How We Fight to Protect the Columbia River From Fossil Fuel Pollution–and Win
24 August 2018
Popular
No LNG Rally on May 26, 2015, in Salem, Oregon; in 2016 we defeated the project. Alex Milan Tracy
By Dan Serres
As highlighted by the article Why Does Climate Change Matter to the Columbia?, we are in the the fight of our lives to stop dirty fossil fuels and transition to clean energy. The good news? You are making a difference right now. As activists, you have a tremendous impact on greenhouse gas pollution in the Pacific Northwest. Over the past decade, you defeated the region's largest fossil fuel proposals. From stopping liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments on the Lower Columbia River, to blocking mind-blowing quantities of coal exports, to persuading Washington Gov. Jay Inslee to deny North America's largest oil train terminal, your efforts register on a global scale.
<p><br>Together, we have helped prevent: <br></p><ul class="ee-ul"> <li><strong>Coal </strong>— more than <strong>132 million tons per year, destined to travel through the Columbia River Gorge </strong>in dozens of mile-long coal trains, to ports in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. </li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li><strong>Oil </strong>— more than <strong>760,000 barrels per day</strong> shipped in "bomb trains" to new or expanded oil-by-rail terminals in Oregon and Washington. </li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li><strong>Fracked Gas </strong>— more than <strong>2 billion cubic feet of fracked gas per day</strong> <strong>(more than Washington and Oregon combined use in a day)</strong>, by defeating pipeline, power plant, and LNG terminal proposals. And we continue to fight projects in Kalama and Port Westward that would use or export another 640 million cubic feet.</li></ul><p>Altogether, you helped stop 471 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year. That's almost four times the carbon pollution of the Keystone XL pipeline, and more than seven times Oregon's total in-state greenhouse gas pollution. Incredible! Not only did you take a stand for our climate, but you made a difference for clean air and water as well. Fossil fuel projects pose tremendous safety and toxic pollution risks to millions of people across the Northwest. When we fight fossil fuels, we are fighting for clean water and healthy communities.</p><h2>Together We Are Strong</h2><p>To win against powerful coal, oil and gas interests, we must work together with allies. Riverkeeper engages with community activists from eastern Oregon and Washington all the way to the mouth of the Columbia River.</p><p>People may fight dangerous fossil-fuel projects because the projects harm local businesses, water resources, forests, farms or public safety. We are fortunate to work with firefighters, fishers, foresters, farmers, health professionals, educators and union leaders who see fossil fuel risks in their communities and stand against injustice. Whether seeking to protect critical salmon habitat, the safety of schools near rail lines, or a stable climate for our children, we seek common ground and a path away from dangerous fossil fuels. We strive to learn from one another and stand in solidarity across traditional political boundaries.</p><p>We also salute the incredible work of Columbia River tribes that stood up to coal exports and oil-by-rail. Several tribal nations presented rock-solid arguments to state and federal decision-makers on the dangerous impacts of coal exports and oil-by-rail. According to the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission:</p><blockquote>[Our] opposition stems not only from the climate effects of continued fossil fuel use, but also the present danger of transportation risks. Continued reliance on fossil fuels would have long-lasting, harmful impacts to the environment and the natural resources upon which tribal cultures are based. This alone is reason enough for opposition to expanding fossil fuel transport through the region, but adding in the risk of catastrophic environmental damage from spills and derailments and the correct course of action is even more obvious.</blockquote><p>We are honored to work in solidarity with these tribes to protect the Columbia from the perils of oil-by-rail and other dangerous fossil fuel projects.</p><h2>The Battle Continues</h2><p>Linking Grassroots Power to Expert Advocacy The "Thin Green Line"—the Northwest's remarkable effort to block fossil fuel expansion projects—is driven by everyday people who take time to connect with their friends, neighbors, and public officials.</p><p><span></span>Riverkeeper works to link these people with one another, empower them with technical information, and fight for their rights in the courtroom.</p><p><span></span>The fight continues. Fracking companies desperately seek outlets for their climate-disrupting methane. Two massive fracked gas-to-methanol refineries proposed in the Lower Columbia River would consume nearly as much fracked gas as the entire state of Oregon. Meanwhile, shippers of tar-sands crude are eyeing the Lower Columbia River for outlets for oil that is so thick and polluting, it sinks upon spilling, a huge threat to salmon recovery in the Columbia River.</p><p><span></span>As the backers of the Millennium coal terminal continue to litigate over a rejected coal export scheme in Longview, Washington, the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board <a href="https://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/news/2018/8/coal-company-loses-appeal-water-quality-permit-denial" target="_blank">upheld</a> the Washington Department of Ecology's denial of a necessary water quality permit for proposed Millennium coal terminal, affirms that DOE acted validly to protect the water, land, air and people of Washington from harm.</p><p><span></span>The Columbia River has two futures. The first: a superhighway for fossil fuel exports—oil tankers, refinery smokestacks, flares and piles of coal eight stories high—enriching multinational corporations.</p><p><span></span>The second: strong, healthy communities and thriving local businesses united by clean air, clean water and sustainable salmon runs. Thank you for choosing clean air and water. When it comes to the onslaught of fossil fuel infrastructure on the Columbia, the actions you take in your community have global climate impacts.</p><h3><span></span>What Can You Do to Help? Take Action.</h3><p>Tell Washington State Gov. Inslee to "Oppose Kalama Methanol Refinery!" The world's largest fracked-gas-to-methanol refinery threatens our safety, river, climate, and private property rights! <a href="http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/50797/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=20129" target="_blank">Act now</a>!</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Lance Koudele / Columbia Riverkeeper
By Miles Johnson
Why does a river organization like Columbia Riverkeeper dedicate so much energy to fighting fossil fuel projects?
