Category: Air pollution

  • A wind farm with the sun behind.

    Several conservative-led jurisdictions have proven that supporting renewable energy doesn’t mean abandoning careful money management. True “conservatives” care about open markets and fiscal responsibility. With more than twice as much investment now flowing into renewable energy worldwide, and twice as many jobs being created every year in renewables than conventional oil and gas, distaste for renewable energy is breaking down even amongst traditional “conservatives”.

    Let’s take a hike through three jurisdictions, each with a conservative-leaning government, and see how they are approaching this issue. 

    Not all conservative-leaning governments treat the development of renewable energy the same. Despite sharing ideological leanings with other Canadian conservative jurisdictions like Ontario, and to a lesser extent Nova Scotia, and states such as Texas, Alberta remains an outlier, placing heavy restrictions on renewable power development. 

    But there is reason to hope. 

    Let’s look at Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who shares many political views with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith (at least until the current spat over using oil as leverage with President Trump’s threatened tariffs). When Ford first took office, he made a controversial decision about renewable energy. He cancelled Ontario’s wind energy program, tearing up 750 contracts with energy companies. This cost Ontario taxpayers $231 million – an expense Ford surprisingly claimed to be ‘proud’ of.

    That was then and this is now, and today Ontario faces a growing political challenge – affordability. In August of 2024, Ford’s Minister of Energy Stephen Lece announced that the province needed to procure 5000 megawatts of power (enough electricity for  4.5M homes). To be clear, this wasn’t an announcement that the province would turn back to wind and solar power; it was an open call for ‘any and all’ power procurement proposals, and as Lece said, the government was energy-agnostic as to where it came from. 

    Agnosticism isn’t what we’re hoping to see from our leaders when it comes to green energy, but at least the door is open to renewables. This should not be mistaken for a shift towards renewables. If support for renewable energy was a spectrum, Ontario would be just to the left of Alberta. 

    It gets better. On January 13th, 2025 the Province of Nova Scotia and the Regional Municipality of Halifax announced that “Nearly half of Halifax’s municipal electricity will soon come from a Queens County wind farm, a move the city says will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by a quarter.”

    Unlike Ontario’s thumb-on-the-scale approach, Nova Scotia is purchasing its future power directly from a new wind farm. All forms of power generation come with a cost, and in this case, there is an ecological footprint to the wind farm that the company and government are working to mitigate.

    In January Nova Scotia announced  an ambitious effort to reach NetZero by 2035 and have 80 per cent of its power sourced from renewables by 2030. According to report cards produced at the end of 2024, Nova Scotia got a C letter grade for its efforts so far. This announcement might improve its marks for 2025. 

    And this is from a conservative province. Tim Houston’s Progressive Conservatives won in a romp in the fall 2024 provincial election. 

    No comparison of conservative-led jurisdictions and their energy production values is complete without wandering through Texas. According to Power Up Texas, the state “is both the #1 energy producer and consumer in the country.” This isn’t the gospel according to “big green,” but from an alliance of businesses, chambers of commerce, power utilities and others. 

    For perspective, however, Texas is also the US’s number one producer of oil and coal. So, while 26 per cent of its energy comes from wind and solar, and they are among the leaders in battery storage and transmission, they are still the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, at 622.4 MT in 2020, or 13.5 per cent of all the emissions in the US. (Per capita, they are 10th) 

    However, the trend lines are positive: There are 210,433 electric vehicles registered in Texas and battery storage did not exist in Texas until 2014, now they are second in the country. Texas generated more solar energy in 2023 alone than all in-state solar generation before 2021 combined.

    It probably goes without saying that Texas is a Republican state. 

    Ontario, Nova Scotia and Texas all have conservative leadership. To a greater or lesser extent, they have policy and regulatory environments that either allow for free market competition or actively encourage renewable energy development. But they are also – to a greater or lesser extent – embracing the policy, environmental and economic opportunities that come with renewable power. That means there’s still hope for Alberta. 

    Note to Readers: Restrictions placed on wind power permitting in the United States during the early days of Donald Trump’s Presidency will have yet unknown impacts. 

    The post How Some Conservative Governments Embrace Renewables appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Environmental groups are claiming victory after Mitsubishi Chemical Group dropped plans for a $1.3 billion plant in the heart of Louisiana’s industrial corridor. In the works for more than a decade, the chemical manufacturing complex would have been the largest of its kind in the world, stretching across 77 acres in Geismar, a small community about 60 miles west of New Orleans.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • After months — and, for some, years — of anticipation, congestion pricing is live in New York City. The controversial policy, which essentially makes it more expensive to drive into the busiest part of Manhattan, has been floated as a way to reduce traffic and raise money for the city’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the city’s subways and buses, since the 1970s.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Government highway agencies have enabled the blatant falsification of traffic model results. As a result, the United States wastes billions on road expansions that fail to cure congestion and make it harder to get around without a car.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • In an unusual hearing off the notorious “shadow docket,” the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that threatens to freeze the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan for cracking down on harmful air pollution that crosses state lines and contributes to smog in communities across the country. The EPA updated federal smog standards in 2015 to ensure cleaner air nationwide…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The current year has a one-in-three chance of being even hotter than 2023, which was already the world’s warmest year on record, according to analyses conducted by scientific organizations such as NASA and Copernicus Climate Change Service. And there is a 99 percent chance that 2024 will rank among the five warmest on record, according to scientists from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This story was originally published by Capital B. Every 100 minutes, a football field-sized piece of Louisianan land is swallowed by rising seas. But the state, the second-Blackest in America, recently elected a governor who says that climate change is a “hoax.” Just a year removed from Louisiana’s release of its first climate action plan, Black activists fear that Republican Gov.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Air pollution could be helping drive a rise in drug-resistant infections, which pose a dangerous threat to global public health, according to a new study. The paper, published Monday in Lancet Planetary Health, concludes that particulate air pollution (PM2.5), which comes from burning fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation, may be one of the largest contributors to the…

    Source

  • As wildfire smoke from Canada plagued parts of the United States for the second time this summer, expanding into parts of the Midwest and East Coast, cities were caught unprepared. While a few put out alerts, outreach was limited. People walked through the smoke, often with little understanding of the health risks. Once the risks were clear, some people donned masks to prevent lung damage.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Monday evening, meteorologists at the National Weather Service center in Upton, New York, noticed something unusual in the satellite imagery. A thick wall of smoke from a series of wildfires that had broken out across Nova Scotia was moving south toward the Empire State. After examining the wind patterns and speed of the plume’s movement, the meteorologists forecast it would enter the country’s…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As unprecedented, climate change-fueled wildfires in Canada are resulting in record-breaking pollution in cities and towns across the U.S., marking not only a climate event but also a major public health event, a coal-funded lawyer went on Fox News on Wednesday night to spread a particularly dangerous lie: that breathing wildfire smoke doesn’t have any negative health effects. Appearing on “The…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.



  • Smoke from Canadian wildfires fueled by the climate crisis continued to smother eastern regions of the United States on Wednesday, with 13 states issuing air quality alerts affecting millions of people.

    New York City had the worst air quality of any major city Tuesday night, and the third worst as of 11:38 am ET Wednesday, behind only Delhi and Dhaka. Both New York and Washington, D.C. have issued Code Red Air Quality Alerts and canceled outdoor activities at public schools.

    “In the capital city of the United States of America it is medically unsafe to inhale air,” the group Climate Defiance wrote on Twitter. “Fossil-fueled climate change has parched Canada, where 6,600,000 acres of forest just burst into flames. Those majestic woodlands are now ash. And we are inhaling the soot.”

    Millions of people in the U.S. and Canada are breathing unhealthy air for the second day in a row Wednesday, with more than 55 million under air quality alerts in the Eastern U.S. and the Canadian capital of Ottawa also hard hit, CNN reported.

    “The smoke—making the Eastern U.S. look like California at the peak of fire season—is not normal,” The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang tweeted. “The air is compromised from Minneapolis to D.C. to Boston, and the worst from western NY to around Ottawa.”

    New York Mayor Eric Adams advised vulnerable residents to stay inside until the smoke cleared.

    “This is not the day to train for a marathon,” he said, as The New York Times reported.

    AccuWeather assessed that the smoke was the worst the Northeast had experienced in more than two decades.

    “Unlike other wildfire smoke episodes in the Northeast, where the smoke was primarily present well above the ground, only resulting in hazy skies and more vivid sunrises and sunsets, the smoke in recent days has also been at ground level resulting in poor air quality, low visibility, and serious health risks to people, especially those outdoors,” the outlet wrote in a media advisory.

    Wildfire smoke is a cause of particulate matter air pollution, which has been linked to a growing number of health hazards from heart and lung disease to poor mental health and cognitive decline. In the U.S. West, regular smoke from climate-fueled wildfires has begun to reverse policy-driven improvements in air quality, and now the East is beginning to see similar impacts.

    New York City’s air quality on Wednesday was its worst since the 1960s, New York City health commissioner Ashwin Vasan said, according to The New York Times. AccuWeather, meanwhile, likened spending hours breathing the air in the hardest-hit Northeast cities to smoking five to 10 cigarettes.

