Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      How did gas stoves ignite a culture war in the US? | Jill Filipovic

      by

      How did gas stoves ignite a culture war in the US?Jill FilipovicI recently moved from a gas stove to an induction range, and I love it. Other Americans probably will, too Of all the political issues I assumed would come to the fore in 2023, gas stoves were not on my bingo card. And yet Americans’ right to cook on an open gas flame has turned into a red-hot culture war issue. Conservatives are gearing up for a War of the Cooktops – and unfortunately, some Democrats aren’t helping.Some five decades’ worth of studies have found that gas stoves are hazardous to human health, with a recent one suggesting that gas stoves in US homes may be to blame for nearly 13% of childhood asthma cases. Gas stoves are bad for the environment, too, powered as they are by fossil fuels.This has led to some liberal cities – Berkeley, California, and New York City – to mandate that some new buildings use electric over gas. But the blistering gas stove dispute really ignited when a commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Richard Trumka Jr, told Bloomberg that gas was a “hidden hazard” and that when it came to banning gas stoves, “any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”Cue rightwing firestorm.Multiple prominent conservatives and rightwing politicians tweeted some version of “You will have to pry my gas stove from my cold dead hands.” Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, tweeted the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag with a gas stove in the place of the snake. Representative Ronny Jackson of Texas worried himself about the day “the maniacs in the White House come for my stove”.Others claimed that Democrats were hypocrites, pointing to a video of the first lady, Jill Biden, cooking on gas. “Can’t wait to see the headlines when Feds raid Jill Biden’s private home to confiscate her criminal gas stove,” one rightwing agitator tweeted.The bellicose defense of the sanctity of the gas range was largely fueled by conservative men, whose typical macho act doesn’t usually entail embracing the feminized work of cooking on the stove. And there’s no red-blue divide when it comes to cooking with gas – gas stoves are used in only 38% of American households, and are most common in the blue bubbles of California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Washington DC.But this was a chance to punch at Democrats, and so Republicans lined up to take a shot.Just one problem: the claim that “Biden will ban gas stoves for normal people”, as DeSantis’s terminally online aide Christina Pushaw put it, isn’t true.“The president does not support banning gas stoves – and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is independent, is not banning gas stoves,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement to CNN. The feds are not going to bust through your door and take away your gas range, and the rightwing immolation at the mere suggestion of a gas stove ban is just one more line on a long list of rightwing lies made for political gain.Still: Democrats made a pretty unforced error here. Yes, gas stoves are bad for your health. But for a great many people – myself included, until very recently – it’s hard to imagine giving them up. For professional chefs and enthusiastic home cooks, gas has been the gold standard for decades, with its superior temperature control. Many cooking traditions rely on a flame that simply isn’t replicable on an electric cooktop. And a whole lot of us who have cooked on both gas burners and electric coils see a clear difference – I love to cook and do so often, and if my only choice were an electric coil stove, I might also tell you that you could pry my gas range from my cold dead hands (even in the face of the mounds of evidence suggesting that time would come sooner if I continued to cook on gas).Luckily, electric coil isn’t the only option. A few months ago, I moved into a very old house and needed to buy a new stove to replace an electric range that appeared to have been manufactured in approximately 1974. Gas was my first choice, but the house didn’t have a gas line, and even though I didn’t want to deal with refilling propane tanks, I still ordered one and decided to make it work – until the gas stove for which I had already gotten countertops cut to fit was backordered yet again. So, out of options and needing to cook at some point before 2024, I very hesitantly switched to the induction version of the same range, and told myself I would just have to put my big-girl pants on and power through with less than ideal meals prepared on a less than ideal stove.Reader, I love it.Yes, I had to replace my old non-stick pans, but frankly those were probably bad for my health too. (Want to know if your pots and pans will work on induction? Try to stick a fridge magnet to the bottom; if it sticks, they’ll work, and if it doesn’t, they won’t.) My cast iron works like a charm. The temperature control is incredibly precise. Water boils at astonishing speed – water for pasta or hot tea is ready in two minutes. It’s easy to clean. The electric oven bakes much more evenly, and my roast chickens come out better than ever. And the flat top gives me much-needed extra counter space in a compact kitchen.And that’s where this is an opportunity for Democrats: instead of playing the Culture War game Republicans want, Democrats should expand incentives to move away from gas while talking about the real benefits of induction – including equal or superior performance for most cooks. The Inflation Reduction Act, with its rebate of up to $840 for an electric range, is certainly a good start. And wider efforts to decrease the cost of and thereby incentivize safer, healthier options would go a long way to making people feel as though they’re making a voluntary consumer choice, rather than being forced into a less-than-optimal situation by an overzealous government.I still despise cooking on electric coil stoves, and I still enjoy cooking on gas. But now, to my great surprise, I prefer induction for everyday use. Other Americans might fall in love with induction, too, if they have the chance. Republicans and Democrats alike have an opportunity to stop silly squabbles and give consumers a real choice – and promote better health and a cleaner environment while they’re at it.
      Jill Filipovic is the author of the The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness
      TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsPollutionRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      John Kerry backs UAE appointment of oil chief to oversee UN climate talks