First, fossil fuels threaten clean water. Think oil spills, pipelines that degrade salmon streams, coal dust in the river, and aerial deposition of mercury from coal-burning power plants. But we have additional motivation to fight fossil fuel infrastructure: climate change is harming the Columbia River and our communities right now. And giant fossil fuel corporations want to build more infrastructure—pipelines, fracked gas refineries, shipping terminals—to lock our region into continued reliance on dirty energy. Together, we are taking a stand to protect clean water and our climate.
<p>With each victory over fracked gas, oil and coal, we are protecting clean water and our climate. This article explores four (of the many) impacts of climate change—salmon in hot water, extreme heat waves, fire danger and streams running dry—harming the people, animals and plants in our region right now. In addition, the article describes scientists' projections of future impacts. Our work is urgent and full of hope. By defeating fossil fuel infrastructure today, we support the rapid transition to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">clean energy</a>, which will increase prosperity in the Pacific Northwest.<br><br>Four impacts of climate change in the Pacific Northwest:<br><br><strong>Salmon in Hot Water</strong></p><p>The mighty Columbia River is synonymous with salmon. When tribes alone inhabited the Columbia River Basin, as many as 30 million salmon returned to the river each year. Despite significant declines, these salmon runs hold tremendous cultural and economic value for tribes and other river communities throughout the Pacific Northwest. While we struggle to restore the Columbia's imperiled salmon runs, climate change is warming the river, making it even harder for salmon to survive.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODMxMjM2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjAwMDM4Mn0.VlsJs8v-9DNGl19gLqQ0DY3h1wMX4IYE6c7_-YTONiI/img.jpg?width=980" id="cb13e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cb294af9f3227b34f21da28ae2595c24" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Salmon leaping of Lyle Falls</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Columbia Riverkeeper</small></p><p>Salmon need cool water. Warm water encourages disease-causing bacteria and fungi, delays salmon migration and depletes salmon's energy reserves. How warm is too warm? Adult salmon have difficulty swimming upstream when water temperatures approach 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Salmon that have stopped or slowed their migration, and languish for days or weeks in warm water, begin dying from stress and disease before they can return to their home streams to spawn.<br></p><p>Average summer water temperatures in the Columbia River have steadily increased over the past 60 years, and will only get hotter if climate change intensifies. Fifty years ago, the Columbia was too hot for salmon migration for only a week or two during the very peak of the summer. Now the Columbia frequently remains above 68 degrees Fahrenheit from mid-July until mid-September, making salmon migration during that time difficult or impossible. The Fish Passage Center, a federal science agency, explained that "under a climate change scenario, the long-recognized and largely unaddressed problem of high water temperatures ... becomes an ever-increasing threat to the survival of salmon in the Columbia River Basin."<br><br>That threat became a stark reality in the summer of 2015. Roughly 250,000 adult sockeye salmon, including 96 percent of the critically endangered Snake River sockeye run, died prematurely in the Columbia and lower Snake because the rivers were too hot. Though it's convenient to call 2015 an outlier, climate scientists predict that the air and water temperatures that killed so many salmon in 2015 will become increasingly common.<br><br>To protect salmon, we must stop burning fossil fuels. In addition, altering and removing dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers can help solve water temperature problems. The Columbia and Snake dams create large, shallow reservoirs that trap the sun's heat and warm up the rivers. If we operated the dams differently, and removed the lower four Snake River dams, we could directly address the hot water crisis that threatens salmon survival.</p><p><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18312457/980x.jpg"><small></small></p><p class=""><em>Free the Snake 2015 by Ben Moon for Patagonia</em></p><p class="caption"><strong>Extreme Heat Waves</strong></p><p>Across the Pacific Northwest, hotter days and nights are growing more common. Climate change will increase the intensity, frequency and duration of extreme heat waves during the summer, with dangerous consequences. Heat kills more people in the U.S. in most years than floods, tornadoes or hurricanes. Our region's cool, rainy reputation leaves many people unprepared to deal with <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather">extreme temperatures</a> and heat waves.<br><br>The Pacific Northwest—like many other parts of the world—has seen record hot spells in recent summers. Climate change has already doubled the frequency of heat waves in some regions. And more extreme heat is on the way, even if we substantially reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions. Government scientists predict that heat waves in the Pacific Northwest over the next 30 to 60 years will be roughly twice as common as they are now and last twice as long. Summer temperatures that would have been extreme in the 1950s will become commonplace in coming decades, and we will see more record-high temperatures.<br><br>Extreme heat waves are dangerous. Heat is among the top weather-related causes of death in the U.S., responsible for an average of 1,500 fatalities per year. One recent study in Washington state found a 50-percent increase in heat-related hospitalizations during summers with serious heat waves. Residents of the Pacific Northwest may be at particular risk, even though heat waves here are less severe than in other regions. Many Oregonians and Washingtonians don't think of heat as a health risk, may not know the signs of heat stroke, and may not have access to air conditioning. A nationwide study found that "areas along the West Coast showed very high vulnerability [to heat waves], even though their current climates are temperate.