    “If you can see or smell smoke, know that you’re being exposed,” William Barrett, the national senior director of clean air advocacy with the American Lung Association, told CNN. “And it’s important that you do everything you can to remain indoors during those high, high pollution episodes, and it’s really important to keep an eye on your health or any development of symptoms.”

    The smoke is coming from more than 400 fires burning in Canada, as officials in that country said this year could be the worst for fires on record, the Independent reported. In the province of Quebec alone, more than 150 fires were burning as of Tuesday, with more than 110 out of control, forcing thousands to evacuate, The Associated Press reported.

    The climate crisis is fueling these fires with record spring heat, and high latitudes are warming faster than the global average, as The Washington Post pointed out. Already in May, Canada saw more than 6.5 million acres burn, far surpassing the average for the month of around 370,000 acres.

    “These conditions this early in the season are unprecedented.”

    “These conditions this early in the season are unprecedented and of course they are deeply concerning to all Canadians,” Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair told CBC News June 1.

    Smoke from the Quebec fires is being pushed south over the Great Lakes, Northeast, and Mid Atlantic by a clockwise low pressure system over Nova Scotia, The Washington Post reported further. It has drifted as far south as South Carolina and as far west as Minnesota.

    It’s not clear when the smoke will end, though a change in wind direction could improve conditions Friday into Saturday.

    “As bad as the smoke and air pollution was on Tuesday, the air quality can be even worse at times across parts of the Northeast on Wednesday and poor air quality is expected to linger in some areas into the weekend,” AccuWeather chief meteorologist Jonathan Porter said.

    The location of the smoke could also change as the week progresses.

    “On Thursday and Friday, the worst smoke and related air quality is expected to shift west across the Great Lakes and parts of Ohio Valley and interior Northeast including the cities of Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Detroit,” AccuWeather director of forecasting Operation Dan DePodwin said.

    DePodwin warned that a system in the Ohio Valley region in the coming days or next week could turn into something called a “smoke storm,” causing the smoke “to wrap westward across the Great Lakes and then southward through the Ohio Valley and into the mid-Atlantic.”

    While millions wait for the smoke to lift, climate activists pointed out that a change in political wind is really what is needed to prevent such extreme weather events.

    “Hey @POTUS, about that climate emergency?” Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn tweeted over a picture of a smoke-darkened New York.

    Food and Water Watch policy director Jim Walsh also tweeted a smoky D.C. streetscape Wednesday as he headed to Capitol Hill to protest the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 300-mile natural gas pipeline that Congress fast-tracked as part of the debt ceiling deal signed into law by President Joe Biden on Saturday.

    “The hazy sky over D.C. this morning, from climate change charged wildfires in Canada, is just one more way the fossil fuel industry is killing us in their blind pursuit of profit,” Walsh said.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Shadow justice secretary Steve Reed will criticise ministers’ attempts to repeal Human Rights Act

    A new wave of human rights legislation to guarantee clean air quality and nutrition could be rolled out by the next Labour government, under plans announced by the shadow justice secretary on Friday.

    Steve Reed will vow to fight “tooth and nail” against any attempt by the government to repeal the Human Rights Act, and instead look to roll out the “next frontier” of “fundamental freedoms”.

    Continue reading…



  • While welcoming efforts to update U.S. air quality standards for soot, environmental and public health advocates on Friday warned that the Biden administration’s new proposal falls woefully short of what’s needed to protect vulnerable communities from deadly pollution.

    Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declined to make any changes during the industry-friendly Trump administration, the United States currently relies on 2012 standards for soot, or fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from sources such as construction sites, fires, power plants, and vehicles.

    “EPA is not living up to the ambitions of this administration to follow the science, protect public health, and advance environmental justice.”

    The EPA is now proposing to strengthen the primary annual PM2.5 standard—which is about public health—from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9-10 micrograms per cubic meter, but over a two-month period the agency will take public comment on a range of 8-11 micrograms per cubic meter.

    The rule would not alter the secondary annual PM2.5 standard, which is meant to protect public welfare, including animals, crops, and nature. It also would retain existing primary and secondary standards for both PM2.5 over a 24-hour period and larger inhalable particles known as PM10.

    The agency estimates the new standard would prevent up to 4,200 premature deaths and 270,000 lost workdays each year while resulting in as much as $43 billion in net health benefits in 2032. EPA Administrator Michael Regan claimed that “our work to deliver clean, breathable air for everyone is a top priority” and framed the proposal as “grounded in the best available science.”

    However, campaigners and representatives from overburdened communities argued Friday that the EPA should listen to pleas for cleaner air from people at risk—rather than business groups fearmongering about potential economic impacts—and impose even stricter standards, which could reduce health issues like asthma and heart attacks and save thousands more lives annually.

    “This delayed proposed rule on soot is a disappointment and missed opportunity overall. Though aspects of EPA’s proposal would somewhat strengthen important public health protections, EPA is not living up to the ambitions of this administration to follow the science, protect public health, and advance environmental justice,” said Earthjustice attorney Seth Johnson.

    Sierra Club senior director of energy campaigns Holly Bender agreed that the rule “does not fully reflect the serious danger of this pollutant, the scientific record, or the positive impact stronger standards would have on communities across the country.”

    “The health burdens of air pollution are disproportionately borne by communities of color near heavily polluting facilities and infrastructure, like power plants, factories, and roads, and this standard is a long-overdue step toward correcting enduring environmental and health injustices faced by fenceline communities,” she stressed. “Anything short of the most protective standards gives a pass to the biggest polluters.”

    Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition executive director Yvonka Hall also lamented that “with the new soot rule proposal, the EPA and the Biden administration have missed a vital opportunity to enact transformational change, to advance environmental justice, and to protect the most vulnerable Americans.”

    “Thanks to redlining, Black people are more likely to live, work, play, and pray in communities that are toxic,” Hall pointed out. “With this proposal, we have missed the chance to right some of those historical wrongs.”

    Noting that “Black children go to the emergency room for asthma 10 times more often than their white counterparts in the city of St. Louis” and “it’s eight times more often for Black adults,” Jenn DeRose, a Missouri-based Sierra Club campaigner, emphasized that “we need strong reductions in particulate matter pollution in my city and across the country to address problems created by generations of environmental racism targeted at Black communities.”

    Latinos are also “far more likely to live and work in areas where air quality is the poorest, and regularly breathe soot and smog, which can cause and exacerbate respiratory illness,” said Laura Esquivel, the Hispanic Federation’s vice president of federal policy and advocacy. “This rule falls short of taking steps to mitigate the decades of neglect and harm done to the health of our communities and to the health of Latino children in particular.”

    Echoing the campaigners, Anita Desikan, a senior analyst for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union on Concerned Scientists, said that “the science is clear—PM pollution causes serious health problems, and the biggest impacts are hitting Black, Latinx, and low-income people, many of whom are already overburdened with exposure to multiple pollutants.”

    “Over the past decade, study after study has shown how breathing PM pollution causes real, meaningful damage,” Desikan continued. “Today’s proposal gets us closer to where we need to be—but the problem is urgent and the solution is long overdue. EPA needs to act quickly, follow the science, and finalize the strongest possible rule.”

    While Dr. Doris Browne, former president of the National Medical Association, the largest U.S. organization representing Black physicians, expressed gratitude for the Biden administration’s efforts in the official EPA statement announcing the proposal, other public health leaders were far more critical.

    American Lung Association president and CEO Harold Wimmer said that the proposed rule “misses the mark and is inadequate to protect public health from this deadly pollutant,” citing scientific research to advocate for an annual standard of 8 micrograms per cubic meter and a 24-hour standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter.

    Declaring that “health organizations and experts are united in their ask of EPA to finalize the national standards for particle pollution” at those levels, Wimmer pledged that his group “will file detailed technical comments and provide testimony at the public hearing to urge EPA to strengthen the final standards,” and encouraged the public to do the same.

    Air Alliance Houston executive director Jennifer Hadayia highlighted that “during the recent cold snap, we were exposed to 24-hour industrial flares that spewed particulate matter across the region. And, our state regulatory agency—the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality—does nothing to stop it.”

    “We applaud the EPA for stepping in where our state will not, but we wish they had gone further,” said Hadayia. “A stronger 24-hour standard would protect more Houstonians from the recent flares.”

    Critics of the proposal also want the EPA to reconsider not just the primary, or health-based, standards, but also the secondary, or welfare-based, ones.

    “Because countless people and organizations like the National Parks Conservation Association spoke out and demanded the Biden administration take action, they’ve taken this modest step toward cleaner air, but it doesn’t go far enough,” said Ulla Reeves, campaigns director for the organization’s Clean Air Program.

    “Beyond the harm it causes people, soot wreaks havoc on our national parks’ plants, wildlife, waters, and our views,” Reeves said. “People deserve to visit national parks and not only breathe clean air but also experience the natural world free from this haze and soot pollution.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Fine particle air pollution led to 238,000 premature deaths in the European Union (EU) in 2020, the bloc’s environmental watchdog said on Thursday 24 November – a slight rise from the previous year.

    The European Environment Agency (EEA) said that across the EU in 2020:

    exposure to concentrations of fine particulate matter above the 2021 World Health Organization guideline level resulted in 238,000 premature deaths.

