Food & Water Watch
The University of Tennessee intends to open up more than 8,000 acres of publicly owned land in the university’s Cumberland Research Forest, for a fracking research project.
Recently, the public got wind of the University of Tennessee’s intentions to open up more than 8,000 acres of publicly owned land in the university’s Cumberland Research Forest, for a fracking research project. On Jan. 31, the University requested a 30-day extension to the state panel responsible for approving the research proposal after concerned local residents demanded more information, time and transparency.
If approved, oil and gas companies will bid on a 20-year lease to conduct drilling and fracking on the land as an environmental experiment. The money generated from the study would support the University of Tennessee’s AgResearch and Education Center. This new development follows an unsettling trend of the oil and gas industry funding research at public universities. As our executive director, Wenonah Hauter, explained in a previously written article, “The consequences of increasing dependence on profit-driven research in academia are becoming troublingly clear.”
Some colleges located atop of shale reserves in Texas, Ohio and West Virginia have already opened their campuses to fracking in exchange for funds from fees and royalties. In 2012 Pennsylvania’s Governor Corbett passed legislation supporting such activity and even encouraged state colleges to get on the fracking-bandwagon to supplement their funding pitfalls.
Other universities in need of money for research have accepted financial backing from the oil and gas industry for their studies. Not surprisingly, industry funded studies produce predictably pro-fracking findings that compromise the integrity of science in favor of corporate interests.
In November 2012, State University New York at Buffalo shut down its short-lived Shale Resources and Society Institute after, the Public Accountability Initiative, a watchdog organization, debunked the institute’s study that claimed improving technologies and updated regulations were making fracking safe. The Public Accountability Initiative scrutinized the data and found that environmental violations actually went up. They also discovered that, “Two authors of the report, Timothy Considine and Robert Watson, authored a controversial 2009 report funded by the natural gas industry group known as the Marcellus Shale Committee but issued under the auspices of Penn State. Penn State retracted the initial version of the report.” Pressure from the university community helped shutter the institute.
Similarly, a report released by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin in February 2012, claimed there was no link between fracking and groundwater contamination. Investigation, again by Public Accountability Initiative, found that the head of the study, Chip Groat, had sat on the board of an oil and gas company for the past five years. The group reported, “Groat earned more than double his University of Texas salary as a PXP board member in 2011—$413,900 as opposed to $173,273—and he has amassed over $1.6 million in stock during his tenure there. Groat has been linked to unreliable research in the past earning almost $2 million during that time.” Since the investigation, Groat has retired and the head of the Energy Institute stepped down from his position and the University of Texas pulled the study.
According to the University of Tennessee’s Institute of Agriculture website, “This forest [Cumberland Research Forest] facilitates several large- and small-scale forest and wildlife management research projects, as well as ecological demonstration projects. The Cumberland Forest is also the site of some of the earliest stripmine reclamation research in Tennessee.” Fracking on the university’s land could counter these environmental ecological restoration efforts as well as put public health, finite water resources and air quality in jeopardy.
The University of Tennessee should not join the world of frackademica, and instead, should seek out research opportunities that can help wean the U.S. off its fossil fuel addiction and make clean, renewable energy the new norm.
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
——–
Sign the petition today, telling President Obama to enact an immediate fracking moratorium:
U.S. returns create about 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. manonallard / Getty Images
Many people shop online for everything from clothes to appliances. If they do not like the product, they simply return it. But there's an environmental cost to returns.
<iframe style="border: none" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/16550399/height/45/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/" height="45" width="100%" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>Meagan Knowlton is a sustainability manager at <a target="_blank" href="https://www.optoro.com/impact/environmental-impact/">Optoro</a>, a company that helps retailers process and resell returns. Optoro estimates that each year, returns in the U.S. create about 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.</p><p>That's about the same amount of carbon pollution produced by 3 million cars during an entire year.</p><p>"And that's just from putting returns in trucks and moving them around, back from the consumers … and then on to their next homes," Knowlton says.</p>
<p>That home might be another customer. But sometimes retailers cannot resell returns at a profit and unsold items may end up in landfills.</p><p>"We estimate that at least 5 billion pounds of landfill waste are created every year in the U.S. from returns alone," Knowlton says.</p><p>To reduce that waste, Optoro helps retailers find new places to resell or donate returned merchandise.</p><p>Knowlton says consumers can help by considering the environmental costs of returns before they buy.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/11/free-returns-come-at-a-cost-to-the-climate/" target="_blank">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Are We Doomed If We Don't Curb Carbon Emissions by 2030 ... ›
- California Winery Cuts Carbon Emissions With Lighter Bottles ... ›
- Wealthy One Percent Are Producing More Carbon Emissions Than ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Climate Envoy John Kerry (L) and President-elect Joseph (R) are seen during Kerry's ceremonial swearing in as Secretary of State on February 6, 2013 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong / Getty Images
By Dolf Gielen and Morgan Bazilian
John Kerry helped bring the world into the Paris climate agreement and expanded America's reputation as a climate leader. That reputation is now in tatters, and President-elect Joe Biden is asking Kerry to rebuild it again – this time as U.S. climate envoy.