<br></p><p>Like many other consequences of climate change, extreme heat waves will cause the most harm to the most vulnerable members of our society. Because urban areas collect additional heat, elderly and poor people living in large cities face the greatest risks. Older people tend to be less resilient to the physical stress of prolonged heat waves. And in the Pacific Northwest, where many homes lack air conditioning, low-income communities may not have access to, or the ability to pay for, relief from the heat.<br><br><strong>Fire Danger</strong></p><p>Residents of the Columbia River Gorge and the Portland metro area won't soon forget last summer's Eagle Creek Fire: weeks of smoke and haze; road closures; evacuation alerts and vacant downtowns in Gorge communities that usually bustle with summer visitors. And while we had it bad, the deadly fires that ravaged California communities later in 2017 were downright catastrophic.<br><br>Across the nation and the globe, climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires">wildfires</a>. Large wildfires in the U.S. currently burn more than twice as many acres each year as they did in 1970, and the average wildfire season now lasts two-and-a-half months longer. Less snow, earlier snowmelt and warmer air temperatures—all linked to climate change—lead to the hot, dry conditions that boost fire activity. Warmer, drier conditions also make fires harder to put out.<br><br>The Pacific Northwest's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/forests">forests</a> will be especially susceptible to wildfires as our climate changes. In Oregon and Washington, the mountains of the Cascade and Coast ranges traditionally have wet winters and relatively cool summers, leading to infrequent forest fires. But if the average temperature increases by one degree Celsius in this region—including the Gorge—the number of acres burned each year could rise by more than 400 percent. In the forests of northeastern Oregon, the number of acres burned each year could increase by more than 500 percent.<br><br>While we fight climate change, we'll also need to change the ways we manage and live with wildfire. Old ideas about wildfire suppression should be discarded; immediately putting out every forest fire, no matter the location, is incredibly expensive and allows dangerous amounts of fuel to build up over time. Forest management, like thinning around rural communities, may play a limited role. But powerful timber corporations and elected leaders should not use fire danger as an excuse to increase clearcutting and salvage logging that harm water quality, fish and wildlife.<br><br><strong>Streams Running Dry</strong></p><p>Washington, Oregon and Idaho are famous for beautiful, wild rivers and streams. The Wenatchee, Yakima, Deschutes, Clackamas and Selway—just to name a few in the Columbia Basin—evoke a powerful connection and sense of pride for many Pacific Northwest residents. We boat, fish, swim, and draw drinking water from our many rivers. Properly restored, these streams can once more support healthy salmon runs. But only if there's enough water to keep our <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a> and streams flowing. <br><br>Climate change threatens to decrease water levels in western rivers, especially during the summer. Most surface water in the West comes from snowmelt, but snowfall is declining and projected to decline faster if climate change continues. With less snowmelt to feed rivers throughout the summer, and warmer air temperatures increasing evaporation, many rivers won't have much water left in the summer and fall. Some streams in the Columbia Basin may run dry altogether. <br><br>In response to declining snowpack, some suggest building new <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dams">dams</a> to trap rainfall and spring runoff. But dam construction would sacrifice the very rivers we seek to protect and restore. We already live with the legacy of thousands of large and small dams throughout the Columbia Basin. Dam construction is the past; dam removal and healthy, free-flowing rivers are our present and future. <br><br>One Columbia Basin stream already facing acute water shortages is Fifteenmile Creek. From its headwaters in the eastern foothills of the Cascade Mountains, the creek flows into the Columbia River near The Dalles, OR, and provides an important spawning area for threatened steelhead. Fifteenmile Creek receives about 70 inches of precipitation each year—mostly as snowmelt—but irrigation already competes for scarce water in the summer, sometimes running the stream dry and killing young fish. Further decreases in snowfall and precipitation could push this imperiled population of steelhead over the brink of extinction. <br><br><strong>Hope for a Brighter, Cooler Future</strong></p><p>The threats from climate change are real and daunting, yet we see reasons for hope all around us. The Pacific Northwest is combating climate change by refusing to host coal and oil export terminals and by decreasing our reliance on fracked gas for power. Instead, your voice is driving a transition to clean, renewable energy and setting an example for the rest of the U.S. and beyond. Together, we can protect the Columbia Basin's people and places from the worst impacts of climate change while protecting clean water.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="039d9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="45NFSM1576663368"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="961365226234023937" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Report: Fracked Gas Project Could Undermine Washington’s Clean Energy Goals https://t.co/ecmCpLdYxJ @foodandwater… https://t.co/MjaiDBJS2Y</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/961365226234023937">1518042305.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Miles Johnson is senior attorney at <a href="https://www.columbiariverkeeper.org" target="_blank">Columbia Riverkeeper</a>.</em><br></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
person holding green leaf vegetable
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Bringing your own reusable grocery bags when you go shopping is one of the easiest ways to cut down on your plastic consumption — according to the UN Environment Program, up to 5 trillion single-use plastic bags are used globally each year.
The most sustainable option is to use a bag you already have, whether it's an old tote or a laundry basket (thank TikTok for that idea). You can also make your own reusable grocery bags out of T-shirts. But if you'd rather purchase designated reusable grocery bags, here are our recommendations.