      by

      John Kerry backs UAE appointment of oil chief to oversee UN climate talks US climate envoy says pick is a ‘terrific choice’ but activists equate pick to asking ‘arms dealers to lead peace talks’ US climate envoy John Kerry backs the United Arab Emirates’ decision to appoint the CEO of a state-run oil company to preside over the upcoming UN climate negotiations in Dubai, citing his work on renewable energy projects.In an interview Sunday with the Associated Press, the former US secretary of state acknowledged that the Emirates and other countries relying on fossil fuels to fund their state coffers face finding “some balance” ahead.However, he dismissed the idea that Sultan al-Jaber’s appointment should be automatically disqualified due to him leading the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. Activists, however, equated it to asking “arms dealers to lead peace talks” when authorities announced his nomination on Thursday.“I think that Dr Sultan al-Jaber is a terrific choice because he is the head of the company. That company knows it needs to transition,” Kerry said after attending an energy conference in the Emirati capital. “He knows – and the leadership of the UAE is committed to transitioning.”Still, Abu Dhabi plans to increase its production of crude oil from 4m barrels a day up to 5m even while the UAE promises to be carbon neutral by 2050 – a target that remains difficult to assess and one that the Emirates still hasn’t fully explained how it will reach.Kerry pointed to a speech al-Jaber gave Saturday in Abu Dhabi, in which he called for the upcoming Cop – or Conference of Parties – to move “from goals to getting it done across mitigation, adaptation, finance and loss and damage”. Al-Jaber also warned that the world “must be honest with ourselves about how much progress we have actually achieved, and how much further and faster we truly need to go”.“He made it absolutely clear we’re not moving fast enough. We have to reduce emissions. We have to begin to accelerate this transition significantly,” Kerry said. “So I have great confidence that the right issues are going to be on the table, that they’re going to respond to them and lead countries to recognize their responsibility.”Each year, the country hosting the UN negotiations nominates a person to chair the talks. Hosts typically pick a veteran diplomat as the talks can be incredibly difficult to steer between competing nations and their interests. The nominee’s position as “Cop president” is confirmed by delegates at the start of the talks, usually without objections.Al-Jaber is a trusted confidant of UAE leader Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. He also led a once-ambitious project to erect a $22bn “carbon-neutral” city on Abu Dhabi’s outskirts – an effort later pared back after the global financial crisis that struck the Emirates hard beginning in 2008. Today, he also serves as the chairman of Masdar, a clean energy company that grew out of the project.Skepticism remains among activists over al-Jaber, however. A call by countries, including India and the United States, for a phase down of oil and natural gas never reached a public discussion during Cop27 in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in November.Activists worry that Cop being held in a Mideast nation reliant on fossil fuel sales for a second year in a row could see something similar happen in the Emirates.Asked about that fear, Kerry said: “I don’t believe UAE was involved in changing that.”“There’s going to be a level of scrutiny – and and I think that’s going to be very constructive,” the former US senator and 2004 presidential contender said. “It’s going to help people, you know, stay on the line here.”“I think this is a time, a new time of accountability,” he added.TopicsCop28John KerryUnited Arab EmiratesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Bills to regulate toxic ‘forever chemicals’ died in Congress – with Republican help