<p>It won't be easy, but Kerry's decades of experience and the international relationships he developed as a senator and secretary of state may give him a chance of making real progress, especially if that work is conducted in the spirit of mending relationships rather than "naming and shaming" other countries.</p><p>Over the past four years, the Trump administration pulled the U.S. <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-decision-to-leave-paris-accord-hurts-the-us-and-the-world-78707" target="_blank">out of the international Paris Agreement on climate change</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled back</a> policies that were designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-draft-climate/u-s-blocking-g20-mention-of-climate-change-in-draft-communique-diplomats-say-idUSKCN20G0JU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tried to prevent any discussion</a> of climate change at international gatherings like the G-7 and G-20 summits.</p><p>The international community, meanwhile, largely moved forward. Many countries and regions have pledged to move their economies toward "<a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/09/what-does-net-zero-emissions-mean-6-common-questions-answered" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">net zero</a>" greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of the century, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/china-just-stunned-the-world-with-its-step-up-on-climate-action-and-the-implications-for-australia-may-be-huge-147268" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">China</a>, the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_335" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">European Union</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkora-environment-greenewdeal/south-koreas-moon-targets-carbon-neutrality-by-2050-idUSKBN27D1DU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">South Korea</a> and <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1076132" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Japan</a>. An increasing number of cities and states have set <a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/09/17/countries-net-zero-climate-goal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">similar goals</a>. Trump's hard-line stance may have actually emboldened some, notably China, to make such announcements.</p>
<p>Getting those pledges implemented is what matters now, and that will require leadership, detailed planning and careful diplomacy. The U.N. climate conference in November 2021 will be special. It will be the first time countries will evaluate their progress on the Paris Agreement, and they will be expected to strengthen their commitments. Biden has already signaled that he will bring the U.S. back into the agreement as soon as he takes office.</p><p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sfI-c0YAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">energy</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DAwwVkwAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">policy</a> experts who have been involved in international climate policy for over two decades, we have watched how countries responded to U.S. involvement, and how their views of America's ability to lead the world dimmed over the past four years.</p><p>The U.S. is the <a href="https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/" target="_blank">second largest greenhouse gas emitter worldwide</a> after China. It is also the largest emitter historically. Concrete domestic action to reduce those emission will be critical to regaining trust and standing on the global stage.</p>
Energy Is at the Center of the Climate Challenge
<p>The <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/" target="_blank">effects of climate change</a> are already evident across the globe, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/100-degrees-in-siberia-5-ways-the-extreme-arctic-heat-wave-follows-a-disturbing-pattern-141442" target="_blank">extreme heat waves</a> to <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/" target="_blank">sea level rise</a>. But while the challenge is daunting, there is hope. Solar and wind power have become the <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019" target="_blank">cheapest forms of power generation globally</a>, and technology progress and innovation continue apace to support a transition to clean energy.</p><p>In the U.S. under a Biden administration, long-term national climate legislation will depend on who controls the Senate, and that won't be clear until after two run-off elections in Georgia in January.</p><p>But there is no shortage of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-biden-climate-change-advice/" target="_blank">ideas for ways Biden</a> could still take action even if his proposals are blocked in Congress. For example, he could use executive orders and direct government agencies to tighten regulations on greenhouse gas emissions; increase research and development in clean energy technologies; and empower states to exceed national standards, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california/defying-trump-california-locks-in-vehicle-emission-deals-with-major-automakers-idUSKCN25D2CH" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as California did in the past with auto emission standards</a>. A focus on a just and equitable transition for communities and people affected by the decline of fossil fuels will also be key to creating a sustainable transition.</p><p>The U.S. position as the world's largest oil and gas producer and consumer creates political challenges for any administration. U.S. forays into European energy security are often treated with suspicion. Recently, France blocked <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/frances-engie-backs-out-of-u-s-lng-deal-11604435609" target="_blank">a multi-billion dollar contract</a> to buy U.S. liquefied natural gas because of concerns about limited emissions regulations in Texas.</p><p>Strengthening cooperation and partnerships with like-minded countries will be critical to bring about a transition to cleaner energy as well as sustainability in agriculture, forestry, water and other sectors of the global economy.</p>Creating a Global Sustainable Transition
