Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      A California measure would tax the rich to fund electric vehicles. Why is the governor against it?

      by

      A California measure would tax the rich to fund electric vehicles. Why is the governor against it?Proposition 30 would raise up to $5bn annually to help buy zero-emission cars, trucks and buses; Newsom calls it a ‘Trojan horse’ Two years ago, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, issued an executive order banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035.This year, he’s opposing a ballot measure to fund the transition to electric vehicles – siding with Republicans and against fellow Democrats, environmental groups, firefighters and labor unions.The governor’s counterintuitive position could be a political gambit. It may also doom the measure; support for it appears to have dropped starkly after Newsom cut an ad against it.California wants everyone to drive EVs. How will low-income people afford them?Read moreThe measure, Proposition 30, would hike taxes by 1.75% on those earning $2m or more annually, raising between $3bn and $5bn annually to subsidize households, businesses and schools; buy zero-emission cars, trucks and buses; fund infrastructure to charge electric vehicles; and bolster wildfire prevention efforts.Proponents of the measure, including the coalition of environmental and labor groups that developed it, say the tax would provide urgently needed funds to hasten the transition to zero-emission vehicles, and reduce the disproportionate burden of pollution on low-income, minority communities across the state. According to the American Lung Association, which has endorsed Prop 30, the US could save 110,000 lives and $1.2tn in public health costs by 2050 if it swaps gas-powered vehicles for zero-emissions cars.Newsom, and the proposition’s opponents, claim it is a corporate carve-out for Lyft, the ride-hailing company that has backed the measure and helped fund its campaign.“Prop 30 is being advertised as a climate initiative,” Newsom says in an advertisement against Prop 30. “But in reality, it was devised by a single corporation to funnel state income taxes to benefit their company. Put simply, Prop 30 is a Trojan horse that puts corporate welfare above the fiscal welfare of our entire state.”The message left some of the organizers and activists who helped write the measure stunned.“It’s just false,” said Denny Zane, the founder and policy director at Move LA, a public transit advocacy group that helped develop the proposition. Lyft joined the effort to promote the proposition after environmental groups and policymakers came up with the idea, he said, but the company did not “devise” the proposition.Overhauling the transportation infrastructureLyft has given more than $15m to support the measure and funded signature-gathering to get it on the November ballot. Though it wouldn’t benefit directly from the proposition, it and other rideshare companies face a 2030 regulatory deadline to transition the majority of their fleets to EVs. Prop 30 could help Lyft drivers, who are responsible for providing their own cars, purchase zero-emission vehicles.“It’s absurd to say we’re granting some sort of carve-out specifically for Lyft,” said Bill Magavern, the policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, a statewide organization focused on air pollution issues.Proponents of the funding measure point out that the $10bn that Newsom’s budget has already allocated to EV subsidies and infrastructure would help Lyft drivers in the same way. And funds from Prop 30 would ultimately be funneled to the California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission and Cal Fire, the state’s firefighting agency, which would allocate the money to various programs.Newsom argues that California’s tax revenues are “famously volatile”, and the measure would make the state’s finances even more unstable. A wealth tax, the governor says, wouldn’t be the best way to fund the programs Prop 30 seeks to support. Moreover, he has noted that the state has already budgeted $10bn for electric vehicles specifically, and $54bn toward climate adaptation broadly.But environmental and transportation experts say even such massive investments won’t be enough to transition the state’s transportation infrastructure.Magavern and other environmental advocates instead see the governor’s stance on the proposition as a capitulation to wealthy donors. “You’ve got billionaires and their allies who don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes,” Magavern said.Among the biggest donors to the “No on 30” campaign are William Fisher, hedge fund manager and Gap Inc director, and billionaire venture capitalist Michael Moritz, according to public records. Investment firm founder Mark Heising, who contributed the maximum allowable amount to Newsom’s 2022 re-election campaign, also contributed $1m to oppose Prop 30.Joining these donors, Newsom, and anti-tax Republican politicians is the California Teachers Association, which opposed the measure because it circumvents a 1998 mandate that a minimum of 40% of the state’s budget goes to public education.Opinion columnists and political experts have conjectured that Newsom’s siding with teachers and his traditional enemies – the Republicans – could help bolster the governor’s political future. Though Newsom has repeatedly denied he has any intention of running for president, his recent national-facing campaign ads have stirred up speculation to the contrary. Newsom’s position on Prop 30 could easily fit into a presidential pitch that he walks the line between California progressivism and nationally appealing moderation, those columnists and experts have argued, and that he doesn’t blindly side with his own party and sometimes works with Republicans and business interests. The governor’s campaign did not respond to detailed questions regarding the political implications of this opposition to the proposition. “Prop 30 is fiscally irresponsible and puts the profits of a single corporation ahead of the welfare of the entire state,” the governor said in a statement.Meeting the state’s zero-emission goalsCalifornia will have to make major investments if it wants to live up to its clean energy goals.As more electric vehicles hit the road, the state has set targets to build an additional 170,000 public charging stations over the next three years. And California would need to invest in fortifying its already shaky electrical grid system.“The governor did support record levels of investment in this year’s budget, which is great news, it’s what’s needed,” said Don Anair, an expert in zero-emission transportation technologies and infrastructure at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which supports Prop 30.But it’s unclear how much will be invested in electric and zero-emission vehicles in subsequent yearly budgets, including after Newsom leaves office, Anair said. “We need a long-term, large-scale source of revenue to meet the state’s goals.”The need for investment now is urgent, Anair added. Even if the state phases out gas-powered vehicles by 2035, the cars, buses and freight vehicles already on the road now, or bought over the next few years will remain on the road for decades unless California incentivizes and subsidizes the purchase of zero-emission options.One limitation of the proposition is that it doesn’t specify subsidies for e-bikes and other programs to steer commuters away from cars altogether. Even electric cars are far less efficient than walking, biking and public transportation – they are energy and resource-intensive to build, and encourage urban sprawl. The mining of cobalt, lithium and other rare elements required to build EVs has raised environmental and human rights concerns.In coming years, even more investments in public transit and urban infrastructure, as well as improvements in how EVs are made, will be required in order to truly address the climate crisis.The proposition “is not going to solve all our transportation problems”, Anair said. But for now, transportation remains the largest source of greenhouse emissions in California. “So zero-emission transportation is critically important,” Anair said. “Climate change is already having impacts and the sooner we can start reducing our emissions, the better.”TopicsCaliforniaGavin NewsomElectric, hybrid and low-emission carsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The American EV boom is about to begin. Does the US have the power to charge it?

