Quantcast
Politics

Judge Orders Trump's EPA Pick to Release Emails by Tuesday

The Oklahoma County Court on Thursday found Trump's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nominee Scott Pruitt in violation of the state's Open Records Act. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) filed a lawsuit against Pruitt for improperly withholding public records and the court ordered his office to release thousands of emails in a matter of days.

In her ruling, Judge Aletia Haynes Timmons slammed the Attorney General's office for its "abject failure" to abide by the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

The judge gave Pruitt's office until Tuesday, Feb. 21, to turn over more than 2,500 emails it withheld from CMD's January 2015 records request and just 10 days to turn over an undetermined number of documents responsive to CMD's five additional open records requests outstanding between November 2015 and August 2016.

Thursday's expedited hearing was granted after CMD, represented by Robert Nelon of Hall Estill and the ACLU of Oklahoma, filed a lawsuit that has driven unprecedented attention to Pruitt's failure to disclose his deep ties to fossil industry corporations. On Friday, Pruitt is expected to face a full Senate vote on his nomination to run the EPA.

On Feb. 10, Pruitt's office finally responded to the oldest of CMD's nine outstanding Open Records Act requests but provided just 411 of the more than 3,000 emails they had located, withholding thousands of emails relevant to the request and still failing to respond to CMD's eight other outstanding requests. On Feb. 14 CMD filed a status report with the judge detailing the scope of missing documents, including 27 emails that were previously turned over to The New York Times in 2014.

"Scott Pruitt broke the law and went to great lengths to avoid the questions many Americans have about his true motivations," said Nick Surgey, CMD's director of research. "Despite Pruitt's efforts to repeatedly obfuscate and withhold public documents, we're all wiser to his ways and the interests he really serves. The work doesn't stop here to make sure communities across the country have the information they need to hold him accountable to the health and safety of our families."

Ahead of Thursday's hearing, Senators Carper, Whitehouse, Merkley, Booker, Markey and Duckworth—all members of the EPW committee—weighed in on the case, urging the Oklahoma court to require the Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General to release documents relevant to CMD's open record requests as a matter of "federal importance." In a letter to the Oklahoma Court, the Senators stated:

"We are providing this information to the Court today because we have concluded [the] pending Open Records Act requests may be the only means by which the Senate and the general public can obtain in a timely manner critical information about Mr. Pruitt's ability to lead the EPA."

"We need to understand whether ... Mr. Pruitt engaged with the industries that he will be responsible for regulating if he is confirmed as administrator in ways that would compromise his ability to carry out his duties with the complete impartiality required."

Pruitt's continued lack of transparency extends from a difficult nomination process in which research from CMD demonstrated Pruitt's repeated pattern of obfuscating ties to deep-pocketed, corporate interests.

At his hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, Pruitt faced a series of questions about his private meetings with major fossil fuel companies while chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association and fundraising for the Rule of Law Defense Fund. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse concluded his questioning telling Pruitt his testimony "just doesn't add up." Despite failing to respond to any records requests for the past two years, Pruitt told U.S. Senators last week to file more open records requests with his office to answer 19 outstanding questions from his confirmation hearing.

After Democratic Senators twice boycotted the EPW Committee vote due to concerns over Pruitt's conflicts of interests and failure to fulfill open records requests, Republicans resorted to suspending Committee rules to advance his nomination.

Michael Mann: It's Open Season on Climate Scientists

I coined the term "Serengeti Strategy" in my 2012 book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. It's meant to describe how industry special interests and their patrons in power single out individual researchers or teams of scientists for attack, in much the same way lions of the Serengeti single out an individual zebra from the herd. In numbers, after all, there is strength, while individuals and small groups are far more vulnerable—and the purpose is two-fold: to undermine the credibility of wider scientific consensus and to discourage other researchers from sticking out their necks and participating in the public discourse over matters of policy-relevant science.