    That was slightly more than those recorded in 2019 in the EU, despite a fall in emissions due to coronavirus (Covid-19). Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is a term for fine particulates that are typically the by-product of car exhausts or coal-fired power plants. Their tiny size enables them to travel deep into the respiratory tract, worsening the risk of bronchitis, asthma and lung disease.

    Premature deaths

    Also in 2020, exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) above the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) recommended threshold led to 49,000 premature deaths in the EU, the EEA said. Acute exposure to ozone (O3) caused 24,000 people to die early. The agency said:

    When comparing 2020 to 2019, the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution increased for PM2.5 but decreased for NO2 and O3.

    For PM 2.5, falls in concentrations were counteracted by an increase in deaths due to the pandemic.

    The coronavirus pandemic led to the deaths of some people already living with diseases related to air pollution.

    The EU wants to slash premature deaths related to fine particulate matter pollution by 55 percent in 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Overall, the rate for EU countries in 2020 was 45 percent lower than in 2005. The agency also said:

    If this rate of decline is maintained, the EU will reach the aforementioned zero pollution action plan target before 2030.

    According to the WHO, air pollution causes seven million premature deaths per year worldwide, putting it on par with smoking or poor diets.

    UK perspective

    In the UK, however, there are further complications for cutting down levels of air pollution. As the Canary’s Tracy Keeling reported earlier this month, environmental charity ClientEarth noted that:

    the World Health Organization (WHO) overhauled its pollution guidelines in 2021. The WHO said that it set the current limit to protect the public from the health impacts of NO2, which epidemiological studies have shown to include “bronchitis in asthmatic children” and lower “lung function growth”.

    However, these guidelines aren’t used in the UK:

    The environmental charity said that the UK’s current legal limit for this gas is four times higher than the WHO guidelines. Its analysis showed that this places all 43 air pollution zones above the annual level the WHO recommends.

    As part of the UK’s exit from the EU, the government is attempting to see through the Retained EU Law (Reform and Revocation) Bill. As we reported earlier:

    Regulations that would previously have been covered by our membership in the EU will now need to be covered by our own legislation.

    Katy Nield, a lawyer for ClientEarth, said:

    Instead of putting forward plans to get to grips with this public health crisis, ministers are presenting a deeply worrying Bill in Parliament which could rip out the legal protections in our statute book.

    Featured image by Unsplash/Daniel Moqvist

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Maryam Jameela

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Illegal air pollution is rising in the UK, according to new analysis by the environmental NGO ClientEarth. The revelations come amid the passage of the government’s retained EU law revocation and reform bill through parliament. It threatens to axe many environmental regulations, including those related to clean air.

    Air pollution levels increasing

    In September, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) released air pollution figures for 2021. ClientEarth’s analysis of the figures showed a doubling of the number of areas reporting illegal pollution. The charity highlighted that 10 of the country’s 43 air pollution reporting zones had illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution. This is twice as many as the previous year.

    In 2020, the lockdowns for Covid-19 brought about a reduction in NO2 pollution, ClientEarth said. This was still partially true in 2021, according to the DEFRA report. It partly attributed the “low number of zones” exceeding legal limits to:

    the ongoing Covid-19 restrictions which continued to reduce traffic on many roads in 2021

    Moreover, ClientEarth pointed out that the World Health Organization (WHO) overhauled its pollution guidelines in 2021. The WHO said that it set the current limit to protect the public from the health impacts of NO2, which epidemiological studies have shown to include “bronchitis in asthmatic children” and lower “lung function growth”.

    The environmental charity said that the UK’s current legal limit for this gas is four times higher than the WHO guidelines. Its analysis showed that this places all 43 air pollution zones above the annual level the WHO recommends.

    Subhead

    ClientEarth lawyer Katie Nield commented:

    Unsurprisingly, air pollution is rebounding after the lockdowns. There needs to be concerted effort from Government and local authorities to reduce air pollution for the sake of people’s health.

    Air pollution potentially contributes to the deaths of tens of thousands of people each year in the UK. This includes pollutants other than NO2, such as fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5.

    As the Canary has previously reported, the retained EU law revocation and reform bill is currently making its way through parliament. It promises to sunset any retained EU laws that officials choose not to preserve by the end of 2023. There are 570 environmental laws among the retained EU laws that are at risk, according to the Guardian.

    Nield argued that the government is heading “in the opposite direction” to what’s required to tackle air pollution. She said:

    Instead of putting forward plans to get to grips with this public health crisis, ministers are presenting a deeply worrying Bill in Parliament which could rip out the legal protections in our statute book.

    Featured image via Chris L L / Wikimedia, cropped to 770×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

    By Tracy Keeling

  • Steeped in rich history and vibrant culture, and home to the world-renowned Chicano Park, Barrio Logan has been the epicenter of San Diego’s Mexican-American culture. The neighborhood is a sought-after location, but behind its newfound appeal among gentrifiers and land developers is a long history of environmental injustice and racism that residents have been forced to endure. Barrio Logan’s struggle against pollutants and other environmental contamination is part of a revolutionary legacy of resistance and self-determination that has physically shaped the composition of the neighborhood itself.

    For decades, the working-class, historically Mexican-American and immigrant residents have fought uphill battles against junkyards, ship yards, and industrial repair shops that moved into the Barrio, creating air pollution, noise pollution, and numerous other conditions that would never be tolerated in San Diego’s more affluent surrounding residential areas. It’s no coincidence that Barrio Logan is one of the most polluted areas of San Diego — the area is also more than 70% Hispanic, and about 20% of residents live below the poverty line.

    Today Barrio Logan still sits right next to the Port of San Diego, a hot spot for 18-wheelers, cargo equipment, and ships. The neighborhood has higher levels of diesel pollution than almost anywhere in the state of California, thanks to the combination of emissions from the port, shipyards, the U.S. Navy, and the I-5 highway. According to the EPA, Barrio Logan residents have an 85-95% higher risk of developing cancer than the rest of the U.S.

    Ashley Valentin Gonzalez, an undergraduate at the University of San Diego, a Barrio Logan resident, and intern for the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), an environmental justice nonprofit, believes many of these issues persist because policymakers and local elected officials don’t make any effort to listen to community members’ concerns. Valentin Gonzalez says that time and language barriers often prevent working-class residents from confronting officials and corporate representatives with how their lives are being affected by pollution in the neighborhood and demanding action.

    Opportunities for productive dialogues between communities and policymakers are few and far between, and public forums tend to be held during work hours when many community members are unavailable. English-to-Spanish translations of relevant information are also often absent, and interpretations tend to be convoluted and overly technical rather than presented in straightforward terms.

    “Language matters,” Valentin Gonzalez said. “If you’re not making [information] accessible or if you’re having these conversations but just throwing around a bunch of fancy words, how can you expect community members to contribute to the conversation if they’re unfamiliar with these terms?”

    At the mercy of polluting industries and city planning

    Barrio Logan residents have a long history of being ignored by the policymakers and industrialists who’ve profited off polluting the neighborhood. After the onset of World War II, rapid population growth and capital investment in both the military and industrial complexes spurred a boom in San Diego’s development. This rapid growth not only encroached on already existing residential neighborhoods, it also forever changed the trajectory of residential planning for the development of community areas.

    For years the neighborhood was re-zoned as mixed residential and industrial in the 1950s, which allowed industries to set up shop next to homes and public schools. Residents increasingly resented the industrial incursion into their neighborhoods as thousands of homes and businesses were demolished through eminent domain. Eventually, Barrio Logan and Logan Heights were cleaved in two by the construction of I-5, only to be further hacked and divided by the elevated on-ramps of the Coronado Bridge in the 1960s.

    Many of those same grievances and injustices persist into the present day. Barrio Logan residents live close to industries that produce diesel and other airborne toxins that greatly reduce air quality in the neighborhood. Vehicles traveling I-5 emit harmful byproducts like carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide that also blanket the area. It’s not uncommon for homes and schools to stand adjacent to environmentally hazardous facilities. In fact, the industries in Barrio Logan produce some of the most significant quantities of hazardous waste in the City of San Diego, with many residents only recently being made aware of the various health risks of living in the area. In 2002, Master Plating, a chrome plating firm, was shut down in the neighborhood after tests showed dangerous levels of hexavalent chromium, a toxic air pollutant.

    Thousands of trucks come through the Port of San Diego’s terminal every week, and heavy-duty trucks, which use diesel fuel, regularly drive through the community to get to and from the freeway. Diane Takvorian, the executive director of the EHC, says that these trucks not only create a large amount of pollution, but they also regularly cut through the neighborhood even though there is an established truck route to reduce residents’ exposure to emissions. Likewise, ships that dock at the port’s terminal use cargo handling equipment such as forklifts and yard cranes that unload containers off ships and onto adjacent docks and warehouses, producing diesel emissions that inevitably waft into the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

    “It’s apparent that land use is so overtly discriminatory,” Takvorian said. “If you put a chrome plating or a welding shop right next to somebody’s home, even with the best regulations there’s no way for them to avoid being exposed to those pollutants.”