      by

      The American EV boom is about to begin. Does the US have the power to charge it? States have plans to ban gas-powered cars and the White House wants chargers along highways, but implementation is a challengeSpeaking in front of a line of the latest electric vehicles (EVs) at this month’s North American International Auto Show, President Joe Biden declared: “The great American road trip is going to be fully electrified.”Most vehicles on the road are still gas guzzlers, but Washington is betting big on change, hoping that major federal investment will help reach a target set by the White House for 50% of new cars to be electric by 2030. But there are roadblocks – specifically when it comes to charging them all. “Range anxiety,” or how far one can travel before needing to charge, is still cited as a major deterrent for potential EV buyers.The auto industry recently passed the 5% mark of EV market share – a watershed moment, analysts say, before rapid growth. New policies at the state and local level could very well spur that growth: the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed this summer, offers tax credits of $4,000 to purchase a used EV and up to $7,500 for certain new ones. In August, California, the nation’s largest state and economy, announced rules that would ban all new gas-powered cars by 2035. New York plans to follow.So now, the race is on to provide chargers to power all those new EVs.The administration’s target of 500,000 public charging units by 2030 is a far cry from the current count of nearly 50,000, according to the Department of Energy’s estimate. And those new chargers will have to be fast – what’s known as Level 2 or 3 charging – and functional in order to create a truly reliable system. Today, many are not.Last week, the White House approved plans for all 50 states, along with Washington DC, and Puerto Rico, to set up chargers along highways, unlocking $1.5bn in federal funding to that end. The money comes from the landmark infrastructure bill passed last year, which invests $7.5bn for EV charging in total.Electric vehicle charging stations get green light across USRead moreBut how much of that money is spent is largely going to be determined at the local level. “It’s a difference between policy and practice,” said Drew Lipsher, the chief development officer at Volta, an EV charging provider. “Now that the federal government has these policies, the question becomes, OK, how does this actually get implemented?” The practice, he said, is up to states and municipalities.As EV demand spikes, a growing number of cities are adopting policies for EV charging construction. In July, the city of Columbus passed an “EV readiness” ordinance, which will require new parking structures to host charging stations proportionate to the number of total parking spots, with at least one that is ADA-accessible. Honolulu and Atlanta have passed similar measures.One major challenge is creating a distribution model that can meet a diversity of needs.At the moment, most EV owners charge their cars at home with a built-in unit, which governments can help subsidize. But for apartment dwellers or those living in multi-family homes, that’s less feasible. “When we’re thinking about the largest pieces of the population, that’s where we need to really be focusing our attention. This is a major equity issue,” said Alexia Melendez Martineau, the policy manager at Plug-In America, an EV consumer advocacy group.Bringing power to people is one such solution. In Hoboken, New Jersey, Volta is working with the city to create a streetside charging network. “The network will be within a five-minute walk of every resident,” said Lipsher. “Hopefully this is a way for us to really import it to cities who believe public EV charging infrastructure on the street is important.” Similarly, in parts of Los Angeles – as in Berlin and London – drivers can get a charge from a street lamp.And there may be new technologies that could help, exciting experts and EV enthusiasts alike. That could include the roads themselves charging EVs through a magnetizable concrete technology being piloted in Indiana and Detroit. And bidirectional charging, where, similar to solar panels, drivers can put their electricity back into the grid – or perhaps even to another EV, through what’s known as electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Nissan approved the technology for their Leaf model this month.Prochazka said he imagined a future where cities rely on excess EV charge when energy demand spikes, rather than polluting peaker plants that are currently turned on to boost supply. “We haven’t even scratched the surface on the opportunities that are gonna exist once we get bidirectional happening,” said Prochazka.Experts hope these advances will help bridge the gap in historically disconnected areas, such as rural communities and communities of color. But first, planners have to listen: although extensive community engagement trials have been praised in states such as Arizona, the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter in Indiana accused the state’s draft plan of excluding Black communities.“The more the community has input on where these chargers go, how they’re used and how they’re designed,” said Melendez Martineau, “the better they’re going to serve the community.”Still, the US seems significantly more poised to electrify now than it did six months ago, says Dale Hall, a senior researcher who focuses on EVs at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).He says that the private sector, which is behind much of the charging infrastructure, is moving ahead with clear signals of support from the public sector. Stronger local policies or cutting-edge technology will only help dictate the speed of that transition, Hall added.He thinks the Biden administration’s goal for chargers is achievable. “The business case is just going to keep getting better.”TopicsElectric, hybrid and low-emission carsBiden administrationUS politicsClimate crisisAutomotive industrynewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A powerful solution’: activists push to make ecocide an international crime