<p>How the world recovers from COVID-19's economic damage could help drive a lasting shift in the global energy mix.</p><p>Nearly one-third of Europe's US$2 trillion economic relief package <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-21/eu-approves-biggest-green-stimulus-in-history-with-572-billion-plan" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">involves investments that are also good for the climate</a>. The European Union is also strengthening its 2030 climate targets, though each country's energy and climate plans will be critical for successfully implementing them. The <a href="https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biden plan</a> – including a $2 trillion commitment to developing sustainable energy and infrastructure – is aligned with a global energy transition, but its implementation is also uncertain.</p><p>Once Biden takes office, Kerry will be joining ongoing <a href="https://www.un.org/en/conferences/energy2021/about#:%7E:text=The%20overarching%20goal%20of%20the,2030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.&text=Accelerate%20delivery%20of%20United%20Nations,related%20issues%20at%20all%20levels." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">high-level discussions on the energy transition</a> at the U.N. General Assembly and other gatherings of international leaders. With the U.S. no longer obstructing work on climate issues, the G-7 and G-20 have more potential for progress on energy and climate.</p><p>Lots of technical details still need to be worked out, including international trade frameworks and standards that can help countries lower greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep global warming in check. <a href="https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/what" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carbon pricing</a> and <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-can-europe-get-carbon-border-adjustment-right" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">carbon border adjustment taxes</a>, which create incentive for companies to reduce emissions, may be part of it. A consistent and comprehensive set of national energy transition plans will also be needed.</p><p>The global shift to <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Jan/A-New-World-The-Geopolitics-of-the-Energy-Transformation" target="_blank">clean energy will also have geopolitical implications for countries and regions</a>, and this will have a profound impact on wider international relations. Kerry, with his experience as secretary of state in the Obama administration, and Biden's plan to make the climate envoy position part of the National Security Council, may help mend these relations. In doing so, the U.S. may again join the wider community of countries willing to lead.</p>From Your Site Articles
- 14 States On Track to Meet Paris Targets - EcoWatch ›
- Biden Vows to Ax Keystone XL if Elected - EcoWatch ›
- Biden Names John Kerry as First-Ever Climate Envoy - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Scientific integrity is key for protecting the field against attacks. sanjeri / Getty Images
By Maria Caffrey
As we approach the holidays I, like most people, have been reflecting on everything 2020 has given us (or taken away) while starting to look ahead to 2021.
<p>One thing I am particularly looking forward to is hearing more from experts and scientists so that we can usher in a new era of science-based policymaking. But before we get too excited about what those changes could be, there are some essential actions that the Biden administration must take to ensure that the scientists and their work will be protected over the next four years and beyond.</p><p>I am eager to put the past behind me, but I am also acutely aware that if we do not make the effort to learn from our history then we risk repeating it. So how can we close the gaps in our laws to ensure that industry cannot profit at the expense of public health or diminish our public lands? Two words: scientific integrity.</p><p>Scientific integrity refers to the professional culture, norms, and rules that underpin the production, communication, and use of scientific research. Now more than ever we need to establish scientific integrity policies and laws that prevent the suppression and distortion of scientific research, and prohibit retaliations against scientists. Without this we risk future abuse and manipulation of science and harm to the public good.</p>
We Need More Than Listening
<p>By now we have all become sadly accustomed to the current administration sidelining scientists, most prominently Dr. Anthony Fauci, because the facts they provide do not fit with the political rhetoric of the moment.</p><p>I have <a href="https://www.csldf.org/2019/08/22/csldf-helps-climate-scientist-maria-caffrey-fight-for-scientific-integrity/" target="_blank">my own history</a> of filing a scientific integrity complaint with the National Park Service (which falls under the Department of the Interior) after senior ranking employees attempted to censor one of my scientific reports. I know all too well the damage and pain that these actions cause, not just for the individual scientist, but also because these <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">attacks on science</a> over the last few years have undermined sound, evidence-based decision making.</p><p>President-elect Biden has repeatedly said that he will <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/521638-trump-biden-will-listen-to-the-scientists-if-elected" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">listen to the scientists</a>. While this is certainly a welcome change, listening can only take us so far. This past week Lauren Kurtz from the <a href="https://www.csldf.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Climate Science Legal Defense Fund</a> and my colleague <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/people/gretchen-goldman" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gretchen Goldman</a> published <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ten-steps-that-can-restore-scientific-integrity-in-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an article</a> listing 10 actions the new administration should implement to show their commitment to strengthening government science:</p><ol><li>Clearly prohibit political interference and censorship.