    On top of the everyday exposure to hazardous materials, Barrio Logan residents can suffer from accidents at the shipyards. As waves of COVID-19 respiratory infections increased, the USS Bonhomme Richard, a U.S. Navy assault ship, caught fire one early morning in July 2020 while undergoing maintenance at Naval Base San Diego. It took four days for fire crews to extinguish the blaze, but not before the smoldering wreckage of the ship billowed untold amounts of toxic, acrid smoke into Barrio Logan and Logan Heights. Valentin Gonzalez says that the residents weren’t notified at all about the fire or the dangers they were in. She and her family only realized something was horribly wrong when they saw smoke coming from the ship.

    “I just remember my parents screaming, ‘Shut the windows,’ but I closed the window late,” Valentin Gonzalez said. “For three days my Dad just laid in bed with headaches. We couldn’t even walk and felt too nauseous to drink water. We couldn’t go outside to get fresh air because the whole environment was toxic.”

    Following the blaze, Valentin Gonzalez says that the first warning or outreach to the community didn’t come from the city of San Diego — it was from the EHC in the form of a social media post urging residents to close their windows and wear masks if outdoors. In the weeks following the blaze and the city leaders’ poor outreach to affected communities, many angry residents demanded that the city make tangible plans to deal with other potential disasters in the future.

    The City of San Diego did eventually take steps to address the neighborhood’s concerns about air quality. Over a year after the Bonhomme Richard fire, the city implemented Portside Air Quality & Improvement Relief Program (PAIR), a program through the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) that would fund and install 525 air purifiers and monitors for free in homes throughout Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, Sherman Heights, and West National City neighborhoods that need it the most. Households with children, seniors, and people with health conditions were given priority for the installations. While these measures will provide some protection from similar events in the future, they can’t address the harmful effects Barrio Logan residents suffered in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.

    As the shipyard fires burned, residents were collectively exposed to an array of pollutants, causing ear, nose, eye, and throat conditions and respiratory issues, which only exacerbated community health concerns amid the pandemic. Many claimed they have suffered neurological and upper respiratory conditions from the pollutants as well. In a federal complaint following the fire, residents say their homes and workplaces became “inescapable gas chambers” and that they continue to suffer from “intense headaches, breathing difficulties, asthma-like symptoms, eye irritation, and a toxic smell that caused anxiety and fear.”

    Fighting for equitable zoning and other protective measures

    Advocates say that focusing on one type of emission or a specific polluting industry isn’t enough to protect Barrio Logan and adjacent neighborhoods because it reduces the true scope of the health and environmental impacts that communities are contending with. Additionally, navigating the labyrinthine assortment of permitting offices and regulatory agencies that oversee everything from the ships, cargo handling equipment, or trucks in the port to the painting and welding in shipyards and even the freeways that cut through the neighborhood is time-consuming and deeply complicated.

    “In Barrio Logan there are two big ways that residents are exposed to excessive amounts of pollution,” Takvorian said. “One is because of discriminatory zoning and land use when the City of San Diego essentially got rid of all zoning requirements. In most communities there is a clear separation between residential, industrial, and commercial zoning, [but] in Barrio Logan it’s all mixed-use zoning.”

    Changing zoning laws could be crucial to improving conditions in Barrio Logan, so the EHC has been pursuing efforts to update the neighborhood’s zoning through a new community plan. In 2013, the neighborhood planning group drew up a revised community plan approved by the San Diego city council, which would have created a “buffer zone” of a commercial area separating residential uses from industrial uses. The ship-building industry opposed the buffer zone, organizing a petition to overturn the plan via a citywide referendum, and in June 2014 San Diego voters ultimately rejected the community plan.

    Residents and organizers, however, were undeterred. They learned from their first campaign not to underestimate the financial might of the ship-building industry and promoted a new Barrio Logan Community Plan Update to replace the 1978 plan, which allowed industrial and residential uses to be located side by side. The plan was eventually signed into law by San Diego mayor Todd Gloria in 2021, and Takvorian says that this time around it also has more anti-displacement language that addresses gentrification and more attention to affordable housing and climate change. It also includes more specific language regarding what types of industries are no longer allowed within the community’s transition zone.

    Additionally, the EHC has pushed local leaders in San Diego to adopt broader policy shifts. Last fall the EHC celebrated another huge victory when the Port of San Diego’s board of commissioners signed off on an extensive plan to curb air pollution. The plan includes an ambitious goal of having all trucks and cargo handling equipment at the port switched to zero emissions by 2030, five years ahead of the state mandate signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Julie Corrales, a resident of Barrio Logan and policy advocate for the EHC, hopes that the new community plan approved by the city will be approved by the California Coastal Commission, which holds jurisdiction over Barrio Logan. Unfortunately, the commission’s timeline for approval is vague. Corrales says the process can take anywhere from six months to three years.

    “The Coastal Commission has a long agenda, and now that industries know that their chance to expand is limited, they’re going to try and pass things while they’re still operating under the current plan,” Corrales said. “So it’s important that the Coastal Commission expedites this process and approves it.”

    While Corrales says the city is far more considerate of the neighborhood’s concerns than it was a decade ago, residents of neighborhoods like Barrio Logan are still treated as an afterthought. Corrales likens the attitude to one that runs a city like a business, where revenue and taxes are prioritized and communities like Barrio Logan aren’t perceived as “valuable to them.”

    “The city can be still more friendly; we need more champions in city hall,” Corrales said. “We need folks who take the hard road, say things that need to be said, and fight for things that the community needs the most.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • 4 Mins Read

    New research from Science Advances suggests that halving air pollution could see an extra 25 percent of food generated in China every year. Particular attention was paid to a pollutant that is created when fuel burns; it appears to stunt agricultural crop growth. Cleaner air conditions, the study purports, could encourage crops and bolster yields by up to a quarter, in relevant countries.

    The research continues on from previous studies, led by many of the same scientists. Researchers have been engaged in investigating the link between nitrogen oxides and lessening crop yields within the U.S. previously. 

    Photo by Red Zeppelin at Unsplash.

    Air pollution stunting food production

    Nitrogen oxides are commonly expelled during industrial processes and from vehicle exhaust systems. They are toxic gasses and have previously been shown to have a negative impact on plant cells, resulting in stunted growth. This has been explained by the process of nitrogen oxides helping to develop ozone, another gas that directly disturbs the photosynthesis process and prevents effective plant development. 

    The new research centred around understanding how nitrogen oxides, chiefly nitrogen dioxide, create ozone, on what scale and how this impacts global agriculture. Nitrogen dioxide was chosen as a focus due to its traceability via satellites, which can also asses ‘greenness’ levels in plants. 

    “Nitrogen oxides are invisible to humans, but new satellites have been able to map them with incredibly high precision. Since we can also measure crop production from space, this opened up the chance to rapidly improve our knowledge of how these gases affect agriculture in different regions,” David Lobell, study lead author and the Gloria and Richard Kushel Director of Stanford’s Center on Food Security and the Environment writes in the published findings.

    Photo by Tomasz Filipek at Unsplash.

    How the research was conducted

    Between 2018 and 2020, the team of researchers collated masses of satellite data relating to plant greenness and nitrogen dioxide levels. Five separate locations were observed, with the U.S., India and China included. Daily assessments of nitrogen dioxide levels were made, to gauge how changing levels affected crop growth. The result was a clear correlation between higher levels of air pollution and lower crop yields.

    Key takeaways from the air pollution study

    China fared especially badly, with study conductors noting that where air pollution was worse, so too was the impact on crops. China is reported to have seen a loss of up to 25 percent of its crops, due to very high levels of pollution in some areas.

    It was also observed that nitrogen dioxide has a direct impact on plant growth. Previously, it had been suggested that it merely contributed to the creation of ozone, but now, it has been confirmed to do both, simultaneously.

    Weather conditions and seasons were shown to exacerbate the issue of crop yield decline. Pollution peaks were observed during the winter months, likely connected to an increase in domestic heating and industrial energy use. With these peaks came increased crop decline.

    Photo by Chris Leboutilier at Unsplash.

    What can be done to increase crop yield?

    The study purports that its data offers intrinsic solutions. It claims that reducing the amount of nitrogen oxides in the air by 50 percent would result in a 28 percent increase in Chinese winter agricultural yields. Summer crops would be improved by 16 percent. India could see improvements of six and eight percent respectively.

    “The main take-home from this study is that the agricultural benefits of these actions could be really substantial, enough to help ease the challenge of feeding a growing population,” the findings state.

    Activities that will allow for nitrogen oxide reductions include a widespread transition to electric vehicles, switching to clean energy sources and implementing stringent policies that prevent air pollution from industrial interests. 

    The far-reaching effects of air pollution

    Crop yields are not the only things to be negatively impacted by air pollution. Research conducted in 2020 suggested that it may also add to the risk of childhood obesity. The risk was found to be heightened in children from birth, up to 11 years of age. Researchers looked at 77 factors during pregnancy that could potentially be linked to childhood obesity. Of all of them, air pollution was found to have the highest correlation, with smoking following in second place.

    Mass migration has been identified as a risk, as air pollution increases. Last year a landmark ruling in France meant that a man was prevented from being deported back to his home country of India, due to the risk to his health posed by significant air pollution levels. The case is believed to have been the first to use environmental factors to fight against extradition.