      by

      ‘A powerful solution’: activists push to make ecocide an international crimeMovement aims to make the mass damage and destruction of ecosystems a prosecutable, international crime against peace California winemaker Julia Jackson has long grasped the threats posed by the ongoing global climate change crisis, from more intense wildfires and hurricanes to rising sea levels. But for her, those ideas crossed over from the abstract to the tangible when her home was razed by the Kincade wildfire that devastated her native Sonoma county in 2019.“I lost everything – all my belongings,” Jackson said. “It shook me to my core.”But Jackson didn’t just use the resources she’s accumulated through her second-generation proprietorship of the US’s ninth-largest wine company, Jackson Family Wines, to rebuild her life following that disaster. She’s since signed on to lead the US chapter of a global movement to make the mass damage and destruction of ecosystems a prosecutable, international crime against peace known as ecocide.Jackson and her compatriots in Stop Ecocide spent the last week in New York City, meeting with dignitaries participating in Climate Week events as well as the United Nations’ General Assembly. They also marched from Foley Square to Battery Park in Manhattan in one of 450 strike demonstrations planned worldwide on 23 September as part of the Fridays for Future movement, which demands climate reparations and justice.Among other things, they urged voters to cast ballots in the US’s upcoming midterm elections in favor of candidates who are against things like deforestation and want to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which are some of the factors contributing to global warming and its effects: longer-lasting wildfires, more potent hurricanes and coastal erosion.Yet topping the group’s list of demands was for countries across the world to recognize ecocide as an offense against peace – carrying fines and even prison time – through the UN’s international criminal court.Jackson was quick to point out recently that Stop Ecocide doesn’t want to see every day, working class car drivers or frequent airline passengers be charged as international criminals and hauled into the same court which prosecutes genocide and wartime atrocities. They just want an ecocide charge to be an arrow in the quiver of those trying to rein in government-level policymakers whose agendas are exacerbating the climate crisis.As others have done over the years, Jackson – who also leads the climate-focused nonprofit Grounded – singled out the Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro as an ideal candidate to be prosecuted for ecocide because of the accelerated rate at which the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed under his administration.Bolsonaro, among other things, has eliminated environmental protection programs meant to shield the Amazon, which absorbs greenhouse gases and is an important line of defense against global warming. He has also sought to open indigenous reservations – along with other protected lands – to mining and agricultural business ventures, exacerbating harmful emissions.“It’s not chopping down one tree” that ecocide would aim to criminalize, Jackson said. “It’s severe mass destruction of the earth.”There are hurdles, including procedural ones, for the movement to overcome. Two-thirds of the countries recognizing the UN’s international criminal court would need to approve adding ecocide as an offense.That translates to a total of more than 80 countries whose approval is required, and even then nations opposed to ratifying it could limit its enforcement over their territories and citizens.Nonetheless, Jackson estimates about two dozen countries at this point have expressed a recorded interest in the concept of classifying ecocide as an international crime, including the United Kingdom, Spain, Iceland, France, Mexico and Chile.She hopes the movement’s momentum only continues building from there, especially after the last week.As the executive director of the global Stop Ecocide movement, Jojo Mehta, put it in a statement: “We have to … prevent mass damage and destruction of the living world … by recognizing it as the crime we all know it to be.“Ecocide law is a powerful solution to protect nature, climate and our future while providing a guiding legal framework for positive change.”TopicsEnvironmentUnited NationsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Schumer and Manchin’s ‘dirty side deal’ to fast-track pipelines faces backlash