</li><li>Protect scientists' communication rights.</li><li>Acknowledge that attempts to violate scientific integrity, even if ultimately not fruitful, are still violations.</li><li>Protect federal scientists' right to provide information to Congress and other lawmakers.</li><li>Commit to incorporating the best science as part of agency decisions.</li><li>Elevate agency scientific integrity policies to have the full force of law.</li><li>Publicly release anonymized information about scientific integrity complaints and their resolutions at every agency.</li><li>Institute an intra-agency workforce, potentially under the White House <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/strengthening-science-and-si-at-ostp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Office of Science and Technology Policy</a>, to coordinate scientific integrity efforts across agencies, foster discussion of policy improvements, and standardize criteria for policies across agencies.</li><li>Strengthen whistleblower protections.</li><li>Ensure that policies cover all actors who will be dealing with science.</li></ol><p>All of these recommendations have been reinforced by what we have learned during the Trump administration. They would ensure that no future administration could do things like <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/official-modified-reports-increase-doubt-climate-science" target="_blank">edit climate change reports</a> to include <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/maria-caffrey/science-denied-again-interior-department-adds-inaccurate-climate-change-info-to-reports" target="_blank">scientifically unsound language</a> questioning climate change, <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/doi-officials-suppress-oil-rig-safety-concerns" target="_blank">suppress oil</a> and <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/trump-administration-hides-oil-exploration-harms-polar-bears" target="_blank">gas safety</a> <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/scientists-concerns-oil-and-gas-operations-alaska-buried-trump" target="_blank">information</a>, <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/doi-restricts-scientists-attending-scientific-conferences" target="_blank">prevent scientists from discussing their work</a> in <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/communication-multiple-agencies-restricted-after-trump-takes-office" target="_blank">public forums</a>, or <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/doi-officials-bury-report-showing-hundreds-endangered-species-are" target="_blank">withhold vital</a> <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/endangered-species-threatened-arizona-due-politics-and-bad-science" target="_blank">scientific</a> <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/scientists-ignored-california-dam-project" target="_blank">information</a> that is required under other laws, such as the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science/doi-dismantled-endangered-species-act" target="_blank">Endangered Species Act</a>.</p><p>When it comes to changes at the Department of the Interior, the Union of Concerned Scientists has articulated <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/doi-fact-sheet-roadmap-for-science.pdf" target="_blank">specific actions</a> that the Biden administration should implement if they want to ensure that government scientists are free to do their work without political interference. Scientists deserve the right of last review and the ability to comment publicly, they shouldn't have to fight for their publications to be published, and they should have a pathway to anonymously file a complaint if they think their rights have been breached.</p><p>I spent over a year staring at my finished climate change report on my National Park Service desk wondering why it was being delayed. I was later pressured to makes edits I did not agree with. When I fought back I was told that I could be removed as an author or have my work not published at all. Given my own experience, these suggestions to fix our current system are deeply personal to me because I have seen how Interior can work against scientists to silence them when their work is politically inconvenient.</p>
Time for Action
<p>I have spoken to many scientists, particularly federal scientists, who are eager to turn the page so they can hurry back to the work they had been doing before this administration, but I urge caution in assuming that things can be "normal" again.</p><p>Before Trump, I naively thought the scientific integrity policies established during the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/19/scientific-integrity-policies-update" target="_blank">Obama administration</a> would be sufficient. I never imagined that any administration could so willfully ignore and attack expert advice and evidence that is intended to protect us and our public lands.</p><p>I have personally witnessed how hard our federal scientists work. They put in long hours with minimal pay (far less that what they could get if they worked in private industry) to pursue one simple goal: to make things better for the nation.</p><p>We need stronger scientific integrity policies to protect these people and their work. But more than that, we need stronger scientific integrity laws because they also benefit society.</p>
Read More
Show Less
A pair of bears perch atop Brooks Falls in Alaska's Katmai National Park, about 100 miles from the proposed Pebble Mine site. Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images
By Andrea Germanos
Environmental campaigners stressed the need for the incoming Biden White House to put in place permanent protections for Alaska's Bristol Bay after the Trump administration on Wednesday denied a permit for the proposed Pebble Mine that threatened "lasting harm to this phenomenally productive ecosystem" and death to the area's Indigenous culture.