    Lead photo by Jacek Dylag at Unsplash.

    The post Cutting Air Pollution In Half Could See 25% More Food Produced In China, New Study Finds appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • A new study has concluded that tens of thousands of premature deaths in the U.S. could be avoided if air pollution was reduced or completely eliminated.

    The study, published by researchers from the University of Wisconsin (UW) in the journal GeoHealth on Monday, notes that, by eliminating air pollution resulting from energy-related activities in the U.S., more than 53,000 premature deaths could be avoided on an annual basis. The prevention of those deaths would also save $608 million in benefits relating to illnesses and deaths caused by air pollution.

    The UW researchers reached this conclusion by analyzing data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by using health models to gauge the benefits of eliminating air-polluting particulates, including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

    “These [particles] get deep into the lungs and cause both respiratory and cardiac ailments,” said Jonathan Patz, a UW professor and one of the study’s authors. “They are pretty much the worst pollutant when it comes to mortality and hospitalization.”

    While states could still potentially save lives if they acted alone, there would be greater benefits with higher levels of cooperation, due to how these types of particulates transport themselves over state lines, noted the study’s lead author, graduate student Nicholas Mailloux.

    “If Wisconsin were to act alone, they get a certain amount of benefit,” Mailloux said. “But, if they act in concert with partners in the region or as part of a nationwide effort, you get more benefit.”

    Researchers found that reducing the amount of air-based pollutants would have a profound impact on public health in the immediate term — and that it would also have long-term positive effects when it comes to transitioning away from unsustainable energy sources and addressing the climate crisis as a whole.

    Many other research studies have come to similar conclusions. A study from last year, for example, found that 74 million lives could be saved by the end of this century if energy-based air pollution was eliminated by the year 2050.

    A reduction in pollutants would also likely benefit groups of people who are more susceptible than others to these types of pollutants, an EPA report stated.

    “These groups include children, pregnant women, older adults, and individuals with pre-existing heart and lung disease,” the EPA said, as well as people “in low socioeconomic neighborhoods and communities [that] may be more vulnerable to air pollution.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jenny Jones says bill, named after girl who died of asthma, treats pollution as matter of social justice

    A new clean air law is starting out in parliament after the Green party peer Jenny Jones won first place in the House of Lords ballot for private members’ bills.

    Named Ella’s law, as a tribute to nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah who died from asthma induced by air pollution, the bill would establish a right to clean air and set up a commission to oversee government actions and progress. It would also join policies on indoor and outdoor air pollution with actions to combat our climate emergency, and include annual reviews of the latest science.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Activists claim to have deflated the tyres of 50 SUVs in Clifton earlier this week.

    The campaign group, which calls itself the Tyre Extinguishers, came to prominence earlier this year when they claimed to have deflated the tyres of hundreds of vehicles. They say they are leading a new movement across the country encouraging people to take action against urban SUVs and they have previously claimed they specifically target affluent areas of the UK.

    The post Climate Activists Tyre Extinguishers Deflate 50 SUVs In Clifton appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Almost everyone on Earth breathes unhealthy air.

    That’s the alarming conclusion from the latest update of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) air quality database, which drew on data from more than 6,000 cities in 117 countries. The organization argued that the figures were another argument in favor of phasing out the use of fossil fuels. 

    “Current energy concerns highlight the importance of speeding up the transition to cleaner, healthier energy systems,” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a press release. “High fossil fuel prices, energy security, and the urgency of addressing the twin health challenges of air pollution and climate change, underscore the pressing need to move faster towards a world that is much less dependent on fossil fuels.” 

    The post 99% Of Humans Breathe Unhealthy Air appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • As states work to limit the use of PFAS, one path for their spread is often overlooked: incineration of consumer waste, such as clothing, textiles, food packaging, paints, and electronics.

    Regulatory agencies are paying some attention to the PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) waste stream, such as contaminated leachate from landfills. However, about 12% of the U.S. waste stream goes to the country’s 75 aging municipal solid waste incinerators, with minimal research on likely byproducts of burning PFAS-tainted trash.

    Now “PFAS in air emissions and incineration are becoming more of a focus,” Lydia Jahl, a science and policy associate for the Green Science Policy Institute, told EHN.

    Ingesting contaminated water and food pose the highest known risk for PFAS exposure, which is linked to multiple negative health outcomes including some cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects. Airborne emissions from incinerators could be spreading PFAS significant distances, researchers warn, increasing the risk of contaminated water and soil downwind of facilities.

    Research in Europe suggests waste incinerators are contributing to plumes of airborne PFAS pollution, but U.S. regulators are not yet tracking this threat.

    Municipal waste incinerators only report hazardous air pollutants — like dioxin, mercury, and lead — to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every three years, and PFAS compounds are not yet listed in this category. Some PFAS were recently added to the agency’s Toxic Release Inventory, which mandates annual reporting of how toxic compounds are managed, but researchers have noted that the initial PFAS reporting likely underestimates airborne emissions.

    Dubbed “forever chemicals,” PFAS are notoriously long-lived due to strong carbon-fluorine bonds. EPA’s research suggests that these “chemicals are not really broken down at normal incinerator temperatures,” Tim Schroeder, a geologist at Bennington College in Vermont who has studied the movement of PFAS through local ecosystems, told EHN.

    “Much is currently unknown” about how PFAS compounds behave during incineration, a spokesperson for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development wrote in an email to EHN, explaining that PFAS molecules at lower temperatures may not break apart or may decompose partially and recombine to form new PFAS.

    A team of international scientists reached a similar conclusion in a recent study of fluoropolymers, a sub-class of PFAS, writing that “it is currently unclear whether typical municipal solid waste incinerators can safely destroy fluoropolymers without emissions of harmful PFAS and other problematic substances.”

    The Solid Waste Association of North America has more confidence that incinerators “designed to manage non-hazardous waste are destroying most of the PFAS in municipal solid waste” based on the potential temperatures they can achieve, Jeremy O’Brien, SWANA’s director of applied research, told EHN. That premise, however, is not based on emissions testing or even continuous temperature monitoring at U.S. incinerators. “Further testing of actual emissions may be useful to better quantify potential health risks,” he added.

    EPA has no field testing underway to determine what kinds or levels of PFAS may be emitted through municipal waste incineration, and “no timeline for testing,” but a spokesperson wrote that characterizing these emissions “remains an EPA priority.” Meanwhile, Europe has begun assessing potential public health and environmental risks from PFAS exposure linked to waste incineration.

    Europe Finds “Alarming” Levels of PFAS Downwind of Incinerators

    Testing incinerator emissions is complicated by the daunting number of PFAS compounds, upwards of 9,000. In Europe, researchers used bioassays [which detect compounds in living tissues or organs] to circumvent the challenges of chemically assessing stack emissions for all the potential PFAS in a study completed for Zero Waste Europe. Funded by the European Union, the research involved testing for PFAS and other pollutants in animal and plant cells at sites downwind of three waste incinerators.

    Released in January, the studies found high levels of PFAS in chicken eggs and mosses near a waste incinerator in the Czech Republic. Downwind of an incinerator in Madrid, Spain, researcher Abel Arkenbout, a Dutch toxicologist from the ToxicoWatch Foundation, reported “alarming” PFAS levels in pine needles, 10 times greater than the reference sample.

    Based on these findings and review of some not-yet-published studies, Arkenbout told EHN via email, “our hypothesis is that PFAS cannot be destroyed completely at temperatures used in Waste-to-Energy [municipal waste] incinerators.”

    This biomonitoring work was the first such study done in Europe, but Xenia Trier, a chemicals, environment and human health expert with the Air Pollution, Environment and Health branch of the European Environment Agency, wrote EHN that “emissions of PFAS from waste facilities are on the radar in Europe, and there will likely be more research studies on this through national and EU funding.”

    Airborne PFAS

    If the European hypothesis that incinerators are emitting PFAS proves true, where do those molecules go?

    Tracking the movement of PFAS emitted from industrial or incinerator stacks is a more “three-dimensional” challenge than following it downstream in a river flowing one way with two banks, explained Ralph Mead, a chemistry professor at University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) and co-author of a recent study tracking how PFAS compounds settle out of the atmosphere.

    The path and distance that airborne molecules travel depends on temperature, humidity, and wind speed, and when the compounds shift from a gas to a particle.

    In a study done in Vermont, Schroeder of Bennington College found a downwind plume of PFAS dispersal that extended over roughly 125 square miles, including some sites 2,000 feet higher in elevation than the factory source. While both that study and the UNCW one assessed PFAS dispersion from manufacturing facilities, “it’s a logical extension,” Schroeder said, to assume similar transport patterns from incinerator stacks.

    The North Carolina facility Mead studied is a Chemours (formerly DuPont) plant that produces a newer PFAS compound known as GenX, the chemical HFPO-DA, marketed as a safer replacement (despite old and recent research confirming that it poses similar health and environmental threats). EPA modeling there showed that 97.4% of the GenX emitted from the site traveled more than 93 miles.