When it comes to attacks on climate scientists specifically, this strategy follows a familiar script. On the eve of a critical Congressional vote, hearing or climate policy summit, a late-breaking "scandal" suddenly erupts. Individual scientists are typically charged with claims of misconduct, fraud or data manipulation and soon enough, right-wing blogs, climate-denying websites and the conservative establishment media are trumpeting the accusations. In time, more objective media outlets are forced to cover the uproar, lending it credibility and oxygen, even as it is responsibly dissected.

With the public conversation hijacked, meaningful progress on climate policy is blunted and the vested interests seeking to maintain our current addition to fossil fuels prevail.

The latest example of this strategy began unfolding earlier this month when David Rose, an opinion writer for the British tabloid The Daily Mailknown for misrepresentations of climate change and serial attacks on climate scientists—published a commentary attacking Tom Karl, the recently retired director of the National Centers for Environmental Information at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a scientist for whom I have deep respect. Rose accused Karl and his co-authors of having "manipulated global warming data" in a 2015 study published in the journal Science. These charges were built entirely on an interview with a single disgruntled former NOAA employee, John Bates.

Rose's charges and Bates' allegations have since withered under scrutiny by journalists—and by the wider scientific community, which quickly noted that the findings of the 2015 Science paper have been independently and repeatedly, verified by other researchers. Bates' secondary claims that data from the Science paper had not been properly archived and that it was "rushed" to publication, have also fallen apart.

Still, the mission of this latest disinformation campaign has been accomplished and with its mooring in technical details too remote for casual news consumers to fully investigate, the headlines will nonetheless create additional drag on any well-meaning efforts to address climate change.

As a climate scientist, I should know. I've found myself at the center of such episodes more than once, as a result of what's become known as the iconic "hockey stick" diagram that my co-authors and I had published in the late 1990s—a graphic display of the data that made plain the unprecedented rate of global warming. While the hockey stick is hardly the basis of the case for human-caused climate change, the visually compelling character of the graphic has made it—and indeed me—a target of climate change deniers for years.

A version of the so-called hockey-stick diagram, made famous by the author—and attacked by his critics.

In the fall of 2003, just days before a critical U.S. Senate resolution to acknowledge the threat of human-caused climate change, an article in the journal Energy & Environment—regarded by many as a haven for climate skeptics —engaged in unsubstantiated attacks of the hockey stick. A group with ties to the fossil fuel industry published an op-ed trumpeting those criticisms in USA Today on the morning of the Senate vote. Sen. James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has described climate change as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," gleefully read the article aloud during the Senate floor debate. While the critique on the hockey stick would soon be summarily dismissed, it served the short-term purpose of hijacking the discussion and the bill did not pass.

Sponsored

Trump Picks 'Puppet of the Fossil Fuel Industry' to Head EPA

Donald Trump has appointed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The conservative Republican has close ties to the fossil fuel industry and has waged numerous legal wars against the EPA and President Obama's environmental regulations, including the president's signature Clean Power Plan.

Pruitt, who was elected as Oklahoma's top legal officer in November 2010, states on his own LinkedIn page that he "has led the charge with repeated notices and subsequent lawsuits against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their leadership's activist agenda and refusal to follow the law."

Although the president-elect will not be able to completely cancel Obama's historic carbon emissions standards for power plants, having a legally experienced EPA head can help "substantially weaken, delay or slowly dismantle them," the New York Times reported.

Pruitt was among a handful of other attorneys general that began planning as early as 2014 a coordinated legal effort to fight the Obama Administration's climate rules. That effort has resulted in a 28-state lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan. The case is now pending in federal court, but likely to advance to the Supreme Court, the New York Times said.

Watch this Fox Business interview with Pruitt in August 2015 when he was leading the charge against the EPA's guidelines on emissions, calling the 2015 EPA rules a power grab:

Trump's latest appointee falls in line with his other cabinet picks who deny the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change. Pruitt once wrote an editorial questioning "the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind."

The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit that questions the reality and import of climate change, celebrated Trump's EPA appointment. H. Sterling Burnett, research fellow at The Heartland Institute, said in response, "It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas!"