      by

      Bills to regulate toxic ‘forever chemicals’ died in Congress – with Republican help Lobbying industry flexed muscle to ensure bills that aimed to set stricter standards on PFAS compounds went nowhere All legislation aimed at regulating toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” died in the Democratic-controlled US Congress last session as companies flexed their lobbying muscle and bills did not gain enough Republican support to overcome a Senate filibuster.The failure comes after public health advocates and Democratic lawmakers expressed optimism at the legislative session’s outset that bills that would protect the public from dangerous exposure to the chemicals could gain sufficient bipartisan support.Among proposals that failed were bans on PFAS in food packaging, textiles and cosmetics, and measures that would have set stricter cleanup standards.Republican-controlled House pushes for new abortion restrictionsRead more“[The chemicals] industry is basically battening down the hatches, digging their trenches for defense, and shooting their salvos to stop anything that would significantly control PFAS,” said Erik Olson, the senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.PFAS are a class of about 12,000 compounds used to make products resist water, stains and heat. They are known as “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down, and they have been linked to cancer, high cholesterol, liver disease, kidney disease, fetal complications and other serious health problems.The Environmental Protection Agency this year found that virtually no level of exposure to two types of PFAS compounds in drinking water is safe, and public health advocates say the entire chemical class is toxic and dangerous. Because of their health risks, no chemical in recent years has drawn as much regulatory and legislative attention at the state and federal level. But the chemical industry records billions of dollars in PFAS sales annually, and has deployed lobbyists to protect its revenues.Of more than 50 bills that focused on PFAS introduced by Congress last session, only two minor proposals that in effect provide subsidies to industry became law, and only three made it out of committee. Several provisions included in the National Defense Authorization Act that order the military to take steps to clean up widespread PFAS contamination on its bases also became law.The failure of the PFAS Action Act amid heavy lobbying is emblematic of the difficulty in passing meaningful legislation. The bill was perhaps the most feared by the industry because it would have imposed tighter air and water pollution limits on PFAS while making the chemicals’ producers and users financially responsible for cleanup. Industry “pulled out the stops to kill it”, Olson said.The bill passed the House with bipartisan support in 2021, but stalled in the Senate’s environment and public works committee. The Republican senator Shelley Moore Capito, the committee’s ranking GOP member, had in 2019 introduced a bill that included many of the same provisions.“I’m proud to lead this bipartisan legislation,” Capito said at the time, adding that it would allow the EPA to hold PFAS polluters accountable.However, she did not support the legislation this session.“We’ve heard from local stakeholders and studied the real-life impacts of this complex issue, which is why, as we continue to work to address PFAS contamination across the country, the uncertainty and unintended consequences of any policy proposal must be taken into account,” Capito said.At least 43 companies or industry organizations lobbied on the PFAS Action Act, federal records show. Lobbying records that include the bill submitted by the American Chemistry Council trade group, which represents chemical makers, total about $17m, though the portion of that which was spent on the act is not publicly available.Meanwhile, Capito has received about $180,000 from the chemical industry since 2017, and represents a state with a DuPont factory that is responsible for extensive PFAS contamination. DuPont lobbying records from the last session that include the PFAS Action Act total about $2.5m, though it is not clear what portion of that was spent on the bill.The EPA this year used its authority to administratively enact pieces of the PFAS Action Act, but the proposed bill went further than what the agency implemented, and the rules could be dismantled by a Republican administration.Other bills were less intensively lobbied by industry because they had little chance of gaining enough Republican Senate support, despite taking what public health advocates say are very basic steps to protect the public from dangerous exposures to the chemicals.Among those were the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act and Keep Food Packaging Safe From PFAS Act. Both were introduced in the House by Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. The food package bill did not make it through committee but Dingell attempted to include the provisions in the government funding bill.It was ultimately cut from the final spending bill. A spokesperson told the Guardian Dingell was “disappointed” the legislation was not included, but said she planned to reintroduce it next session. With the Republicans in control of the House, it is unlikely to move.Though the cosmetics legislation met a similar fate, Dingell noted that a provision in the spending bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to analyze whether PFAS can be used safely in cosmetics.The failures come as a growing number of states, including California and New York, have banned the use of PFAS in cosmetics, textiles and food packaging. Meanwhile, a new Maine ban on all PFAS in products except those that qualify as “unavoidable” uses goes into effect in 2030.The lack of Republican support for basic measures at the federal level can be explained by industry’s philosophy that giving public health advocates an inch on PFAS restrictions will lead to them taking a mile, Olson said.“There is concern from industry folks that any admission that there’s a problem with PFAS could come back to haunt them – why is it OK in one thing but bad in another?” Olson said.TopicsPFASUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      John Kerry: rich countries must respond to developing world anger over climate