<div class="redactor-editor" dir="ltr" placeholder="Start writing..." spellcheck="false"><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p></div>
<h2>Why switch to reusable bags?</h2><p>The <a href="https://www.unep.org/interactive/beat-plastic-pollution/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">UN says</a> people produce 300 million tons of plastic waste each year, and about 60% of the plastic produced since the early 1950s has ended up in a landfill or the natural environment.</p><p>Plastic grocery bags are made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE). Technically, this type of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-recycling-myth-2647706452.html" target="_self">plastic can be recycled</a>. However, in practice, plastic bags easily clog recycling machinery, so <a href="https://millerrecycling.com/ldpe-out-of-landfills" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">most municipal recycling centers</a> do not accept this type of material. </p><p>A <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/smm_2015_tables_and_figures_07252018_fnl_508_0.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">study by the EPA</a> showed that only about 6% of the LDPE generated in 2015 was recycled. Other types of plastic, by comparison, were recycled at 18% and 10% rates.</p><div class="redactor-editor" dir="ltr" placeholder="Start writing..." spellcheck="false"></div><p>Although some grocery stores offer plastic bag recycling, the easiest way to get around this is to refuse plastic bags in the first place. Many cities have instituted <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-york-plastic-bag-ban-begins-2645319695.html" target="_self">plastic bag bans</a>, but more often than not, it's up to individuals to choose to make the switch to reusable grocery bags in their day-to-day lives.</p><p><em><em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/about-ecowatch-2641507575.html?rebelltitem=47#rebelltitem47" target="_self">Melissa Smith</a> is an avid writer, scuba diver, backpacker, and all-around outdoor enthusiast. She graduated from the University of Florida with degrees in journalism and sustainable studies. Before joining EcoWatch, Melissa worked as the managing editor of Scuba Diving magazine and the communications manager of The Ocean Agency, a non-profit that's featured in the Emmy award-winning documentary Chasing Coral.</em></em></p><em><em><br></em><ul class="ee-ul"></ul></em>
Best Overall: ChicoBag Reusable Grocery Bag
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTIxNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTMyMDQ2N30.RTnT_sQQbH0ucKu_QvfyFIhavWHa_acNOMrOxiHVsGE/img.jpg?width=980" id="63ab1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e127ef0807a470e3b1d33edd96a646c6" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />ChicoBag
<p>Standard reusable grocery bags — foldable cloth "green bags" that typically have company logos on them — are bulky, can't be machine washed, and tend to break down after a number of uses. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/ChicoBag-Original-Reusable-Shopping-Grocery/dp/B006WA9LRA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ChicoBag reusable grocery bags</a> solve these problems and more. They hold up to 25 pounds each, can be tossed in the wash, and stuff down into a tiny attached pouch that you can easily keep in your purse or the center console of your car until you need them.</p><p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 4.8 out of 5 stars with over 1,000 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why buy: </strong>Machine washable; Certified B Corp; Climate Neutral Certified; Supports 1% For the Planet; Fair Labor Association member
$24
Most Convenient For Shopping: Lotus Trolley Bags
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTIyNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NDc2NjkxNH0.tdZukrUtxoElloqocyeKnjFia8vFu7oIKd1vFfil0Mo/img.jpg?width=980" id="37f6c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cbb1cc8bb094a1a4d7c09f497ebcbf25" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />Lotus Sustainables
<p>If you prefer bigger reusable grocery bags that add convenience to your shopping experience, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Trolley-COOLER-Reusable-Grocery-Eco-friendly/dp/B07WTLWF4Z?th=1" target="_blank">Lotus Trolley Bags</a> may be perfect for you. These bags fold flat and nestle in your cart so that you can sort items while you shop. There's a large insulated cooler bag, as well as two standard reusable shopping bags and a bag with pockets for wine bottles and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/brown-eggs-healthier-than-white-eggs-2314254330.html" target="_self">egg cartons</a>. Each can hold up to 50 pounds and has double-stitched seams for added durability.</p><p><strong>Customer rating: </strong>4.6 out of 5 stars with over 3,000 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why buy:</strong> Machine washable; Removable rod for non-cart use; Supports 1% for the Planet
$50
Most Popular: BAGGU Standard Reusable Shopping Bag
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTI1Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MDY5MTgxM30.weLONkbrGfiRaU-3AjOFfuaO9hVTrvxeSiGhBfg4kMg/img.jpg?width=980" id="ba8f6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="deea1a99acc91840e54d35dad7ae9dbf" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />BAGGU
<p>For another versatile option, try the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07N4D829J?tag=ecowatch-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">Baggu Standard Reusable Shopping Bag</a>. This product is modeled after a conventional <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/thailand-plastic-bag-ban-2643538829.html" target="_self">plastic grocery bag</a> but is made with 40% recycled ripstop fabric. Baggu reusable bags can carry up to 50 pounds but stuff down into a five-inch internal pocket for carrying.</p><p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 4.7 out of 5 stars with over 50 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why buy:</strong> Machine washable; Made with 40% recycled materials; Ethically manufactured; Packaging made from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified material
$12
Best Handmade Bag: Ecodunia Canvas Tote Bag
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTI1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTc2NzgwMn0.WY9Zby2RhohlKTOT3nahq38hGn4TATd1jHehxs76btw/img.jpg?width=980" id="5ca43" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ffff86b74fdce3945022712198b15de2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />Ecodunia
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ecodunia-Canvas-Tote-Women-Eco-Conscious/dp/B08LY82NYW/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Ecodunia&qid=1613051665&sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ecodunia's reusable bags</a> have a sturdier feel than most products on this list. The canvas used to make each bag is produced from 100% renewable resources and natural cotton, plus they have long handles for comfortable carrying over your shoulder. Ecodunia's fun prints will likely make you want to use these bags for more than carting groceries, but they're great for a weekend trip to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/farmers-markets-coronavirus-safety-2645581711.html" target="_self">farmers market</a>.</p><p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 5 out of 5 stars with under 5 Amazon reviews</p><p><strong>Why buy: </strong>Made from natural cotton; Machine washable; Handmade; Provides dignified work for communities in Kenya </p>
$38
Best Tote Bag: Simple Ecology Tote Bundle