Keith Gaby, the senior communications director of the Environmental Defense Fund, noted that since 2002, Pruitt has "received more than $314,996 from fossil fuel industries." In 2014, Pruitt was infamously caught sending letters to President Obama and federal agency heads asserting that the EPA was overestimating the air pollution from drilling for natural gas in Oklahoma. Turns out, the letter was by lawyers for one of state's largest oil and gas companies, Devon Energy.

Harold G. Hamm, the chief executive of Continental Energy, was also co-chairman of Pruitt's 2013 re-election campaign.

Pruitt's appointment has been met with unprecedented criticism by environmental and health organizations nationwide.

"By appointing Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Trump is putting America at risk," Greenpeace spokesperson Travis Nichols said. "Pruitt is a pure product of the oil and gas industry, installed in successive government posts to sell out his constituents at every turn. He will push this country far behind the rest of the world in the race for 21st century clean energy. With Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA, the people and the environment will be in the hands of a man who cares about neither."

Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, agrees. "The mission of the EPA and its administrator requires an absolute commitment to safeguard public health and protect our air, land, water and planet. That's the litmus test. By naming Pruitt, President-elect Trump has flunked," Suh exclaimed.

Suh wrote in a blog post on Monday that "over the past five years, Pruitt has used his position as Oklahoma's top prosecutor to sue the EPA in a series of attempts to deny Americans the benefits of reducing mercury, arsenic and other toxins from the air we breathe; cutting smog that can cause asthma attacks; and protecting our wetlands and streams."

"You couldn't pick a better fossil fuel industry puppet," 350.org's Executive Director May Boeve said. "Pruitt's appointment reveals Trump's climate flip-flopping and meetings with Gore as nothing more than a smokescreen."

And the outcry didn't stop there.

Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, said, "It's a safe assumption that Pruitt could be the most hostile EPA administrator toward clean air and safe drinking water in history."

CEO and president of Defenders of Wildlife, Jamie Rappaport Clark, added, "We need a leader for EPA who fully appreciates the gravity of the menace that climate change poses for our nation's public health, our wildlife and our environment, and is prepared to use the full force of our nation's strong environmental laws to curb that threat. Mr. Pruitt is plainly not that person."

Food & Water Watch's executive director, Wenonah Hauter, shared her dismay, too. Pruitt has championed the interests of industrial agriculture in his state, supporting a dubious, deregulatory 'right to farm' initiative that residents rightly rejected at the ballot box this year. He's also sued the EPA over the Waters of the U.S. rule that effectively strengthens the Clean Water Act."

"Pruitt is a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry," Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said. "Any Senator who doesn't fight this nomination is handing corporate polluters a wrecking ball to destroy our future."

World Resources Institute's Director Sam Adams said, Americans depend on EPA to promote human health and protect families and future generations. Its ability to protect air, water, and the climate for all people must continue."

Friends of the Earth climate and energy program director Benjamin Schreiber concurred. "As the Attorney General, Scott Pruitt did the bidding of the oil and gas industry and fought many of the laws he will now be tasked to enforce," Schreiber said. "He helped Big Oil turn Oklahoma into an Earthquake zone."

David Turnbull, campaigns director at Oil Change International, concluded, "We call on Senators to reject this nomination, as well as other climate-denying, unqualified and regressive nominees. There is no place in our government for individuals who refuse to accept science and risk the safety of Americans around the country. There is no place in our government for individuals who are in clear alliance with the industry fueling our climate crisis. We need a separation of oil and state."

EPA Science Advisory Board: Agency's Fracking Study Ignored Significant Water Contamination Cases

By Americans Against Fracking

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (SAB) today finalized its review of the EPA's June 2015 draft study of fracking's impacts to drinking water resources. For over a year, a panel of 30 scientists, engineers and industry consultants have reviewed the details of the 1,000-page draft report. The panel has taken particular issue with a finding that seemingly came out of left field: the agency's statement that fracking has not led to "widespread systemic impacts" in the U.S.