      by

      John Kerry: rich countries must respond to developing world anger over climateUS climate envoy says there needs to be work on details of ‘loss and damage’ fund in 2023 People in developing countries are feeling increasingly angry and “victimised” by the climate crisis, the US climate envoy John Kerry has warned, and rich countries must respond urgently.“I’ve been chronicling the increased frustration and anger of island states and vulnerable countries and small African nations and others around the world that feel victimised by the fact that they are a minuscule component of emissions,” he said. “And yet [they are] paying a very high price. Seventeen of the 20 most affected countries in the world, by the climate crisis, are in Africa, and yet 48 sub-Saharan countries total 0.55% of all emissions.”The Cop27 UN climate summit in Egypt in November was nearly derailed by a bitter row between rich and poor nations over “loss and damage”, the term for the most severe impacts of climate disaster, and the means of rescuing and rebuilding poor nations afflicted by them.The US, the EU, the UK and other rich nations eventually agreed to a new fund for loss and damage, without saying how much money would be in the fund or where the finance would come from.Kerry said the US was committed to helping the developing world with loss and damage, but that the details of the fund would need more work in 2023.“How can you look somebody in the eye, with a straight face, and not accept the notion that there are damages, there are losses?” he asked. “We see them all around the world. You see them in heightened sea levels, we see them in fires, we see them in floods, in Pakistan and elsewhere. We see them in the higher intensity of storms.”But he added: “How you manage [loss and damage] is still at issue: how do you approach this challenge of the financial arrangements. But it was important to acknowledge that they’re there and we have to work at this in good faith.”Kerry was speaking to the Guardian in London in December. The White House faces severe problems in raising climate finance through Congress, with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives likely to prove unwilling to disburse funds. The likely difficulties were presaged in a finance bill passed just before Christmas, which contained less than $1bn in climate funds.At Cop27, Kerry suggested international markets for carbon offsets and the private sector might provide additional sources of funding. However, those discussions are at an early stage, and likely to be fraught.Next year’s Cop28 talks will be held in the United Arab Emirates, a major oil producer. Some have raised concerns that this could open up opportunities for oil lobbyists to slow progress. There were more than 630 fossil fuel lobbyists at Cop27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, and pushback from oil-producing countries prevented stronger resolutions from being passed on the phase-down of fossil fuels and on reaffirming the global target of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.Kerry rebuffed such concerns. “I think it’s ideal that UAE, which is an oil- and gas-producing nation, has had the courage to stand up and say, ‘We’re going to lead a Cop that’s going to address this challenge,’” he said. “They’re on the cutting edge of a lot of [low-carbon technology], they’ve invested vast sums in renewable energy, they’re on the cutting edge of research into nuclear, green hydrogen, batteries,” he said. “I think it’s a really great statement that a country that has had great wealth produced as a result of the old energy economy is now looking to the new energy economy. And is going to be the site of an honest discussion about it.”While discussions on climate finance are urgently needed, cutting emissions must also be a key focus, Kerry insisted. “We can’t walk away from [that],” he said. “You can’t take a holiday [from cutting emissions] because if you do, you’re simply contributing much greater levels of loss and damage and making it harder for the planet as a whole to meet this crisis.”Kerry said he “regretted” that there “was not an adequate collective focus” on cutting emissions at Cop27. But he said that if countries met their commitments on emissions, the target of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C could still be met.‘Extreme event’: warm January weather breaks records across EuropeRead moreSome scientists and observers of the climate talks warned after Cop27 that the 1.5C target was being lost. Kerry rejected that view, but agreed that it would require far greater efforts.“[The 1.5C target] is on life support – it’s still feasible, but only if we make better choices,” he said. Not all of the G20 group of the world’s biggest economies, which are also responsible for about 80% of global emissions, were coming up with the necessary targets and measures to meet them, he said. Limiting heating to 1.5C was, he said, “within the realm of possibility, but only if we get countries to step up across the board”.US cooperation with China, the world’s biggest emitter, would be key to that, he added. “China presents a real challenge because of the levels of their overall emissions and their use of coal. We’ve got to find a way to work with China cooperatively.”TopicsClimate crisisJohn KerryCop27US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden declares Arizona floods a federal disaster for Havasupai tribe