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTI1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MzY0MDE5Nn0.Y9qxNgfCSoO6SowBXX7KbQLWhzPDn2m5mYU5IFT-mG4/img.jpg?width=980" id="38328" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d6ff115df9ceaa39fe785a318c015307" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />Simple Ecology
<p>Another canvas bag option comes from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Ecology-Reusable-Shopping-Certified/dp/B086Z7XQ79?ref_=ast_sto_dp" target="_blank">Simple Ecology</a>. This brand's eco-friendly grocery bags are made with Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) certified cotton and feature pop-out sleeves for more fragile goods and double-stitched seams for extra reinforcement. The large size has about the same capacity as a grocer's paper bag. Simple Ecology also has a reusable bag <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N6AUMBG/ref=sspa_dk_detail_2?psc=1&pd_rd_i=B01N6AUMBG&pd_rd_w=MA3ZS&pf_rd_p=cbc856ed-1371-4f23-b89d-d3fb30edf66d&pd_rd_wg=hVunQ&pf_rd_r=G6RTQ1Z5DKEY325MAJZ9&pd_rd_r=5d298b3a-1be7-4ebd-a9e1-d5d672a40497&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExMzc4RVAxWjNLOTdCJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNTc0NTAwMzBDMjFYOVJPTUpWSCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNjYyOTM4M0s4Vk81SVBPS1NFSyZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2RldGFpbF90aGVtYXRpYyZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=" target="_blank">starter kit</a> that comes with a tote and several reusable produce bags.</p> <p><strong>Customer Rating: </strong>4.6 out of 5 stars with over 900 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why Buy:</strong> GOTS certified; Machine washable; Biodegradable; Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certified packaging when purchased from manufacturer
$33
Best Bulk Bags: BagPodz Reusable Shopping Bags
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTI2NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjk3MTE3Mn0.9zdJfkEbue1iq8Xywwk89-qt0Zcv9wvrDqFUUSzelcE/img.jpg?width=980" id="85dd2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1fa8fd5a709a4d14d797ce4c796efa86" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />BagPodz
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/BagPodz-Reusable-Bag-Storage-System/dp/B00QJ9PBBY" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">BagPodz Reusable Shopping Bags</a> are all about convenience. You can get a pack of five or 10 bags, all of which fit in a low-profile "pod" that can be stored for use on the go. When at the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vancouvers-grocery-store-plastic-bags-2638807121.html" target="_self">grocery store</a>, the pod clips to your cart and has an easy-dispense pocket for when it's time to check out. After use, just stuff them back into the pod. BagPodz reusable bags are made with Bluesign® certified materials, which means they're manufactured sustainably.</p> <p><strong>Customer Rating:</strong> 4.8 out of 5 stars with over 2,000 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why Buy: </strong>Machine washable; Made with Bluesign certified material
$35
Read More
Show Less
Fish Barges at Lower Granite Dam, one of the four Lower Snake River dams Earthjustice is fighting to remove. Northwest Power and Conservation Council / CC BY 2.0
A small group led by Republicans in Congress spearheaded a bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday. If the bill becomes law, it could lead to the eventual extinction of wild salmon in the Columbia and Snake rivers—iconic species in the Pacific Northwest that the federal government is required by law to protect.
<p>House Resolution 3144 seeks to overturn multiple federal court decisions that protect endangered salmon and steelhead. It undermines bedrock environmental laws and forbids any action that might reduce power generation at Columbia and Snake River dams without an act of Congress—from spilling more water over <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dams">dams</a> in the spring to help endangered fish migrate, to studying the possibility of removing the four aging lower Snake River dams.</p><p>Further, it mandates that salmon populations be managed based on a 2014 federal plan that was rejected in two court decisions as being illegal, for not doing enough to save the fish from extinction.</p><p>"HR 3144 is a giant step backwards in our region's effort to restore salmon populations," said Todd True, an <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> attorney who has been at the forefront of this issue for more than two decades. "The entire goal of the bill is to circumvent the law and the courts, because a few legislators want to put a narrow set of economic interests ahead of the broad support in our region for salmon restoration. They have inserted themselves into the process, without considering the true consequences—for the fish, our energy future, or the Northwest economy."</p><p>Rick Williams, a longtime independent <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation">conservation</a> biologist and research associate at the College of Idaho, also described the bill as a "step backward," for forestalling any progress on a scientifically sound salmon management plan and attempting to restrict spill. "Studies are very clear that spill (up to the nitrogen gas saturation level) gets juvenile fish past hydro projects with decreased mortality and gets them to the estuary more quickly, in a timeframe that mimics their historical migration time," Williams explained. "This means higher survival rates and greater returns."</p><p>"The whole bill is based on false choices—on the premise that we have to choose between dams or salmon, when there are robust, affordable energy choices and we can have both," said Liz Hamilton, executive director of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. </p><p>Joel Kawahara, a commercial salmon fisherman in Quilcene, Wash., is a board member of the Coastal Trollers Association and Alaska Trollers Association. "The bill's co-sponsors are pitting Northwest fishers and farmers against each other," Kawahara observed. "We're both food producers; our communities and our businesses are both important. We expect our elected officials to bring people together and work on solutions—such as the Klamath Basin Settlement and the recently formed Columbia Basin Partnership. But instead, we get this divisive bill that locks in failure and conflict. HR 3144 will have a devastating effect on salmon and our region's salmon-fishing sector."</p><p>Wednesday's vote advances the bill to the U.S. Senate. Individuals and groups will continue to oppose this legislation and will work to convince senators that it's bad public policy that should not become law.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="1dc3e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="SLUFWW1576663707"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="981281460115197953" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Appeals Court Affirms Order to Spill More Water Over Dams to Help Salmon Survive https://t.co/cWlXFcSqBT @SalmonTroutCons @SalmonFacts</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/981281460115197953">1522790706.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Appeals Court Affirms Order to Spill More Water Over Dams to Help Salmon Survive
02 April 2018
Animals
Sockeye salmon in Little Redfish Lake Creek, Sawtooth National Recreation Area, Idaho. Neil Ever Osborne / Save Our Wild Salmon
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with almost a dozen conservation and fishing organizations, the Nez Perce Tribe and the State of Oregon in their efforts to improve wild salmon and steelhead survival as the fish migrate to the Pacific Ocean.