Tainted water collected from a private drinking water well in PA near a fracking site.

The EPA dismissed fracking's impacts with this line, without any clear, scientific basis of support, and now the EPA SAB has taken the agency to task. The EPA, and independent peer-reviewed studies, have identified many mechanisms of contamination, such as spills, well cementing failures below ground, and complications with waste disposal. For example, the EPA found there was on the order of 15 spills every day somewhere in the U.S., yet chose to dismiss those daily incidents as not a sign of "widespread, systemic" problems.

Affected individuals, public interests groups, and now the independent EPA Science Advisory Board, comprised of the EPA's own scientists, are calling on the EPA to "clarify" and "quantify" the controversial "widespread, systemic" line, or drop the language altogether. The panelists joined affected individuals and various independent experts who submitted comments in taking issue with how the agency ignored three high-profile contamination cases in its study—notably Dimock, Pennsylvania; Parker County, Texas; and Pavillion, Wyoming. The agency's omissions were contentious in part because in each case, the EPA prematurely abandoned investigations. Now, the EPA SAB has recommended that the agency include detailed summaries of these critical cases.

"By choosing politics over science, the EPA failed the public with its misleading and controversial line, dismissing fracking's impacts on drinking water and sacrificing public health and welfare along the way," Hugh MacMillan, senior researcher at Food & Water Watch, said.

"We are calling on the EPA to act quickly on the recommendations from the EPA SAB and be clear about fracking's impacts on drinking water resources. The EPA must prioritize the health and safety of the American people over the political interests of the oil and gas industry and its financiers, who have committed hundreds of billions to drilling and fracking in the coming decades. For climate reasons alone, that's a vision for the future that we can ill-afford."

The release of this final report comes on the heels of a massive March for a Clean Energy Revolution at the Democratic National Convention calling for a nationwide ban on fracking, a March 2016 Gallup poll showing that Americans oppose fracking 51-36 percent, and a July 2016 Johns Hopkins Study showing that fracking is linked to increased asthma attacks in Pennsylvania.

A recent peer-reviewed analysis of the science on unconventional oil and gas extraction, of more than 680 peer-reviewed studies, found that, "The great majority of science contains findings that indicate concerns for public health, air quality and water quality." In October of 2015, a partnership of prominent health organizations encompassing nationwide medical and public health experts and scientists released a Compendium of more than 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers, as well as numerous government reports and findings, demonstrating the risks of fracking to public health, air and water quality, birth and infant health, the environment and climate change.

Sponsored

More Chemicals Allowed in Florida Waterways, Toxic Algae Blooms Continue to Spread Across State

Florida regulators voted to approve new water quality standards that would increase the amount of carcinogenic toxins allowed in Florida's waterways.

The Environmental Regulation Commission voted 3-2 Tuesday to approve a proposal by state regulators that would set new standards on 39 chemicals not currently regulated by the Sunshine State and revise regulations on 43 toxins, most of which are carcinogenic. State regulators claim the new plan will protect more Floridians than current standards, the Miami Herald reported.

"We have not updated these parameters since 1992," Cari Roth, chairwoman of the commission, told the Miami Herald. "It is more good than harm. The practical effect is, it is not going to increase the amount of toxins going into our waters."

Under the new proposal, acceptable levels of toxins in Florida waters will increase for more than 24 known carcinogens. The acceptable levels would decrease for 13 chemicals that are currently regulated.

The new regulations are based on a one-of-a-kind scientific method the Florida Department of Environmental Protection created, called "Monte Carlo." The method is being criticized by environmental groups, warning the new standards would allow polluters to dump high concentrations of dangerous chemicals into Florida's rivers and streams.

"Monte Carlo gambling with our children's safety is unacceptable," Marty Baum, of Indian Riverkeeper, said.

The known carcinogens can be released by oil and gas drilling companies, dry cleaning companies, pulp and paper producers, nuclear plants, wastewater treatment plants and agriculture. While most of these industries are supportive of the new rules, pulp and paper producers still think the measures are too restrictive.