<div id="da98c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="478a197b7c59c92787c92bec92f1ac39"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1331662923710693376" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Bristol Bay forever, Pebble mine never. #NoPebbleMine #SaveBristolBay https://t.co/CBQ9zuy8A5</div> — Save Bristol Bay (@Save Bristol Bay)<a href="https://twitter.com/SaveBristolBay/statuses/1331662923710693376">1606328156.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>In its record of decision on the long-fought industrial gold and copper mining project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cited "Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act," the <em>Anchorage Daily News</em> <a href="https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2020/11/25/trump-administration-denies-permit-for-pebble-mine/" target="_blank">reported</a>.</p><p>"USACE determined that the applicant's plan for the discharge of fill material does not comply with Clean Water Act guidelines and concluded that the proposed project is contrary to the public interest."</p><p>The decision was hailed by a chorus of conservation groups. "Sometimes a project is so bad, so indefensible, that the politics fall to the wayside and we get the right decision," said SalmonState executive director Tim Bristol. "That is what happened today."</p><p>"The Pebble Mine was always the wrong mine in the wrong place," said Adam Kolton, executive director of Alaska Wilderness League. "The fact that President Trump resurrected and promoted it prior to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ultimately denying the permit isn't worth dwelling on," he said, referring to the president's <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/10/gold-over-life-literally-how-trump-forced-reversal-mining-project-epa-scientists" target="_blank">intervention</a> in the matter.</p>
<p>"What matters today," Kolton continued, "is that the world's most productive salmon fisheries are safer and the tribes, fishermen, and communities that depend on a healthy Bristol Bay can breathe a sigh of relief."</p><p>World Wildlife Fund previously released a video explaining "why the proposed mine doesn't stand up to a fact check." The group described Bristol Bay as "the lifeblood that sustains every species calling the region home," including harbor seals, hundreds of bird species, and brown bear. The watershed is also critically important to tribes and the salmon upon which they've relied for millennium. Bristol Bay also hosts the planet's most productive salmon fishery.</p><p>With such impacts at stake, Marc Fink, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the rejection "a huge victory for wild salmon, the Iliamna, lake seal, and other imperiled wildlife that call this spectacular place home."</p><p>The administration's rejection follows the September <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/22/secretly-recorded-pebble-tapes-mining-execs-reveal-true-scope-200-year-project" target="_blank">release</a> of secret recordings between Tom Collier, CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership, and Ronald Thiessen, president and CEO of Northern Dynasty Minerals, which owns Pebble, that revealed the goal was not a 20-year project the 20-year operation publicly promised by the developers, but instead to create a project of "unstoppable" growth with a timeline of possibly 200 years. The executives instead were looking at "unstoppable" growth and a timeline of possibly 200 years.</p>
<p>The recordings elicited concern from the House Transportation Committee chair Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.), who <a href="https://transportation.house.gov/news/press-releases/tandi-chairs-press-pebble-limited-partnership-and-army-corps-for-records-after-secret-pebble-tapes-reveal-companys-contradictory-claims-about-the-mine-projects-size-and-duration" target="_blank">wrote</a> last week to Pebble Limited Partnership and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.</p><p>"From the private discussions revealed by the 'Pebble Tapes,' it seems as though Pebble was dealing with two sets of facts," wrote DeFazio and Napolitano,"one to lure potential investors to the Pebble project and one to alleviate fears of Alaskan Natives, the U.S. Congress, and federal agencies of potential adverse environmental impacts from the mine."</p><p>In his statement on Wednesday, Kolton added, "The credit for this victory belongs not to any politician but to Alaskans and Bristol Bay's Indigenous peoples, as well as to hunters, anglers, and wildlife enthusiasts from all across the country who spoke out in opposition to this dangerous and ill-conceived project. We can be thankful that their voices were heard, that science counted, and that people prevailed over short-term profiteering."</p><p>Bonnie Gestring, Northwest Program director at Earthworks, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/11/25/earthworks-statement-denial-pebble-mine" target="_blank">accused</a> Pebble of having "tried every trick in the book to push this project through, but the crystal clear science prevailed."</p>