      by

      Schumer and Manchin’s ‘dirty side deal’ to fast-track pipelines faces backlashScientists and environmental groups call proposed legislation a ‘giveaway’ to fossil fuel industry that will gut protections Scientists, health experts and environmental groups have condemned new legislation negotiated in secret by the fossil-fuel-friendly Democratic senator Joe Manchin and the Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, which will fast-track major energy projects by gutting clean water and environmental protections.Senator Joe Manchin unveils bill that would expedite federal energy projectsRead moreThe permitting bill published on Wednesday was the result of a deal between Manchin and Democratic leaders, which secured the West Virginia senator’s vote for Joe Biden’s historic climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, which Manchin held up for months.The bill mandates all permits for the Mountain Valley pipeline (MVP), a project long delayed by environmental violations and judicial rulings, be issued within 30 days of passage and strips away virtually any scope for judicial review.Democratic leaders want to push through Manchin’s bill without debate or analysis, and are expected to attach the legislation to a funding measure Congress must pass before 1 October.Energy industry associations have widely welcomed the reforms but opposition from Democrats and Republicans could scupper the deal.Critics say the bill is a giveaway to the fossil fuel lobby, paving the way for oil and gas production that will stop the US meeting its obligations to cut greenhouse gases and lead to further environmental injustices for people of color, Indigenous communities and low-income areas. It slashes judicial and state powers and oversight, handing Washington greater control over major projects.“This is not permitting reform,” said the Greenpeace USA co-executive director Ebony Twilley Martin. “This is permitting a giveaway that benefits those who continue to line their pockets at the expense of those affected by climate disasters. Our country cannot afford any new oil, gas or coal projects if we’re going to avoid climate catastrophe.”On Thursday, more than 400 scientists, doctors and nurses delivered a letter imploring Schumer and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to reject the deal. “The scientific consensus is now crystal clear … fossil fuel projects carry enormous risks to public health … we need to leave oil, gas and coal in the ground and turn off the spigot of carbon pouring into the air.”Jennifer K Falcon, an Indigenous environmentalist from the Ikiya Collective, said: “Our communities have already lost so much from environmental racism but there is so much to save. [They] are not sacrifice zones for corrupt politicians like Manchin and Schumer who benefit from big oil’s windfall profits.“The science is clear about the worsening climate crisis. We have no time to waste on dirty side deals.”Manchin has received more campaign contributions from fossil fuel industries than any other lawmaker this election cycle, according to Open Secrets.The legislative side deal requires Biden to designate at least 25 energy projects of strategic national importance for federal review within 90 days of passage. The projects must include at least five that produce, process, transport or store fossil fuels or biofuels, as well as six that are not fossil fuels and four mining projects.The bill mandates a two-year limit on environmental reviews for major projects – regardless of their complexity and potential for harming the environment, water supplies and human health.According to Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, the bill contains the most significant loss of protections under the bedrock National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa) and the Clean Water Act since at least the last Bush administration, when Republicans had full control of Congress.“Any member of Congress who claims this disastrous legislation is vital for ramping up renewables either doesn’t understand or is ignoring the enormous fossil fuel giveaways at stake,” Hartl said.The bill was negotiated under a cloak of secrecy. Passage through the Senate is far from assured. A small group of progressive Democrats are looking to separate Manchin’s legislation from the stopgap funding bill, so they can vote against the permitting bill without voting to shut down the government.Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon has organised a letter to Schumer, with the support of Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont – a move that mirrors a similar plea by 77 House progressives earlier this month.The letter, which was leaked to Politico, states: “We have heard extensive concerns from the environmental justice community regarding the proposed permitting reforms and are writing to convey the importance of those concerns, and to let you know that we share them.”On Tuesday, Schumer said he planned to add permitting reform to the spending bill and “get it done”.But Republicans who want more radical regulatory and permitting reforms may also vote against the bill, which requires 60 votes to move to the House. Earlier this month, 46 Republicans signed on to an alternative permitting bill introduced by the other West Virginian senator, Shelley Moore Capito.Schumer’s decision to capitulate to Manchin has angered progressives.Manchin agreed to back his party’s historic climate legislation before the midterm elections but only after negotiating a side deal to fast-track the MVP, a shale gas pipeline which would stretch 303 miles across the Appalachian mountains from north-western West Virginia to southern Virginia.Before construction was suspended, the MVP had produced more than 350 water quality violations. Manchin’s bill exempts the MVP from the Endangered Species Act, which experts say will push two species – the Roanoke logperch and the candy darter – much closer toward extinction.On Wednesday, the Democratic senator Tim Kaine, of Virginia, said he could not support the “highly unusual provisions” regarding the MVP which “eliminate any judicial review”. Kaine said he had been excluded from talks, even though 100 miles of the pipeline would run through his state.Raúl Grijalva, chair of the House natural resources committee, said: “These dangerous permitting shortcuts have been on industry wishlists for years. And now they’ve added the Mountain Valley pipeline approval as the rotten cherry on top of the pile.“The very fact that this fossil fuel brainchild is being force-fed into must-pass government funding speaks to its unpopularity. My colleagues and I don’t want this. The communities that are already hit hardest by the fossil fuel industry’s messes certainly don’t want or deserve this. Even Republicans don’t want this. Right now, our focus should be on keeping the government open, not destructive, unrelated riders.”In favor of the bill Gregory Wetstone, chief executive of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said it “includes provisions that will help streamline the transmission approval process, improving our ability to meet our nation’s decarbonisation goals”.Heather Zichal, chief executive of the American Clean Power Association, said: “Our current permitting system is overly cumbersome and mired in delays, hamstringing our ability to grow the clean energy economy.”TopicsUS SenateFossil fuelsOil (Environment)Gas (Environment)Oil (Business)Gas (Business)Joe ManchinnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Senator Joe Manchin unveils bill that would expedite federal energy projects