Florida's proposal will now head to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its approval. Several members of Florida's congressional delegation have sent a letter to voice their concerns to the EPA. The letter calls for a public comment period to carefully evaluate the proposal.

If the EPA still decides to approve the proposal, Linda Young, executive director of the Clean Water Network, said the organization "absolutely ... will file suit."

Florida's easement of regulations on carcinogenic and toxic chemicals could be another threat to the state's waterways and the health of residents. The state is already challenged by "guacamole-thick" algae.

This year's bloom, which first appeared earlier this month, is the eighth such bloom since 2004, National Geographic reported. The outbreak has spread to Florida estuaries and has caused state officials to declare a state of emergency for four counties.

"This is absolutely the worst," Evan Miller, founder of Citizens for Clean Water, told National Geographic. "We've never seen algae so thick. You can see it from space. There are places ... that are on their third and fourth cycle of blooms now."

Blue-green algae, cyanobacteria, thrives in warm, calm water. Two conditions that are currently working against eradicating the blooms are climate change and political inertia—or in Florida's case, as water advocates believe, politics moving backward on regulations.

How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved nearly 100 pesticide products over the past six years that contain mixtures that make them more poisonous and increase the dangers to imperiled pollinators and rare plants, according to an investigation by the Center for Biological Diversity. These "synergistic" combinations have been widely overlooked by the EPA in its approval of pesticides for food, lawns and other uses.

The new report, Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails, involved an intensive search of patent applications for pesticide products containing two or more active ingredients recently approved by the EPA for four major agrochemical companies (Bayer, Dow, Monsanto and Syngenta).

Center for Biological Diversity

"The EPA is supposed to be the cop on the beat, protecting people and the environment from the dangers of pesticides," Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity and author of the report, said. "With these synergistic pesticides, the EPA has decided to look the other way and guess who's left paying the price?"

Synergy occurs when two or more chemicals interact to enhance their toxic effects. It can turn what would normally be considered a safe level of exposure into one that results in considerable harm. Pesticide mixtures are ubiquitous in the environment and also present in many products for sale on store shelves.

In late 2015, in preparing to defend itself against litigation on the registration of a pesticide product called Enlist Duo, the EPA discovered a new source of information on the product: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Database, which contained a patent application indicating the two ingredients in this product, glyphosate and 2,4-D, resulted in synergistic toxicity to plants. This discovery ultimately led the agency to ask the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate its approval of Enlist Duo because it had not properly considered the potential adverse effects of this synergy on nontarget plants. It also highlighted a previously unknown source of much-needed mixture toxicity data: patent applications.

For this latest analysis, a center scientist analyzed the patent database for other pesticide products approved in a similar manner.

Among the key findings in the examination of approvals for the four companies:

  • 69 percent of these products (96 out of 140) had at least one patent application that claimed or demonstrated synergy between the active ingredients in the product;
  • 72 percent of the identified patent applications that claimed or demonstrated synergy involved some of the most highly used pesticides in the U.S., including glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D, dicamba and the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin, among others.

"It's alarming to see just how common it's been for the EPA to ignore how these chemical mixtures might endanger the health of our environment," Donley said. "It's pretty clear that chemical companies knew about these potential dangers, but the EPA never bothered to demand this information from them or dig a little deeper to find it for themselves."

The EPA can only approve a pesticide if it will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. When a chemical company develops a new product, in addition to seeking approval for that product from the EPA, it will often apply for patent protection on the mixture. Such an application is typically accompanied by data that demonstrate synergistic toxicity to the organisms that are going to be targeted by the chemicals.

The EPA frequently claims it cannot evaluate potential synergistic impacts because it lacks data. But this report finds that the patent database contains substantial data on synergistic effects that can be used to fill some of the data gaps that exist on mixture toxicity to plants and animals. The fact that the EPA claims it just recently became aware of this data source indicates that pesticide companies are collecting information about the synergistic effects of products for submission to the U.S Patent and Trademark office that they are choosing not to share with the EPA.