Almost a year ago, in April 2017, U.S. District Judge Michael Simon ruled that federal dam managers on the Columbia and Snake Rivers have to meet higher spill requirements in the spring when baby salmon are migrating to the ocean—meaning they must allow more water to flow over the dams between April and mid-June, to help facilitate safe passage for young salmon.
<p style=""><a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/welcome" target="_blank">The National Marine Fisheries Service</a> (NMFS) appealed that ruling. On Monday, a three-judge Appeals Court panel rejected that appeal and affirmed the increased spill levels, saying that:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><cite>"The district court properly concluded that the listed species remain in a 'precarious' state, and that they will remain in such a state without further conservation efforts beyond those included in the 2014 BiOp.<br><br>. . . <br><br>Significant evidence from decades of studies show[s] that spill volumes higher than those proposed in the 2014 BiOp will lead to higher survival rates for outmigrating [juvenile salmon]."</cite></p><p style="">The new spill operations will begin Tuesday at some dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, bringing much needed protections for baby salmon migrating down river now.</p><p style="">"After more than 20 years of federal failure, salmon are in desperate need of help now," said Todd True, <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> attorney representing conservation, fishing and clean energy advocates in the case. "The measures the court upheld will give salmon a fighting chance while the federal government catches up to the scale and urgency of what the law requires to protect these fish from extinction."</p><p style="">"Today's decision is just the most recent of many court orders that try to ensure federal river-management agencies in the Columbia Basin protect and restore wild salmon," said Tom France, regional executive director of the <a href="https://www.nwf.org/" target="_blank">National Wildlife Federation</a>, the lead plaintiff in the case that prompted the NMFS appeal. "All these decisions have been clear—the status quo isn't working and the fish deserve better. The time is now for federal agencies to follow the law."</p><p style="">The ruling reinforces Judge Simon's order for increased 2018 spill levels, set to begin April 3 for dams on the Snake River and April 10 for dams on the Columbia River.</p><p style="">"We're very happy that the court recognized the obvious benefits to salmon of running the river like a river should, with increased flows over the spillway that help get young salmon past the turbines and out to sea safely," said Glen Spain, Northwest regional director of the <a href="https://pcffa.org/" target="_blank">Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations</a>. "It's tragic that the federal agencies are still ignoring their own science in fighting spill at every step of the way."</p><p style="">The federal agencies point out that more water spilled over the dams means less is being used to generate electricity. Liz Hamilton, executive director of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, sees that as a false alarm, since the Northwest power grid is often faced with a surplus, especially in the spring months. She also sees the economic impact of fewer fish on communities and small businesses across the Northwest.</p><p style="">"Fewer fish could be a nail in the coffin for more iconic Northwest fishing brands," Hamilton said. "I know of companies trying to decide whether this is their last year in existence—brands that fishermen would recognize and recommend. We need hope, not more despair. And at the spill level the court required—and that has now been affirmed on appeal—we are going to see larger adult salmon returns."</p><p style="">"Today's order is a victory for endangered salmon, starving orcas, and everyone that depends on the power of the legal system to stand up to big government," added Giulia Good Stefani, staff attorney for the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>'s Marine Mammal Protection Project. "The court of appeals upheld a carefully reasoned, fact-based trial court decision to increase the amount of water over the dams this spring."</p><p style="">This year marks the fourth time since 2005 that increased spill has been mandated by the district court.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed" style="">
</p><div id="4362c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="Z9ZZPL1576663708"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="977243619903131651" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">With Just 76 Orcas Left, Washington Gov. Orders Protections for Beloved Killer Whales https://t.co/k0ew67Rsh0</div> — Earth Guardians (@Earth Guardians)<a href="https://twitter.com/earthguardianz/statuses/977243619903131651">1521828009.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Cold War’s Toxic Legacy: Costly, Dangerous Cleanups at Atomic Bomb Production Sites
05 March 2018
Popular
Recovery Act-funded work at the Hanford Site. U.S. Department of Energy
By William J. Kinsella
Seventy-five years ago, in March 1943, a mysterious construction project began at a remote location in eastern Washington state. Over the next two years some 50,000 workers built an industrial site occupying half the area of Rhode Island, costing more than $230 million—equivalent to $3.1 billion today. Few of those workers, and virtually no one in the surrounding community, knew the facility's purpose.
<p>
The site was called Hanford, named for a small town whose residents were displaced to make way for the project. Its mission became clear at the end of World War II. Hanford had produced plutonium for the first
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear">nuclear</a> test in the New Mexico desert in July 1945, and for the bomb that incinerated Nagasaki on Aug. 9.
</p><p>
<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vldkGEEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">As a researcher</a> in environmental and energy communication, I've studied the <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739119044/Nuclear-Legacies-Communication-Controversy-and-the-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Complex" target="_blank">legacies of nuclear weapons production</a>. From 2000 to 2005, I served with a <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab" target="_blank">citizen advisory board</a> that provides input to state and federal officials on a massive environmental cleanup program at Hanford, now one of the most contaminated sites in the world.