      by

      Biden declares Arizona floods a federal disaster for Havasupai tribeThe declaration provides funds and federal assistance for emergency and permanent infrastructure The White House has made a federal disaster declaration for the Havasupai Native American tribe that mainly lives deep inside the Grand Canyon in Arizona, as the community prepares to reopen tourist access to its famous turquoise waterfalls next month.Last October, the village experienced drastic flooding which damaged extensive parts of the reservation.The floods “destroyed several bridges and trails that are needed not only for our tourists, but for the everyday movement of goods and services into the Supai Village”, the tribe said.The Havasupai is now readying itself to receive tourists again from 1 February on its reservation, which sits nine miles down narrow trails between spectacular red rock cliffs deep within the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona. Tourists must apply for permits to enter the reservation.It is the first time that tourists have been allowed to return to the reservation not only since the flooding, but in almost three years, since tourism was closed off early in 2020 when the coronavirus pandemic spread across the US. The canyon community has very limited health care resources on site.The tribe is one of North America’s smallest and is the only one based inside the canyon, where the community has lived for more than 800 years, despite being driven off much of its original, much wider, territory by armed settlers in the 19th century.On 31 December the White House announced that Joe Biden had approved a disaster declaration for the Havasupai. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema), such a declaration provides a wide range of federal assistance programs for individuals and public infrastructure, including funds for emergency and permanent work.The tribe grows crops and keeps farm animals on a thin ribbon of land inside the canyon, alongside the naturally occurring, vividly hued streams and falls. Havasupai means the people of the blue-green water.The tribe issued a statement last month, reflecting on last fall’s flooding, saying: “This has been a trying experience for all involved … However, there are many positive things as a result. While you may see downed trees on the trails where the flood crashed through, you will also see flourishing flora and fauna and new waterfall flows.”The White House noted that: “Federal funding is available to the Havasupai tribe and certain private non-profit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the flooding,” the statement continued.In December, the tribe noted that it had been in a dispute with the third-party tourism operator it had normally worked with and had switched to another operator in preparation of the 2023 tourism season.Last month, the tribe also reported fresh uranium mining activity in the Grand Canyon region where the tribe’s water source originates, which it has long claimed is an existential threat.“It is time to permanently ban uranium mining – not only to preserve the Havasupai tribe’s cultural identity and our existence as the Havasupai people but to protect the Grand Canyon for generations to come,” the tribal chairman, Thomas Siyuja Sr, said in a statement reported by Native News Online. “With recent activity observed inside the mine fence, it is clear that the mining company is making plans to begin its operations.”The legacy of uranium mining has long threatened Native American communities, including the Havasupai tribe. From 1944 to 1986, close to 30m tons of uranium ore were extracted from neighboring Navajo lands. During the cold war, companies extracted millions of tons of uranium in those territories to meet the demands for nuclear weapons, causing environmental blight.TopicsArizonaNative AmericansIndigenous peoplesFloodingUS politicsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US fails to give money promised for developing countries to ease climate impacts