      by

      Senator Joe Manchin unveils bill that would expedite federal energy projectsThe centrist Democrat believes he has votes to pass the measure, which has met with resistance from the left The US senator Joe Manchin released an energy permitting bill on Wednesday to speed up fossil fuel and clean energy projects.The bill is expected to be attached to a measure to temporarily fund the government that Congress must pass before 1 October. The legislation would require the federal government to issue permits for Equitrans Midstream Corp’s long-delayed $6.6bn Mountain Valley Pipeline to take natural gas between West Virginia, Manchin’s home state, and Virginia.The wider funding bill needs approval of the House and Senate and to be signed by Joe Biden to become law. Manchin’s staff told reporters that he believed the funding bill will would get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate with the permitting measure attached.The permitting measure from Manchin, a centrist Democrat and an important swing vote in the 50-50 Senate, would require Biden to designate 25 energy projects of strategic national importance for speedy federal review.The USelectricity grid needs expansion and fixes as some of its major transmission lines are 50 years old. Improving transmission lines would help renewable projects like wind and solar farms in rural areas get clean power to cities.Biden’s landmark climate and spending bill – what’s in it, and what got cut?Read moreThe bill also sets a two-year target for environmental reviews on energy projects that need to be completed by more than one federal agency.Progressive lawmakers and environmental groups have been concerned that the bill would speed fossil fuel projects while undermining US environmental laws. In the House of Representatives, 77 Democrats this month asked the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to keep the side deal out of the funding bill.Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, said after the bill was released he could not support its “highly unusual provisions” regarding Mountain Valley pipeline.Kaine said they “eliminate any judicial review” for key parts of the pipeline approval process and strip jurisdiction away from a US court of appeals for cases involving it. He said he had not been included in talks about the measure, even though 100 miles (160 km) of the pipeline would run through his state.While the bill would speed up the processes required by a bedrock US green law called the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates reviews of major projects, “it doesn’t amend the underlying statutes”, a member of Manchin’s staff told reporters in a call. Getting at least 10 Republican senators to support the measure could be complicated after Senator Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from Manchin’s state, issued her own bill this month more favorable to fossil fuels.Some Republicans were also concerned because Manchin voted for Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which contained $369 bn for climate and energy security.Speaking about the unwillingness of some Republicans to support permitting, Manchin said on Tuesday: “If they’re willing to say they’re going to shut down the government because of a personal attack on me, or by not looking at the good of the country, that is what makes people sick about politics.”TopicsJoe ManchinUS SenateEnergyJoe BidenFossil fuelsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Fury over ‘forever chemicals’ as US states spread toxic sewage sludge