    ‘Legacy’ forms of PFAS (manufactured prior to 2015) have been found at both poles due to atmospheric transport, and the GenX replacement — which EPA describes as “more mobile” and equally persistent — is now moving around the globe, even turning up in Arctic waters.

    Atmospheric deposition is unquestionably one of the routes of PFAS contamination, Mead said, and it’s gaining attention. “From a scientific perspective, it’s fascinating. From an environmental health and human health perspective, it’s pretty scary.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As the acceptance of climate change becomes increasingly commonplace, more and more companies will be created or adapted to “fight” or “solve” it — or, at the very least, minimize its effects. Kingspan Group is a global company with more than 15,000 employees focused on green insulation and other sustainable building materials. Workers at the Kingspan Light + Air factory in Santa Ana, Calif. don’t feel that the company has their wellbeing at its heart — and they say they have documented the indoor air pollution in their workplace to prove it.

    The post Workers Say They Breathe Polluted Air At “Green” Insulation Facility appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On Feb. 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in West Virginia v. EPA, a case that centers on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change. How the court decides the case could have broad ramifications, not just for climate change but for federal regulation in many areas.

    This case stems from actions over the past decade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, a centerpiece of U.S. climate change policy. In 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which was designed to reduce these emissions. The Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plan and replaced it with the far less stringent Affordable Clean Energy Rule. Various parties challenged that measure, and a federal court invalidated it a day before Trump left office.

    The EPA now says that it has no intention to proceed with either of these rules, and plans to issue an entirely new set of regulations. Under such circumstances, courts usually wait for agencies to finalize their position before stepping in. This allows agencies to evaluate the evidence, apply their expertise and exercise their policymaking discretion. It also allows courts to consider a concrete rule with practical consequences.

    From my work as an environmental law scholar, the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is surprising, since it addresses regulations the Biden administration doesn’t plan to implement. It reflects a keen interest on the part of the court’s conservative majority in the government’s power to regulate – an issue with impacts that extend far beyond air pollution.

    How much latitude does the EPA have?

    The court granted petitions from coal companies and Republican-led states to consider four issues. First, under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, can the EPA control pollution only by considering direct changes to a polluting facility? Or can it also employ “beyond the fenceline” approaches that involve broader policies?

    Section 111 directs the EPA to identify and regulate categories of air pollution sources, such as oil refineries and power plants. The agency must determine the “best system of emission reduction” for each category and issue guidelines quantifying the reductions that are achievable under this system. States then submit plans to cut emissions, either by adopting the best system identified by the EPA or choosing alternative ways to achieve equivalent reductions.

    In determining how to cut emissions, the Trump administration considered only changes that could be made directly to coal-fired power plants. The Obama administration, in contrast, also considered replacing those plants with electricity from lower-carbon sources, such as natural gas and renewable fuels.

    The question of EPA’s latitude under Section 111 implicates a landmark decision of administrative law, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That 1984 ruling instructs courts to follow a two-step procedure when reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute.

    If Congress has given clear direction on the question at issue, courts and agencies must follow Congress’ expressed intent. However, if the statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,” then courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it is reasonable.

    In recent years, conservative Supreme Court justices have criticized the Chevron decision as too deferential to federal agencies. This approach, they suggest, allows unelected regulators to exercise too much power.

    Could this case enable the court’s conservatives to curb agencies’ authority by eliminating Chevron deference? Perhaps not. This case presents a less-than-ideal vehicle for revisiting Chevron’s second step.

    The Trump EPA argued that the “beyond the fenceline” issue should be resolved under the first step of Chevron. Section 111, the administration contended, flatly forbids the EPA from considering shifting to natural gas or renewable power sources. The lower court accordingly resolved the case under Chevron’s first step – rejecting the Trump EPA argument – and did not decide whether EPA’s view merited deference under Chevron’s second step.

    Chevron deference aside, a restrictive interpretation of Section 111 could have serious implications for EPA’s regulatory authority. A narrow reading of Section 111 could rule out important and proven regulatory tools for reducing carbon pollution, including emissions trading and shifting to cleaner fuels.

    Do climate change regulations infringe on state authority?

    The second question focuses on Section 111’s allocation of authority between the states and the federal government. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to issue emission reduction guidelines that states must follow in establishing pollution standards.

    In repealing the Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration argued that the plan coerced states to apply EPA’s standards, violating the federal-state balance reflected in Section 111. Republican-led states are now making this same argument.

    However, the matter before the court is the Trump administration’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which does not present the same federalism issue. The question of whether the now-abandoned Clean Power Plan left the states sufficient flexibility is moot.

    In my view, the court’s willingness to nonetheless consider federalism aspects of Section 111 could bode poorly for the EPA’s ability to issue meaningful emission reduction guidelines in the future.

    Is carbon pollution from power plants a ‘major question’?

    The third issue that the court will consider is whether regulation of power plant carbon emissions constitutes a “major question.” The major questions doctrine provides that an agency may not regulate without clear direction from Congress on issues that have vast economic or political impacts.

    The Supreme Court has never defined a major question, and it has applied the doctrine on only five occasions. In the most prominent instance, in 2000, it invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s attempt to regulate tobacco. The court noted that the agency had never regulated tobacco before, its statutory authority over tobacco was unclear, and Congress had consistently assumed that the FDA lacked such authority.

    By comparison, the Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and the agency’s authority to regulate power plant pollution under Section 111 is not in doubt.

    However, when the Supreme Court struck down the workplace COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate on Jan. 13, 2022, Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a concurrence touting the major questions doctrine’s potential to check the power of federal agencies. An expansive interpretation of the major questions doctrine here could cripple EPA’s ability to respond to climate change under the Clean Air Act.

    If the court demands more specific statutory authorization, Congress may not be up to the task. Indeed, many observers fear a broad interpretation of the doctrine might have repercussions far beyond climate change, radically curbing federal agencies’ power to protect human health and the environment, in response to both new threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic and familiar problems such as food safety.

    Has Congress delegated too much power to the EPA?

    Finally, the court will consider whether Section 111 delegates too much lawmaking authority to EPA – a further opportunity for conservative justices to curb the power of federal agencies. The nondelegation doctrine bars Congress from delegating its core lawmaking powers to regulatory agencies. When Congress authorizes agencies to regulate, it must give them an “intelligible principle” to guide their rulemaking discretion.

    For decades, the court has reviewed statutory delegations of power deferentially. In fact, it has not invalidated a statute for violating the nondelegation doctrine since the 1930s.

    In my view, Section 111 should easily satisfy the “intelligible principle” test. The statute sets out specific factors for the EPA to consider in determining the best system of emission reduction: costs, health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

    Still, the case presents an opportunity for the court’s conservatives to invigorate the nondelegation doctrine. A 2019 dissenting opinion by Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, advocated a more stringent approach in which agencies would be limited to making necessary factual findings and “filling up the details” in a federal statutory scheme. Whether Section 111 – or many other federal laws – would survive this approach is unclear.

    Professor Lin was a trial attorney for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1998 to 2003. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and to the Honorable James Browning of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The UN has declared “code red” for humanity, highlighting the severity of the climate crisis. Municipalities across Canada have declared a climate emergency. Toronto just adopted a plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. Canada is upping its pledge too, and will table a new climate plan in March. 

    And Ontario is, well… Ontario really really likes so-called “natural” gas – a fossil fuel – and plans to use more of it to generate electricity. How much more? 600 per cent more by 2040 –  which is going to add a lot more climate pollution to the atmosphere!

    TAKE ACTION: Tell Ontario to phase out polluting gas power 

    Red button that says "take action"

    Yes, Ontario is moving backwards. Pulling in the wrong direction. Fighting against the fight against climate change, once again. 

    We have known about this plan for a while, but it has recently gotten even worse. 

    Late in 2021, the Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO), Ontario’s electricity grid management agency, released its latest projections: In 2021, Ontario’s electricity sector, aka the grid, generated less than 4 megatonnes (MT) of greenhouse gases (GHGs). And now, according to the IESO, emissions from electricity will rise to about 12 MT in 2030, and to over 18 MT in 2040.  

    After greenhouse gas emissions from electricity dropped to a low of 4 Megatonnes, Ontario’s increasing use of fossil gas will lead emissions to rise to 18 Megatonnes

    This means that greenhouse gas pollution from Ontario’s gas plants will increase by 375 per cent by 2030 and by more than 600 per cent by 2040, compared to the 2017 level!

    Put another way, while gas was responsible for just seven per cent of Ontario’s electricity generation in 2020, in 2030 gas-fired electricity will be responsible for 19 per cent of that total according to the IESO’s forecast. And in 2040 gas-fired electricity will be responsible for 25 per cent (one quarter!) of Ontario’s total electricity generation. 

    Even though they are used infrequently, Ontario’s gas plants are already among the biggest polluters in the province. They are also some of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the Greater Toronto Area. And they are big emitters of nitrogen oxides too – a dangerous pollutant – which is why residents in Oakville and Mississauga fought against gas plants being located in their communities.  

    The Portlands Energy Centre, a gas plant in eastern Toronto, is the city’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses

    A crucial point is that, while other countries and provinces are working to aggressively decarbonize their electricity grids, the Ontario government plans to use fossil fuels even more than we do today. 