      by

      US fails to give money promised for developing countries to ease climate impactsSpending bill passed by Senate includes less than $1bn in climate assistance for poorer nations even though Biden promised $11.4bn The US has risked alienating developing countries hit hardest by the climate crisis, after Congress delivered just a fraction of the money promised by Joe Biden to help poorer nations adapt to worsening storms, floods and droughts.Biden has promised $11.4bn each year for developing countries to ease climate impacts and help them shift to renewable energy but the vast $1.7tn spending bill to keep the US government running, passed by the Senate on Thursday, includes less than $1bn in climate assistance for these countries.The bill, which is expected to pass the House and be signed by the president, includes $270m for adaptation programs, largely for countries in Asia and the Pacific islands, along with $260m in clean energy investment, aimed at Africa. Another $185m will go on “sustainable landscapes programs”.The failure to so far meet Biden’s pledge risks undermining the White House’s insistence that the US is committed to helping deal with the fallout of a climate crisis that it is a leading instigator of, through its huge historical and ongoing greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries will need anything from $340bn to $2tn a year by 2030, according to various studies, to cope with the cascading impacts of global heating.Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, based in Bangladesh, said that the US’ fair share of climate aid is far beyond even what Biden promised. “So one billion is really an insult to the developing countries,” he said. “The paltry allocation of only $1bn to support the developing countries is extremely disappointing.”US environmental groups have welcomed elements of the spending bill, including a large increase in the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency and department of interior, as well as $600m for water infrastructure in Jackson, Mississippi, but criticized the glaring lack of climate aid.“Funding levels for international climate aid are woefully inadequate to meet our global commitments or do our fair share to support under-resourced countries bearing the brunt of climate impacts,” said Sara Chieffo, vice-president of government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters.Biden’s administration had made the climate spending a priority, with John Kerry, the US’s climate envoy, dispatched to lobby lawmakers. Both Biden and Kerry attended the UN Cop27 climate talks in Egypt last month and vowed the US would step up its assistance. “The climate crisis is hitting hardest those countries and communities that have the fewest resources to respond and to recover,” Biden noted in his speech to delegates at the summit, repeating his promise to extract the required money from Congress.Administration officials say the goal is to deliver the assistance by 2024 and that money could come from other sources than direct appropriations from Congress. But the likelihood of doing this becomes far more remote once Republicans, who have largely rejected the idea of providing further aid for climate damages, gain control of the House of Representatives in January.A White House spokeswoman said that the $11bn target is “a top priority for us and critical to the success of president Biden’s climate agenda. And the president has made clear that he is going to fight to see this fully funded.“Over the past several weeks and throughout the past weekend, members of the administration worked to secure funding in (financial year) 2023 that puts us on a path to achieving this goal. We will continue to work with Congress to make achieving this goal in (financial year) 2024 a reality.”TopicsClimate crisisUS politicsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US military ‘downplayed’ the number of soldiers exposed to ‘forever chemicals’