</p><p>
As U.S. leaders
<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.PDF" target="_blank">consider producing new nuclear weapons</a>, I believe they should study lessons from Hanford carefully. Hanford provides one of the more dramatic examples of problems that unfolded—and persist today—at nuclear sites where production and secrecy took priority over safety and environmental protection.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTUzMjA2Mn0.zrKS5ffRTtCygZO_eYrI3o2oE1XrEUhmmBqs2Y7wQEM/img.jpg?width=980" id="c9e50" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d96432088dc0f00092c81d72db6f767d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."><a href="https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/ProjectsFacilities#HM" target="_blank">www.hanford.gov</a></small>
</p><p>
<strong>A Nationwide Nuclear Network</strong>
</p><p>
Hanford was one of three large facilities anchoring the
<a href="https://www.atomicheritage.org/history" target="_blank">Manhattan Project</a> – the crash program to build an atomic bomb. It was part of a larger complex linking facilities across the nation. A plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, enriched uranium and operated a prototype nuclear reactor. Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico assembled a cadre of world-class scientists to design and build the weapons, using materials produced at the other sites. Smaller facilities across the nation made other contributions.
</p><p>
As World War II phased into the Cold War and the U.S.-Soviet arms race escalated, new sites were added in Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Colorado and elsewhere. Secrecy masked much of the work at these sites until well into the 1980s, with serious consequences for public health, worker safety and the environment. Nuclear and chemical wastes caused severe contamination at Hanford and the other sites, and dealing with them has proved to be difficult and costly.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg2OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNTM4NjA0OX0.GZ1jGqkAYnrBrWcpQnyUpR2o4LHznEoy1DIT74I9YTc/img.jpg?width=980" id="433e8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4c3a669d0c5378d06971e2856ba619c5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Major sites in the Cold War nuclear weapons production complex</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."> USDOD</small>
</p><p>
<strong>Contamination at Hanford</strong>
</p><p>
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the U.S. had mass-produced some 70,000
<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear-war">nuclear bombs</a> and warheads. <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html" target="_blank">Hanford made most of the plutonium used in those weapons</a>. Workers irradiated uranium fuel in reactors, and then dissolved it in acid to extract the plutonium produced. This method, called reprocessing, generated 56 million gallons of liquid wastes laced with radioactive and chemical poisons.
</p><p>
Hanford's nine reactors were
<a href="http://www.toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Radioactive+Contamination+of+the+Columbia+River" target="_blank">located along the Columbia River</a> to provide a source of cooling water, and discharged radiation into the river throughout their lifetimes.
</p><p>
Fuel was sometimes reprocessed before its most highly radioactive isotopes had time to decay. Managers knowingly released toxic gases into the air, contaminating farmlands and grazing areas downwind. Some releases supported an
<a href="https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199602/backpage.cfm" target="_blank">effort to monitor Soviet nuclear progress</a>. By tracking intentional emissions from Hanford, scientists learned better how to spot Soviet nuclear tests.
</p><p>
Liquid wastes from reprocessing were stored in
<a href="https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Hanford-cleanup/Tank-waste-management/Tank-monitoring-closure" target="_blank">underground tanks</a> designed to last 25 years, assuming that a permanent disposal solution would be developed later. The U.S. Department of Energy, which now operates the weapons complex and its cleanup program, is still working on that solution.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg4NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDUwODA2M30.28wTmEVe0qWKIOw6EyPNaPyZjw6uYwSUac4KnaONKCc/img.jpg?width=980" id="1d837" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="00f4ec77ca860b4413e58bc2f2e0a723" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Workers prepare to remove the core from a waste tank at Hanford in 2010.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit..."> Hanford Site</small>
</p><p>
Meanwhile, at least a million gallons of tank wastes have
<a href="http://hanfordlearning.org/hanford-101/cleanup/tri-party-agreement/department-of-energy/" target="_blank">leaked into the ground</a>. This material, and the prospect of more to follow, threatens the Columbia River, a backbone of the Pacific Northwest's economy and ecology. <a href="https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/clock-ticks-as-nuclear-waste-storage-tanks-leak-at-hanford/" target="_blank">Some groundwater is already contaminated</a>. Estimates of when that plume will reach the river are uncertain.<br>
</p><p>
Radioactive trash still litters parts of Hanford. Irradiated bodies of laboratory animals were
<a href="https://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Workers-uncover-carcasses-of-Hanford-test-animals-1225341.php" target="_blank">buried there</a>. The site houses radioactive debris ranging from medical wastes to <a href="http://www.oregon.gov/energy/facilities-safety/safety/Pages/Naval-Nuclear-Transport.aspx" target="_blank">propulsion reactors from decommissioned submarines</a> and <a href="http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/pdf.cfm?accession=E0025397" target="_blank">parts of the reactor</a> that melted down at Three Mile Island. Some nuclear decision makers have called Hanford a "national sacrifice zone."
</p><p>
<strong>A Struggle for Accountability</strong>
</p><p>
In the mid-1980s, local residents grew suspicious about an apparent excess of illnesses and deaths in their community. Initially, strict secrecy—reinforced by the region's economic dependence on the Hanford site—made it hard for concerned citizens to get information.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzM5NTg5MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MzEyMzcyMn0.zKJ-CKGOCT9LqpwEb_VXXUrM360-o9OSXGDhTeKRmkk/img.jpg?width=980" id="2c53b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="21ab629baad3728e9fb14ff4b532dba3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Cold War-era billboard at Hanford reinforcing strict secrecy rules</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">USDOE</small>
</p><p>
Once the curtain of secrecy was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120052284" target="_blank">partially lifted</a> under pressure from area residents and journalists, public outrage prompted <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/hanford/background.pdf" target="_blank">two major health effects studies</a> that engendered fierce controversy. By the close of the decade, more than 3,500 "downwinders" had filed lawsuits related to illnesses they attributed to Hanford. A judge finally <a href="http://www.tricityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article57866938.html" target="_blank">dismissed the case</a> in 2016 after limited compensation to a handful of plaintiffs, leaving a bitter legacy of legal disputes and personal anguish.</p><p>Cleanup operations at Hanford began in 1989, but have been hamstrung by
<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/will-hanford-ever-be-cleaned-up/" target="_blank">daunting technical challenges and management errors</a>. The <a href="http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/2016_LCR_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf" target="_blank">current estimate</a> assumes work will continue through 2060 and cost more than $100 billion, beyond the approximately $50 billion already spent.</p><p>
A key challenge is building a facility to extract the most toxic materials from the tank wastes and enclose them in glass logs to be sent elsewhere for permanent burial.