<p>President-elect Joe Biden, for his part, has <a href="https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/statement-by-vice-president-joe-biden-on-bristol-bay-1a83d60a2986" target="_blank">promised</a> to reject the Pebble Mine.</p><p>Gestring urged the incoming administration to "take the next step and use the Clean Water Act to place permanent limits on mining in Bristol Bay to protect the salmon fishery and the communities that depend on it."</p><p>Her demand was echoed by Joel Reynolds, senior attorney with the Nature Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).</p><p>"The next step is for the Environmental Protection Agency to use section 404c of the Clean Water Act to permanently protect this national treasure from large scale mining for all time," <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/11/25/major-reversal-trump-administration-denies-permit-pebble-" target="_blank">said</a> Reynolds.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/25/victory-tribes-waterways-and-planet-pebble-mine-denied-permit" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p><a href="https://commons.commondreams.org/t/victory-for-tribes-waterways-and-planet-as-pebble-mine-denied-permit/84496" target="_blank"></a>From Your Site Articles
- Pebble Mine Threatens One of the Last Great Salmon Rivers ... ›
- The Pebble Mine Is Too Toxic Even for the Trump Administration ... ›
- Trump Admin Reverses Obama-Era Restrictions on Pebble Mine ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
OlgaMiltsova / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Gwen Ranniger
In the midst of a pandemic, sales of cleaning products have skyrocketed, and many feel a need to clean more often. Knowing what to look for when purchasing cleaning supplies can help prevent unwanted and dangerous toxics from entering your home.
<p>One of our recent articles, "<a href="https://www.ehn.org/cleaning-products-toxics-covid-19-2647681704.html" target="_blank">Disinfection dangers: How to avoid viruses without exposing yourself to toxics</a>," gives readers an in-depth look at cleaning and disinfecting in a safe manner.</p><p>Here, we're going to boil down exactly what to look for when you're faced with shelves upon shelves of cleaning products.</p>
1. Fragrance – Avoid It
<p>One of the fastest ways to narrow down your product options is immediately eliminating any product that promotes a fragrance, or parfum. That scent of "fresh breeze" or lemon might initially smell good, but the fragrance does not last. What does last? The concoction of various undisclosed and unregulated chemicals that created that fragrance.</p><p>Many fragrances contain phthalates, which are linked to many health risks including reproductive problems and cancer.</p>2. With Bleach? Do Without
<p>Going scent-free should have narrowed down your options substantially – now, check the front of the remaining packaging. Any that include ammonia or chlorine bleach ought to go, as these substances are irritating and corrosive to your body. While bleach is commonly known as a powerful disinfectant, there are safer alternatives that you can use in your home, such as sodium borate or hydrogen peroxide.</p><p>While you're at it, check if there are any warnings on the label – "flammable," "use in ventilated area," etc. – if the product is hazardous, that's a red flag and should be avoided.</p>3. Check the Back Label
<p>Flip to the back of the remaining contenders and check out that ingredient list. Less is more, here. Opt for a shorter ingredient list with words you recognize and/or can pronounce.</p><p>You may notice many products do not have ingredient lists – while this doesn't necessarily mean they contain toxic ingredients, transparency is key. Feel free to look up a list online, or stick to products that are open about their ingredients.</p>4. Ingredients to Avoid
<p>We already mentioned that cleaners containing fragrance or parfum, and bleach or ammonia should be avoided, but there are other ingredients to look out for as well.</p><ul><li>Quaternary ammonium "quats" – lung irritants that contribute to asthma and other breathing problems. Also linger on surfaces long after they've been cleaned.</li><li>Parabens – Known hormone disruptor; can contribute to ailments such as cancer</li><li>Triclosan – triclosan and other antibacterial chemicals are registered with the EPA as pesticides. Triclosan is a known hormone disruptor and can also impact your immune system.</li><li>Formaldehyde – Causes irritation of eyes, nose, and throat; studies suggest formaldehyde exposure is linked with certain varieties of cancer. Can be found in products or become a byproduct of chemical reactions in the air.</li></ul>Cleaning Products and Toxics: The Bottom Line
<p>Do your research. There are many cleaning products available, but taking these steps will drastically reduce your options and help keep your home toxic-free. Protecting your home from bacteria and viruses is important, but make sure you do so in a way that doesn't introduce other health risks into the home.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.ehn.org/how-to-shop-for-cleaning-products-while-avoiding-toxics-2648130273.html" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>. </em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2649054624#/" target="_self"></a></p>
Read More
Show Less