      by

      US military ‘downplayed’ the number of soldiers exposed to ‘forever chemicals’ Analysis of Pentagon report reveals that soldiers exposed to PFAS pollution at much higher rate than military claims The number of US service members who have been exposed to toxic “forever chemicals” is much higher than the military has claimed, a new independent analysis of Department of Defense data has found.A Pentagon report that aims to assess the scope of PFAS chemical exposure on its bases, as well as health threats posed to service members, estimated about 175,000 troops across 24 facilities had drunk contaminated water.But an analysis of the military’s report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit that tracks PFAS pollution, found the numbers are probably much higher and could top more than 640,000 people across 116 bases, and potentially even millions of people when past service members are factored in.Moreover, the report seemed to omit health issues linked to PFAS exposure, such as kidney disease, testicular cancer and fetal effects. The overall report is “frustrating”, said Scott Faber, senior vice-president of government affairs with EWG.“The Department of Defense is trying to downplay these risks rather than aggressively seeking to notify service members and clean up its legacy pollution,” he said. “It has long history of looking the other way when it comes to PFAS pollution.”The DoD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.PFAS are a class of about 12,000 chemicals often used to make products resist water, stain and heat. They are called forever chemicals because they do not naturally break down and persist in the environment. The chemicals are linked to cancer, liver disease, high cholesterol, thyroid disorders, birth defects and autoimmune dysfunction.PFAS are thought to be contaminating drinking water for more than 200 million people nationally, and contamination has been found in and around hundreds of DoD bases at high levels because the chemicals are the main ingredient in firefighting foam the military uses.Congress mandated the DoD report in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, but the military has not published it on the department’s PFAS website, so it is unavailable to the public or service members except upon request.“That’s the part that ought to bother every American,” Faber said. “It’s not just that they purposefully underestimated how many service members were exposed … it’s that they didn’t tell anyone.”The DoD’s analysis, dated April 2022, seemed designed to reduce the exposure estimates in several key ways, EWG noted.It only included bases where levels for two types of PFAS – PFOS and PFOA – exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s previous health advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). But the EPA lowered that level in June to less than 1 ppt for each compound.Though the report came out about two months before the change, the military often lobbies the EPA on environmental rules, the pending change was publicly known, and the military likely rushed to get its report out ahead of the EPA’s formal announcement, Faber said.“This is clearly what it appears to be,” he said.The numbers also did not include four large bases – Fort Bragg, Yakima Training Center, Fort Leavenworth and Picatinny Arsenal – where levels ranged from 98 ppt to 647 ppt.The levels peaked at over 21,000 ppt at Horsham air national guard base in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.The report also only considered military members who were on bases at the time of the analysis, meaning it is a “snapshot in time”. The military began using firefighting foam with PFAS over 50 years ago.“The real question is how many millions of service members drank the contaminated water over the last half century?” Faber asked.The numbers would probably be higher if the military also included other kinds of PFAS. PFOA and PFOS are two of the most common, but thousands more are in commercial use, and the EPA also has health advisory limits for two other compounds.Though Congress required the DoD to include an assessment of health risks to troops, the military excluded risks for fetal and maternal health because it “focused on military members and veterans”, the department wrote. EWG noted that about 13,000 service members give birth every year, and many live on DoD facilities. The military also made no mention of increased testicular and kidney cancer risks.“It’s shocking and there was no explanation,” Faber said.It is unclear what’s next for the report. Congress has ordered the DoD to phase out firefighting foam that uses PFAS by October 2023, and develop a cleanup plan. The military already missed a deadline to submit a cleanup plan to Congress, but Faber noted it has new political leadership in place, and the Biden administration has been more serious about addressing PFAS contamination than Trump.“The next few years will be critical to resetting when it comes to the DoD addressing toxic chemicals, like PFAS,” Faber said.TopicsUS militaryPFASUS politicsPollutionnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Digital democracy in Indonesia: an Asian Giant in Constant Transformation

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More