      by

      Fury over ‘forever chemicals’ as US states spread toxic sewage sludgeRegulators allow states to continue spreading sludge even as PFAS-tainted substance has ruined livelihoods and poisoned water States are continuing to allow sewage sludge to be spread on cropland as fertilizer and in some cases increasing the amount spread, even as the PFAS-tainted substance has ruined farmers’ livelihoods, poisoned water supplies, contaminated food and put the public’s health at risk.Michigan and Maine are the only two states in the US to widely test sludge, and regulators in each say contamination was found in all tested samples. Still, in recent months, officials in Virginia increased the amount of sludge permitted to be spread on farmland without testing for PFAS, while Alabama regulators have rejected residents’ and environmental groups’ pleas to test sludge for the chemicals.Similar fights are playing out in other states, including Georgia and Oklahoma, and public health advocates fear regulators are ignoring the dangers to appease the waste management industry.“We’re in an absolute mess, and the government knows we’re in a mess, but it seems like they don’t know what to do,” said Julie Lay, an Alabama agricultural worker who has organized residents to try to stop sludge from being spread in the state. “It’s terrible.”‘I don’t know how we’ll survive’: the farmers facing ruin in America’s ‘forever chemicals’ crisisRead moreSewage sludge is a byproduct of the water treatment process that’s left over when water is separated from human and industrial waste discharged into the nation’s sewer systems. The Sierra Club has characterized sludge as “the most pollutant-rich manmade substance on Earth”.The biosolid treatment process doesn’t remove PFAS, or “forever chemicals”, a widely used toxic compound – typically used to make thousands of products resist water, stain and heat – that experts say contaminates all sludge. The chemicals can easily move from sludge into soil, crops, cattle, and nearby drinking water sources. Regulators in Michigan and Maine’s testing programs have identified widespread contamination in fields where the substance was spread, as well as in crops, beef, groundwater and even farmers’ blood.Maine last year became the first state to ban the practice after contamination harmed its agricultural industry. Similarly, Michigan officials and environmental groups have uncovered PFAS contamination on dozens of farms, forcing one to shut down and raising questions about safety of the state’s farmland. The state enacted a plan to identify farms at risk for the highest levels of contamination, prohibited some wastewater treatment plants from selling sludge, and forced polluters to stop discharging PFAS into sewers.But other states are taking a different approach. In July, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) gave the green light to a permit request by waste management giant Synagro to spread sludge across nearly 5,400 acres of farmland in King William county, just north of Richmond. The request followed a 2013 permit allowing the company to spread on 7,155 acres in the county, and the DEQ is now considering a new permit request for a further 1,900 acres, said Tyla Matteson, chair of the York River Group of the Sierra Club.About 80 local residents and environmental groups objected to the most recent Synagro permit, and called for a public hearing. Among other concerns, they say sludge spread on neighboring fields has sickened them, emits a noxious stench, and contaminates their drinking water, soil and food with PFAS.But state regulators said Synagro is complying with all state and federal laws, denied the request for a public hearing, and ignored demands for PFAS testing. Synagro did not immediately respond to requests for comment.“We are disgusted, because we are slowly being poisoned,” Matteson said. “Virginia needs to have a backbone and do what other states are doing.”In a statement to the Guardian, the Virginia DEQ said it was waiting for the Environmental Protection Agency to finish analyzing the risk of PFAS contamination in biosolids before it will consider testing for the chemicals. No limits on PFAS in sludge or food have been established at the state or federal level.A spokesperson cited a study that suggested PFAS does not build up on farmland at high levels, and said the discovery of widespread contamination in Michigan and Maine may be an “outlier”. The Virginia DEQ’s claim contradicts Michigan regulators’ study that found a direct correlation between biosolid use and PFAS buildup on farms.In response to several years of resident complaints about odor, pollution, PFAS contamination and other issues, regulators with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management in June tightened some rules around how sludge and other waste products spread on agricultural land are applied and stored.But the state ignored calls for sludge to be tested for PFAS, and did not respond to a request for comment from the Guardian. A refusal to test amid ongoing crises in Michigan and Maine is “worrying”, said Jack West, policy and advocacy director for Alabama Rivers Alliance, which has petitioned the state to test for PFAS.“We want to eat food grown in our state, but it’s concerning to go to grocery stores or farmers markets and not know if the food that we’re buying was grown in soils that had sludge applied to them when nobody is testing the sludge for PFAS,” he said.Absent meaningful help from state regulators, public health advocates plan to push legislators to take up the issue in the next session, West said.In northern Alabama, Julie Lay and her neighbors have asked a judge to order a nearby farm to stop spreading sludge, and are attempting to educate farmers about the risks. Sludge spread on a nearby field may be poisoning an aquifer from which at least 30,000 residents draw water, Lay said. She equated the sludge’s stench to that of decomposing bodies, and said the substance has sickened her neighbors.Unwitting farmers are the victim of industry players like Synagro that push the cheap biosolids, Lay added.“What they’re doing is evil,” Lay said. “[Synagro has] no clue what’s in sludge as long as toilets are flushed into the sewers and industry waste is coming down, too.”In Virginia, Matteson said farmers and residents don’t have any good options for stopping sludge permits from being approved, but added they will continue to oppose new permit requests and raise awareness.“I’m a believer in people speaking out,” she said. “I’m a believer in never quitting.”TopicsEnvironmentOur unequal earthUS politicsPFASnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Criticism intensifies after big oil admits ‘gaslighting’ public over green aims

