic to industrial animal farming… where animals are housed in the same location as malfunctioning equipment, flammable liquids, and dangerous manure management practices,” said Alicia Prygoski, strategic legislative affairs manager at the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) animal advocacy group.

“Encouraging mass amounts of manure production, to facilitate the mass capture of the flammable gas that results from its decomposition, is what creates the increase in risks for explosions,” said Prygoski. “All you need is a spark.”

The Biden Administration’s much-touted Inflation Reduction Act includes funding and tax credits incentivizing farmers to install more of these digesters, and the new Farm Bill could include funds incentivizing the practice.

The ALDF and more than 100 other organizations sent a letter in December to US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack calling on the agency to stop any allocation of additional funding from the IRA for the use or expansion of methane digesters or “production of factory farm gas.”

The groups cited a “ballooning factory farm gas industry,” and warned, among other issues, that digesters can “leak methane and manure and can even explode.”

August 24, 2022

Guest column: Setting the stage for a food system transformation

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) new $300 million Organic Transition Initiative offers meaningful investments in climate-friendly farming that meet urgent needs of communities across the country. The initiative sets the stage for a food system transformation that makes organic the norm – by aligning public spending with public interests in thriving ecosystems and healthy, affordable food.

Organic farming offers sweeping health, climate, and economic benefits – but it’s not easy, especially at the beginning. Land must be managed organically – without synthetic fertilizers and most pesticides – for three years before crops can be sold as organic. During those three years, as the land and ecosystems heal and find new balance, producers may face increased pest pressure, short-term decreases in yields, and a steep learning curve.

While many producers find that organic is worth it in the long run, the costs, time, and technical challenges involved in organic transition remain a barrier, especially for smaller operations with limited resources.

The expertise, experience, and willpower to farm and ranch organically have existed – and persisted – for decades, as evidenced by the consistent growth of the organic sector. And yet, decades of agricultural policy and investments have trapped many producers, workers, and consumers in a system that relies heavily on harmful synthetic inputs and that values short-term yields over long-term sustainability, health, and equity.

Today, less than 1% of U.S. farmland is certified organic, and the number of non-certified farms actively transitioning to organic has dropped nearly 71% since 2008.