"The EPA has turned a blind eye for far too long to the reality that pesticide blends can have dangerous synergistic effects," Donley said. "Now that we know about all the data that are out there, the EPA must take action to ensure that wildlife and the environment are protected from these chemical cocktails."

Sponsored
Health

The Hidden Hazards in Your Laundry Basket

Amy Mathews Amos

I did something on vacation this spring that I normally never do: I sent my clothes to the laundry. Usually I pride myself on packing so wisely that I can last a week out of a carry-on bag, and I’m typically not staying in a place swanky enough to actually “do” laundry. But on this family vacation at an “adventure” resort, we had hiked through hot, muggy jungle on some surprisingly rigorous outings. I couldn’t resist the convenient lure of popping the sweaty stuff in the canvas bag hanging in the closet and dropping it off at the front desk.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

The next day I regretted my moment of weakness. Actually, two months later, I still regret my moment of weakness. Why? Fragrance.

My clothes appeared neatly folded on my bed the next day, looking fresh as a daisy but smelling as harsh as a chemical plant. I’ve used perfume and dye-free laundry detergent for years, not because of any particular sensitivity but because it seemed smart to avoid unnecessary chemicals. And so I wasn’t prepared for the faux floral tsunami of smell from my freshly laundered tank tops, and the burning sensation that formed in the back of my throat. I tossed the tops back into my suitcase for the remainder of the trip, to be cleansed of harsh chemicals at home.

Except they weren’t. I couldn’t get rid of the stuff. The smell clung to my clothes after several post-vacation washings. Eventually, I tucked the tops in a dresser drawer, finally retrieving them last week as summer approached. They still smelled. So I began wondering: what is this stuff?

According to studies by University of Washington professor Dr. Anne Steinemann, fragrant laundry detergents (and other cleaning products) contain large numbers of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). In a 2010 study published in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Steinemann and colleagues analyzed 25 popular cleaning products that contained fragrance, including laundry products, personal care products, cleaning agents and air fresheners. They identified 133 VOCs—an average of 17 per product—including 24 classified as toxic or hazardous under U.S. federal law. Each product contained between one and eight toxic or hazardous substances and 11 of them contained at least one carcinogenic Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) identified under the Clean Air Act. Steinemann and her colleagues didn’t measure levels of these chemicals in each product, or evaluate their health risk at typical exposure levels. But they did note that, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, carcinogenic HAPs have no safe threshold for exposure. 

In 2011, Steinemann and colleagues examined VOCs emitted from the air coming out of dryer vents. They found a total of 21 VOCs from two dryer vents, after washing towels with the most popular fragranced laundry detergent in the U.S. (they didn’t say which brand that was) and 25 different VOCs when they added a fragranced dryer sheet to the mix. Seven of these VOCs are classified as HAPs, including two—acetaldehyde and benzene—that are classified as carcinogenic with no safe exposure level.

But short of hooking up Steinemann’s fancy equipment to your dryer vent, how would you know what’s getting into your clothes? Manufacturers aren’t required to list specific ingredients on product containers, and a single “fragrance” listed on a bottle may include several hundred substances. You can’t simply sidestep the problem by avoiding scented detergents or searching out “green” products: Even detergents without scent often contain unlisted chemicals to mask smells caused by the other ingredients. And Steinemann found no statistical difference in the number of toxic, hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals in cleaning products that made some sort of “green” claim, than in those that didn’t.

So I decided to look up my supposedly healthy home detergent in the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) consumer guide. EWG sorts through the misleading maze of consumer product-land with an easy online guide to help people find the least toxic products. To do so, they compiled ingredient lists from product labels, company websites and worker safety documents, and compared the lists with databases from government agencies, academic studies and other sources that examine the health and environmental effects of chemicals. Then they graded the products on a report card scale—A through F.