<a href="http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article159590304.html" target="_blank">Projected costs</a> have ballooned to more than $17 billion, and the estimated completion date is now 2036. And with the proposed <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/341369-trump-triggers-fight-over-yucca-waste-site" target="_blank">Yucca Mountain</a> nuclear waste repository in Nevada mired in controversy, there is still no final resting place for these materials, which will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
</p><p>
Cleanup has progressed in other areas. The reactors have been shut down and enclosed in
<a href="https://energy.gov/em/articles/hanford-workers-enter-reactor-prepare-cocooning" target="_blank">concrete and steel "cocoons"</a> until their radioactivity decays further. Hanford's "<a href="http://b-reactor.org/" target="_blank">B Reactor</a>," the world's first large-scale nuclear reactor, is now part of the <a href="https://energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/manhattan-project/manhattan-project-0" target="_blank">Manhattan Project National Historic Park</a>.
</p><p>
Buffer lands around the outer parts of the site, presumably clean enough for the purpose, have been converted to
<a href="https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Hanford_Reach/maps.html" target="_blank">wildlife refuge areas</a>. And in 2015, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Observatory (LIGO), with a station located at Hanford, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-ligo-texts-you-to-say-its-detected-one-of-einsteins-predicted-gravitational-waves-53259" target="_blank">detected the first gravitational waves</a> predicted by Albert Einstein. LIGO scientists chose Hanford for its remote location and minimal interference from human activity.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="350cd7e117c8e9768f7a976320558cac"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8rlVHEY7BF0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
</p><p>
<strong>Lessons to Remember</strong>
</p><p>
The Department of Energy now considers
<a href="https://energy.gov/em/cleanup-sites" target="_blank">many of its former nuclear weapons production sites</a> to be fully cleaned up. Some remaining sites are involved in maintaining the current nuclear arsenal and could play roles producing new weapons. Others, like Hanford, are "legacy" sites where cleanup is the sole mission.
</p><p>
There is more oversight of the nuclear weapons complex today, but serious concerns remain. Notably, inspectors have found problems at
<a href="http://www.lanl.gov/" target="_blank">Los Alamos National Laboratory</a> dating back to 2011 related to handling of <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-watchdog-identifies-new-workplace-safety-problems-at-los-alamos-lab" target="_blank">beryllium</a>, a toxic material that can cause <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a> and lung disease.
</p><p>
These issues at Hanford and other nuclear sites are reminders that nuclear weapons production is a risky process—and that in Washington state and elsewhere, legacies of the Cold War are still very much with us.
</p><p>
<em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-cold-wars-toxic-legacy-costly-dangerous-cleanups-at-atomic-bomb-production-sites-90378" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90378/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
By Brett VandenHeuvel
Communities on the frontlines of fossil fuel development are taking a stand against dangerous fossil fuel projects. Take a look at the big fight in the small town of Kalama, Washington. The Chinese government is planning to build the world's largest methanol refinery to convert fracked natural gas to liquid methanol for export to China to make plastics.
This four-minute video on the Kalama methanol refinery shows why these residents of this town are fighting and winning:
From a greenhouse gas perspective, this fight is a big deal. The methanol refinery alone would use more natural gas than all industry in Washington combined. Flip it around: If we win this one battle and stop the methanol refinery, we stop the equivalent of doubling industrial natural gas usage in Washington State.
While the gas industry tries to spin natural gas as clean, new science shows just the opposite. The bulk of natural gas is methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Methane leakage from gas wells and pipelines led scientists to conclude that fracked gas can be as bad coal for our climate. And it gets worse. Gas production in North America relies heavily on fracking, a process famous for polluting air and water, endangering the health of nearby residents.
On the Columbia River, we're no stranger to the fossil fuel industry's pipe dreams. Liquefied natural gas. Coal. Oil-by-rail. Our communities have celebrated major victories. The fossil fuel industry's love affair with the Columbia ignores our region's fierce passion for clean air, salmon and standing up for our neighbors. The coal and oil projects that remain—the nation's largest proposals for coal export and oil-by-rail terminals—face a high-profile movement led by cities, businesses, Tribes, faith leaders, conservationists and others to hold the line on short-sighted, high-impact fossil fuel proposals.
But the Kalama methanol refinery represents a new wave of fossil fuel export. This project would drive demand for massive new pipelines and lock the Pacific Northwest into a half century or more of fracked natural gas consumption, further delaying the transition to cleaner energy alternatives.
Northwest Innovation Works proposed a similar project in Tacoma, Washington, on Puget Sound. Community members and elected officials put the project under the microscope and rejected it. Just days before the company dropped their Tacoma methanol refinery idea (and doubled-down in Kalama) an elected public utilities commissioner told the company to "go away and don't come back" without specific answers to Tacoma's concerns.
Tacoma is a city of 200,000. Kalama is a town of 2,000. The passion to fight the methanol refinery is strong and inspiring in Kalama. But because of its small size, voices must rise from across the Pacific Northwest to stop this behemoth. You can help by signing our petition to Gov. Jay Inslee calling on him to oppose the methanol refinery.