      by

      Criticism intensifies after big oil admits ‘gaslighting’ public over green aimsFury as ‘explosive’ files reveal largest oil companies contradicted public statements and wished bedbugs upon critical activists Criticism in the US of the oil industry’s obfuscation over the climate crisis is intensifying after internal documents showed companies attempted to distance themselves from agreed climate goals, admitted “gaslighting” the public over purported efforts to go green, and even wished critical activists be infested by bedbugs.The communications were unveiled as part of a congressional hearing held in Washington DC, where an investigation into the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis produced documents obtained from the oil giants ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they wish bedbugs on you, then you win,” said Varshini Prakash, executive director of Sunrise. The organization accused Shell of a “legacy of violence and of ignoring the wellbeing of communities across the globe”.Pakistan floods ‘made up to 50% worse by global heating’Read moreThe revelations are part of the third hearing held by the House committee on oversight and reform on how the fossil-fuel industry sought to hamper the effort to address the climate crisis. Democrats, who lead the committee, called top executives from the oil companies to testify last year, in which they denied they had misled the public.The new documents are “the latest evidence that oil giants keep lying about their commitments to help solve the climate crisis and should never be trusted by policymakers”, said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity.“If there is one thing consistent about the oil and gas majors’ position on climate, it’s their utter inability to tell the truth,” Wiles added.Ro Khanna, co-chair of the committee, said the new documents are “explosive” and show a “culture of intense disrespect” to climate activists. The oil giants’ “climate pledges rely on unproven technology, accounting gimmicks and misleading language to hide the reality,” he added. “Big oil executives are laughing at the people trying to protect our planet while they knowingly work to destroy it.”Several of the emails and memos within the released trove of documents appear to show executives, staffers and lobbyists internally contradicting public pronouncements by their companies to act on lowering planet-heating emissions.Exxon, which recently announced profits of $17.9bn for the three months until June, more than three times what it earned in the same quarter a year ago, has publicly said it is “committed” to the Paris climate agreement to curb global heating.However, the documents released by the Democratic-led House committee include an August 2019 memo by an executive to Darren Woods, Exxon’s chief executive, on the need to “remove reference to Paris agreement” from an announcement by an industry lobby group that Exxon is a member of.Such a statement “could create a potential commitment to advocate on the Paris agreement goals”, the executive warned. A separate note on a 2018 Exxon presentation also admitted that biofuels derived from algae was still “decades away from the scale we need”, despite the company long promoting it as a way to lower emissions.Shell, meanwhile, has committed to becoming a “net zero” emissions business by 2050, and yet the documents show a private 2020 communication in which employees are urged to never “imply, suggest, or leave it open for possible misinterpretation that (net zero) is a Shell goal or target”. Shell has “no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio” over the next 10 to 20 years, it added.A Shell tweet posted in 2020 asking others what they could do to reduce emissions resulted in a torrent of ridicule from Twitter users. A communications executive for the company wrote privately that criticism that the tweet was “gaslighting” the public was “not totally without merit” and that the tweet was “pretty tone deaf”. He added: “We are, after all, in a tweet like this implying others need to sacrifice without focusing on ourselves.”The UK-headquartered oil company, which in July announced a record $11.5bn quarterly profit, also poured scorn on climate activists, with a communications specialist at the company emailing in 2019 that he wished “bedbugs” upon the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led US climate group.Previous releases of internal documents have shown that the oil industry knew of the devastating impact of climate change but chose instead to downplay and even deny these findings publicly in order to maintain their business model.The hearings have been attacked by Republicans as a method to “wage war on America’s energy producers” and the oil companies involved have complained that the documents don’t show the full picture of their stance on the climate crisis.Exxon supports the 2015 Paris climate deal, a spokesman said, claiming that the “selective publication of dated emails, without context, is a deliberate attempt to generate a narrative that does not reflect the commitment of ExxonMobil and its employees, to address climate change and play a leading role in the transition to a net-zero future.”A Shell spokesman, meanwhile, said the committee chose to highlight only a small handful of the nearly half a million pages it provided to the body on its “extensive efforts” to take part in the energy transition.“Within that pursuit are challenging internal and external discussions that signal Shell’s intent to form partnerships and share pathways we deem critical to becoming a net-zero energy business,” he said.TopicsClimate crisisUS politicsFossil fuelsOilnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans planning legal assault on climate disclosure rules for public companies