Like Steinemann, EWG found that some so-called green products don’t score so well (you can see some of their more surprising discoveries here). When I looked up the fragrance-free laundry detergent I had used for years, I found that it scored a D. I might not have been better off washing my clothes at home after all. But there are plenty of other brands to choose from: EWG awarded 37 brands of detergent an A and another 33 a B.

Maybe if I buy one of those brands, I’ll finally get my tank tops back.

Visit EcoWatch’s HEALTH page for more related news on this topic.

——–

Fracking, Fracking and More Fracking

Stefanie Spear

It's virtually impossible these days to read, listen to or watch a news program that doesn't mention hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Nearly every day, EcoWatch posts at least one article on fracking and last week was no different.

Big news last week was the announcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it's delaying from 2014 to 2016 the release of its study on the impact of fracking. In 2010, at the request of Congress, the U.S. EPA was mandated to conduct a study to better understand potential impacts of fracking on drinking water and groundwater. The scope of the research is to include the full lifespan of water in fracking.

The delay of this report is significant because many local and state governments have placed a moratorium on fracking while waiting for guidance from the U.S. EPA on the impacts of oil and gas extraction. Communities in states where fracking is already taking place—including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota—are greatly concerned by the delay as reports of water and air contamination, earthquakes and health problems, as well as issues with the disposal of toxic radioactive fracking wastewater, abound.

Wyoming residents had a lot to say regarding the delay of the U.S. EPA report. On June 21, Pavillion-area landowners and environmental groups condemned Gov. Mead’s (R-WY) announcement that the state is assuming control from the U.S. EPA on the investigation into groundwater contamination by fracking-enabled oil and gas development near Pavillion.

Pavillion, WY, resident Louis Meeks’ well water contains methane gas, hydrocarbons, lead and copper, according to the U.S. EPA’s test results. When he drilled a new water well, it also showed contaminants. The drilling company Encana is supplying Meeks with drinking water. Photo credit: Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica

A TckTckTck article last week detailed how the oil and gas industry is demanding unprecedented amounts of water for hydraulic fracturing, even as severe drought impacts communities nationwide. Ceres reported on the pinch being felt by state regulators who are scrambling to keep the water flowing to the thirsty oil and gas industry, while not shortchanging farmers, municipalities and growing populations.

Last week, clean water activists and representatives from Clean Water Action, Sierra Club, Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Berks Gas Truth gathered in the Pennsylvania State Capitol to call on Gov. Corbett (R-PA) to speak publicly on the extent of water contamination from fracking for natural gas in the state.

Legislatively there was good news and bad news. The good news came out of Boulder, CO, where local residents rejoiced at the decision of the Boulder County Commission to enact a new moratorium on fracking for 18 months. The bad news came out of Illinois where Gov. Quinn signed into law a statewide fracking bill. According to the Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing our Environment, the Illinois fracking bill—SB1715—was negotiated behind closed doors, and was not based on scientific study, but rather on what was politically possible, regardless of science.

More than 3,000 New Yorkers rallied last week to send a message to Gov. Cuomo and state legislators to reject fracking and lead the nation in renewable energy.

A game-changing report came out last week by Alberta, Canada-based environmental consultant Jessica Ernst who released the first comprehensive catalog and summary compendium of facts related to the contamination of North America’s groundwater sources resulting from the fracking.

Food & Water Europe launched a new website to challenge the fossil fuel industry’s spin that shale gas can be safely extracted. The website, NGSFacts.com, takes issue with industry’s denial of strong links between shale gas extraction and water contamination in the U.S.

As each day brings more fracking news, I hope more people are educating themselves on the impacts of fossil fuel extraction on human health and the environment, including climate change and the well-being of future generations. As 3,000+ New Yorkers put it so well last week, we are at a crossroads. Are we going to continue to pollute the planet with dirty fossil fuels, or are we going to once and for all support a sustainable energy future and embrace energy efficiency and renewable energy?

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.

——–

Sign this petition telling President Obama to enact an immediate fracking moratorium:

Sign this petition telling Congress to Expedite Renewable Energy:

mail-copy

Get EcoWatch in your inbox