    And a second important point is that this is being done in Ontario’s electricity sector of all places, which has been almost completely decarbonized thanks to the phase out of coal power in this province – a measure that is still counted among the largest GHG-cutting initiatives on the continent and a move that has been adopted nationally now. 

    Renewable power has come of age. It’s the cheapest form of new power generation in much of the world. Sweden is aiming to eliminate fossil fuels from it’s electricity sector by 2040. Costa Rica already generates 95 per cent of its power from renewable sources and plans to get to 100 per cent. U.S. President Biden has promised to create a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035. Canada is promising this too. 

    But Ontario is planning to use more gas. Ontarians should be outraged. 

    TAKE ACTION: Tell Ontario to phase out polluting gas power 

     

    The post Ontario LOVES Gas! But That’s Bad for our Climate and Communities appeared first on Environmental Defence.

    This post was originally published on Environmental Defence.

  • Ms. Mayfield says that breathing is the most basic right a person should have, and “If you can’t breathe, you can’t do anything.” She adds, “ I am not an environmentalist. I’m a survivalist” (Lomax-Reese, 2019). She currently leads the local non-profit, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) whose goals include stopping the toxic burning of trash in Chester.

    The post A Journey From Incineration Toward Zero Waste appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Rising temperatures around the world as a result of climate change are having a devastating effect on foetuses, babies and infants, studies have found.

    Scientists from six different studies determined that climate change is causing – among other adverse outcomes – the increased risk of premature birth and increased hospitalisation of young children.

    Climate change causing increased risk of premature birth

    The separate studies have just been published in a special issue of the journal Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology.

    Professor Gregory Wellenius and professor Amelia Wesselink from the Boston University School of Public Health are guest editors for the journal. They said that a growing body of evidence indicates the ways in which extreme heat, hurricanes and wildfire smoke can increase the risk of pre-term birth.

    Heatwaves linked to pre-term births

    One of the studies found that pre-term births were 16% more likely in areas experiencing heatwaves. Researchers did this by looking at one million pregnant women between 2004 and 2015 in the high temperature region of New South Wales, Australia.

    Similar findings were observed in a study that assessed the link between ambient heat and spontaneous pre-term birth between 2007-2011 in the hot climate of Harris Country, Texas. The day after mothers were exposed to heatwave temperatures, their risk of premature birth was 15%.

    Wildfires linked to problems in pregnancy

    An accompanying study found that as the frequency and intensity of wildfires has increased dramatically over the past two decades in the western US, there’s been a 32% rise in a rare condition typically associated with air pollution among pregnant women. Foetal gastroschisis is an abdominal wall defect that is rare but “increasing in prevalence,” according to Wellenius and Wesselink.

    Writing in the special edition of the journal, which looked at rising temperatures as well as wildfires and pollution on babies and foetuses, the professors and co-editors said:

    The evidence is clear: climate hazards, particularly heat and air pollution, do adversely impact a wide range of reproductive, perinatal and paediatric health outcomes.

    The expected pace of continued climate change and resulting impacts on our physical and mental health and wellbeing calls for decisive and immediate action on adaptation.

    Mothers from more marginalised populations ‘at higher risk’

    The professors added that the evidence also found that mothers from more marginalised populations are at much higher risk of being exposed to climate hazards. And they were also less resilient to the effects of these hazards due to systemic and structural oppression.

    The professors continued:

    Our climate has already changed profoundly due to human activity and these changes are broadly harmful to our health, with some communities and individuals affected much more than others. Reproductive justice is ‘…the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities’.

    Failure to urgently address the reproductive, perinatal and paediatric health impacts of climate change will perpetuate and worsen reproductive injustices, wherein the most marginalised populations will be deprived of their ability to procreate and safely parent their children.

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Residents of Bristol, Virginia, are reporting intense symptoms due to a city-owned landfill's noxious and toxic fumes.

    Erica Nophlin woke with a sore throat one morning in early November, just as she has many mornings for the last two years. She checked on her two daughters and young cousin; two had the same symptoms. The girls often had headaches, upset stomachs, and throat pain. “It’s like almost every single night,” said Nophlin, a 37-year-old with shoulder-length black curls.

    Until late November, the four lived in an apartment complex in Bristol, Va., a half-mile from a city-owned landfill in an old quarry that has been emitting noxious and toxic fumes, including hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, and other gases. The fumes followed Nophlin between errands and greeted her outside her church. They kept the girls from enjoying the colorful playground outside her apartment. They seeped into the apartment, stealing sleep and appetites.

    Nophlin is not alone. In the past year, the polluted air emitted from the landfill has spread and intensified. Residents have reported intense headaches, nausea, burning eyes and throats, nosebleeds, and other symptoms. A local Facebook group with over 3,000 members is overflowing with stories: One resident reported chest pain and difficulty breathing. A U.S. Army veteran wears a gas mask to sleep. A mother watches her newborn “[wake] up all [through] the night gagging and coughing.” People regularly leave their homes in the middle of the night to escape or end up calling in sick to work.

    Nophlin frequently took the girls to urgent care. Most times, she said, the doctors told her it was probably an upper respiratory infection. But no medicine — allergy or antibiotics — helped. “It’s day after day after day,” she said, her hand chopping with each repetition, “your children telling you how bad their head’s hurting and their throat’s hurting…. This is just out of hand.”

    There have been nearly 2,500 complaints submitted through an online reporting system the city launched in May, on top of over 6,000 submitted to Smell My City, a pollution tracking app, since January. Residents have launched a grassroots advocacy group, HOPE for Bristol, organized town halls, and met with state officials. One young woman even got in touch with environmental activist Erin Brokovich.

    Officials are trying to identify and address the problem. Bristol, Va., city staff and consultants have been repairing and expanding the landfill’s infrastructure for 10 months to better capture emissions. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) investigated the landfill and has issued three notices of violation for recordkeeping and gas well problems. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted two rounds of air sampling in communities around the landfill. And the city of Bristol, Tenn., which sits just over the state line and shares its main street and downtown area with Bristol, Va., is awaiting a report by a toxicologist they hired to assess the situation for potential litigation.

    “I think we’re taking the right steps to correct the problem,” Bristol, Va., City Manager and City Attorney Randy Eads told Southerly in early November. “It’s not going as fast as I’d like to go, it’s not going as fast as I know the community wants for it to go, but it is moving in the right direction.”

    But recordkeeping failures and an error in a contract have caused critical delays in repairs as a chemical reaction has developed beneath the trash. And residents say city, state, and federal agencies designed to protect them refuse to treat the situation for what it has become: an emergency.

    Deep Inside the Trash

    The landfill, which accepts household and commercial waste, tires, brush, yard waste, and e-waste, sits just north of the state line in Virginia, beside a juvenile detention center and several low-income neighborhoods. Residents of both Bristols voiced concerns about its potential to pollute their communities — and, in some cases, petitioned against it — before the city opened it in 1998. It’s the only permitted landfill in Virginia built in a former quarry (picture a misshapen, round-shouldered rock bowl) and has generated more than $30 million in debt for a financially struggling municipality.

    Multiple Bristolians on both sides of the state line said they began noticing foul-smelling pollution in their neighborhoods up to five years ago, but it started intensifying in 2019 and snowballed throughout 2020.

    In January 2021, the city began repairing structural flaws causing gases to leak from the landfill’s surface. A crew installed a new pump to suction water pooling at the bottom of the quarry, packed more dirt onto the landfill’s surface, and fixed broken pipes that collect methane and other gas generated by decomposition. They’re also installing 21 additional gas wells to transport the gas to a flare that burns it off into the atmosphere or an engine that a company uses to generate electricity.

    But that gas well system expansion is a year overdue because of recordkeeping failures and poor communication between city staff and consultants working on the landfill, according to records obtained by Southerly and interviews with city officials.

    Since January 2020, engineering firm SCS Engineers has been under contract with the city to monitor and report temperatures and other key data from the gas wells. Multiple times that year, starting in July, temperatures in several wells exceeded the maximum allowed limit. But in a violation notice obtained through a public records request, state environmental regulators said the city falsely reported having no excessive temperatures during 2020 — and it did nothing to expand the dump’s gas collection system, a step the site’s permit required for two of the violations.

    SCS Engineers did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Eads, the city manager, said the city bears ultimate responsibility for those failures and fired an employee who was supposed to check the reporting before submitting it. The city manager added that the city is “still investigating” the recordkeeping failures.

    The gas wells that began overheating last year have since become the location of a chemical reaction that’s continued heating the trash — in one well, to temperatures close to 200 degrees — while belching harmful gases and chemicals. Ernie Hoch, a consultant for Richmond-based firm Draper Aden who is leading the repairs, said that the issue is happening more than 100 feet under the surface, and it’s unclear how large it could be.

    Air sampling over the reaction area by the city in April and May showed high levels of hydrogen sulfide — a poisonous gas generated by waste decomposition — carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds including benzene, a known carcinogen. EPA testing conducted in June and July in surrounding communities detected those substances at lower levels, which the agency said posed “no immediate risk to human health.” The EPA collected a second round of air samples in October in response to residents’ reports that the “odors had increased in frequency and intensity,” said Myles Bartos, a federal on-scene coordinator for EPA Region 3.

    Bartos said that the October data — which he’s still finalizing for a report—showed some higher peaks in chemical levels than the summer air samples, but still no data that shows “an immediate health concern.”

    Hoch has repeatedly said that the reaction isn’t a fire — which Virginia law requires landfills to extinguish—and instead calls it a “subsurface reaction.”

    “It’s not a fire,” he told Southerly. “It’s not going to burn the neighborhood down, it’s not going to scorch the children in the street. Yes, it’s serious and we’re trying to eliminate it. This has really become the emotional buzzword, but…it’s not an imminent threat to anybody in the community.”

    Even if it were a fire, Hoch said, “you can’t put it out. You can’t send a fire department to respond to it. There’s nothing you can do other than what we’re doing.”

    Tony Sperling, president and chief engineer at Vancouver consulting firm Sperling Hansen Associates and an expert in landfill fires, was concerned about this when Southerly showed him data from the gas wells. Sperling said it sounded like a “self-sustaining subsurface exothermic reaction,” or pyrolysis — a breakdown of organic materials that occurs with elevated temperatures but little to no oxygen.

    “You can smother a fire by turning off the oxygen. You cannot turn off an exothermic reaction,” he said. “There have been probably five or six of these incidents in North America. Once they’re going, we literally do not know how to turn them off.”

    A similar subsurface reaction has been burning beneath the surface of a closed Bridgeton, Mo., landfill since 2010. “It struck me that there were a lot of similarities,” said Becky Evenden, a chemical engineer by training who lives in Bristol, Tenn. and co-founded HOPE for Bristol. “They both were in quarries. They both had incredible problems with water. They both became very odorous.”

    People living and working near the Bridgeton landfill reported respiratory issues, headaches and burning eyes. In 2013, a former Missouri attorney general sued the landfill’s owner for alleged environmental violations; the company settled for $16 million in 2018.

    Sperling — who was retained by the attorney general’s office as an expert in that case — said he was “really concerned” for Bristol residents because of the health impacts he’s seen in communities around landfills with subsurface reactions.

    Todd Thalhamer, senior waste management engineer for the California EPA and a consultant who also evaluated the Bridgeton reaction, said he thought the Bristol landfill’s hotspot could be either pyrolysis or a fire, but doesn’t see a difference. The impacts are the same, he said. For every 18 degrees Fahrenheit the temperature increases in solid waste, the production of volatile organic compounds like benzene doubles, he said.

    Both Sperling and Thalhamer also said they wouldn’t be surprised if the reaction were generating dioxins and furans, another class of toxic chemicals that can, depending on a person’s amount of exposure, cause health impacts such as skin disorders and immune system impairment. There hasn’t been any testing for those at the site.

    Sperling said his own course of action in Bristol would be to “drill like crazy,” since subsurface reactions typically generate “massive pressure” that needs to be relieved. But roughly four months passed between the discovery of the reaction and the start of the gas well drilling.

    Eads told Southerly that because SCS Engineers’ contract applied only to the landfill’s 44 existing gas wells, the city had to solicit bids for another contractor to expand the gas well system, he said. Shortly after the city accepted a bid from a Louisiana-based company in August, Eads said, he was told that the bid accidentally left out a key step: connecting the wells to the existing gas collection system.

    The city had to jump through another round of bidding and purchasing hoops just for that step. Eads said he was “not happy” about that and said that “in the future, it’s going to be done in one contract.”

    Evenden said she wonders: If the city had addressed the subsurface reaction more quickly, would the community be suffering less at this point? Based on her research of other subsurface reactions, she said she’s concerned the pollution in Bristol “could be with us for years. I hope it’s not really bad for many years, but it could be.”

    Eads said he’s hopeful that the latest round of repairs will start containing most of the gases escaping from the landfill’s surface within the next two months. But he stressed that that’s a hope, not a certainty.

    “What if what we’re doing now doesn’t work? What if it gets worse?” he said. “Those are the things that I truly lose sleep over.”

    He asked for patience. “I know it’s hard to say that and hard to be patient when you have to smell that landfill every single night or every morning when you get up,” he said. “I fully get that. But we need to get this project complete. And if this project doesn’t fix it, we go on to Plan B.”

    “This Is an Emergency”

    Michael Dean, a tall, burly redhead who co-founded HOPE, has become one of the most vocal activists in the community. The Bristol, Tenn., resident regularly drives in search of gases at night, soliciting reports and livestreaming what he finds for the Bristol City-VA/TN Air Pollution Community Page.

    Dean and his family moved to the area to enjoy “small-town vibes” and outdoor beauty, he said. But the 41-year-old hardly has energy to finish unpacking in his new home, which fills with the smell of gases almost every night, giving the family headaches, sinus trouble, insomnia, and, for one of his kids, nosebleeds.

    In mid-October, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR), a federal public health agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, agreed to assess the potential health risks from the pollution; a resident requested it six months ago and HOPE for Bristol was pushing for it.

    But by early November, as the air pollution Facebook page flooded with reports of headaches, respiratory issues, and middle-of-night evacuations, HOPE and others decided the community needed more urgent help.

    They emailed ATSDR seeking an evacuation location and vouchers for affected residents. The agency’s Region 3 director, Lora Werner, replied that the agency had “not seen monitored levels of chemicals in the air that would trigger evacuation or shelter in place actions.”

    They called the Virginia Department of Emergency Management, which told them to contact their local director of emergency management — in their case, Eads. At a packed Nov. 9 city council meeting, they asked Eads, Bristol Va. Mayor Anthony Farnum, and the council to declare an emergency.

    “This is an emergency and I am here to plead with this council to see this situation for what it truly is,” the Reverend Samuel Weddington, the lead pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Bristol, Tennessee, said to the council. “Many of the residents of Bristol are living under the nightly threat of this reality of being gassed in their homes. It is a severe burden and they need help to deal with their present suffering and hardship.” (Disclosure: The author attends First Presbyterian Church and knows Weddington.)

    Eads said that the city plans to hire a third consultant, one he said will assess how adequately they’ve handled the landfill “crisis.” But he didn’t declare an emergency. The city manager said that he and fire chief Mike Armstrong discussed it with the state emergency management department.

    “And the Virginia Department of Emergency Management does not believe that this rises to a level of an emergency, because the EPA has advised the city and the citizens that there is no immediate impact to the health,” he told the public that night.

    Tim Estes, chief regional coordinator for VDEM’s Region Four, told Southerly that if the city did declare an emergency, VDEM can only help them try to find supplies — not pay for them. During a July city council meeting, when asked if the city would reimburse people for the air filters and purifiers they’ve been buying to try to make the air in their homes more bearable, Eads said that would be “an admission of liability.”

    HOPE for Bristol, a handful of private donors, and an alliance of local pastors recently raised enough money to purchase more than 100 air purifiers for low-income residents. Bristol, Tenn., is also offering purifiers to low- and moderate-income residents through a partnership with the local United Way; in less than two weeks, they received nearly 600 applications.

    But air filters only go so far against pollution that covers whole neighborhoods, and with no definite end in sight, many residents are “on edge,” Dean said. “My sleep has been very bad lately. I can’t get, like, more than four or five hours, if that, and it’s [while] breathing in this shit anyway…. Your mental state’s not right.”

    Nophlin, the Bristol, Va. resident, said the pollution often worsens her anxiety. “Dealing with COVID has been enough,” she said. “Dealing with the effects from this landfill on my babies, it’s too much…. Nobody’s going to convince me that my children are not being harmed.”

    In a 2018 evaluation of the health risks from the Bridgeton landfill gases, ATSDR stated that “longlasting feelings of helplessness and frustration” around the odors and “uncertainty regarding the toxicity of the chemicals” can increase stress and cause stress-related illnesses.

    The Facebook group provides residents a space to share their experiences. HOPE included anxiety and depression in a symptom survey they just finished to better quantify what residents are dealing with.

    Nophlin recently arrived at her own solution: move. On Nov. 15, a few days after securing a townhouse on the opposite side of town, she and her boyfriend packed up her family’s belongings.

    “I did my research on the landfill. It’s like from the beginning till now, anybody that’s been in charge of the city has failed us,” she said. “To me, it’s neglect. There’s no getting around it.”

    Nophlin said she couldn’t wait to breathe fresher air again. A neighbor, Larry Widener, came over to say goodbye. The gases are so bad inside his apartment that he and his wife, Barbara, have been shoving towels under the crack of their door. But the windows aren’t insulated.

    “You can feel the air coming in [through] them,” he said, “and all that smell’s coming right in.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bayview-Hunters Point, a neighborhood in the southeastern corner of San Francisco, jutting into the bay. It’s under four square miles, just 8.5 percent of San Francisco’s land mass. This relatively small parcel of the city holds a disproportionate concentration of its toxic and polluting sites. For decades, state and local agencies have tried—halfheartedly, advocates say—to monitor and clean up the polluted air in Bayview. These ineffectual efforts have sown deep distrust among the residents for the polluters, and the government. So, advocates launched their own community-owned air monitoring program in September to do what government agencies haven’t been able to.

    The post Advocates Have Taken Air Pollution Monitoring Into Their Own Hands appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.