      by

      Republicans planning legal assault on climate disclosure rules for public companiesThe SEC’s proposed new rules, which would require public corporations to disclose climate-related information, have been critized by industry groups Republican officials and corporate lobby groups are teeing up a multi-pronged legal assault on the Biden administration’s effort to help investors hold public corporations accountable for their carbon emissions and other climate change risks.The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed new climate disclosure rules in March that would require public companies to report the climate-related impact and risks to their businesses.The regulator has since received more than 14,500 comments. Submissions from 24 Republican state attorneys general and some of the country’s most powerful industry associations suggest that these groups are preparing a series of legal challenges after the regulation is finalized, which could happen as soon as next month.“I would expect a litigation challenge to be brought immediately once the final rule is released,” Jill E Fisch, a business law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Guardian. “They probably have their complaints already drafted, and they’re ready to file.”Some opponents claim that requiring companies to publish climate-related information infringes on their right to free speech. Others (often the same ones) say that the rule exceeds the SEC’s legal authority.Both critiques feature prominently in comments from the Republican attorneys general and the US Chamber of Commerce, which spent more than $35m lobbying the federal government in the first half of 2022, according to OpenSecrets. The Republican letter warns that if the new disclosure requirements are finalized, “capitalism will fall by the wayside.”The SEC proposal does not establish environmental policy or require that companies take any climate-related actions other than making more information publicly available.The free speech and legal authority objections have been met with profound skepticism from legal experts and former SEC officials.In a letter to the commission, John Coates, a Harvard Law School professor and former SEC general counsel, said that instead of challenging the climate disclosure rule on its merits, “critics have resorted to mischaracterizing the proposal, and inventing their own, fictional rule”.How a top US business lobby promised climate action – but worked to block effortsRead moreIn another letter, a bipartisan group of former SEC officials, legal scholars, securities law experts and corporate lawyers noted that “the SEC has mandated environmental disclosure at least as far back as the Nixon administration.” Even though not all of the letter’s authors support the substance of the rulemaking, they agreed without exception “that there is no legal basis to doubt the commission’s authority to mandate public-company disclosures related to climate.”“The SEC is promulgating a disclosure rule that’s square within its wheelhouse,” said Fisch, of the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s exactly what Congress told it to do, and which it has done consistently since 1933.”But the legal authority and free speech charges, however tenuous, are not the only grounds on which opponents of the climate disclosure rule have hinted at litigation.In a recent analysis, the Guardian revealed how the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group for CEOs of America’s biggest companies, opposes a key provision of the SEC proposal that would require some large companies to measure and report emissions generated throughout their supply chains – known as Scope 3 emissions.Chart showing the difference between Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.In addition to challenging the substance of the rule, the Business Roundtable also rejects the SEC’s estimate of how much it would cost businesses to comply. (The organization said in an email that its comments “[are] focused on identifying challenges in the proposed rule in the hopes the SEC will address them.”)The SEC projects that companies will face compliance costs of $490,000 to $640,000 in the first year of climate reporting, and less in subsequent years. (By comparison, a 2019 study predicted that climate change could cost firms around $1trn over the following five years.)A detailed assessment from Shivaram Rajgopal, Columbia Business School professor of accounting and auditing, concluded that even without taking into account any benefits from the climate disclosure rule, the costs would prove negligible for most firms. “The loss in market capitalization, if any, from compliance costs is likely too tiny for any outsider to detect and to separate from daily volatility in the stock returns for unrelated reasons,” Rajgopal wrote.Last quarter ExxonMobil earned nearly $18bn in profit, the largest quarterly earning in the company’s history. Over the same period, General Motors generated more than $35bn in revenue, while Walmart reported revenues of nearly $153bn. The Economist recently reported that after-tax corporate profits as a share of the US economy have surged to their highest level since the 1940s.ExxonMobil, GM and Walmart are members of the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. According to a report from the nonprofit Center for Political Accountability, during the 2020 election cycle each company donated at least $125,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which supports the political campaigns and legal agendas of GOP attorneys general across the country.In their letter to the SEC, 24 of these attorneys general called the commission’s cost-benefit analysis “woefully unfinished” and warned that finalizing the climate disclosure rules “will undoubtedly draw legal challenges”.The Business Roundtable, meanwhile, described the analysis as “fundamentally flawed” and said that its member companies “believe [the costs of the rule] will be orders of magnitude more than what the SEC estimates.” The chamber issued a similar condemnation, writing in its voluminous submission that the SEC’s “economic analysis … is incomplete and substantially underestimates compliance costs.”Asked to comment, neither organization responded specifically to questions of whether it planned to pursue legal action against the SEC if the final rule is not changed significantly.Trade associations might be expected to instinctively oppose new regulations, but in the past such statements have proven to be more than routine political rhetoric. On multiple occasions in response to prior rulemakings, the chamber and the Business Roundtable have successfully sued the SEC on cost-benefit grounds.In 2011, following a suit filed by the two groups, the DC circuit struck down an SEC rule that would have made it easier for shareholders to consider new board members for public companies, deeming the rule “arbitrary and capricious”. The decision in Business Roundtable v SEC said that the commission “neglected its statutory obligation to assess the economic consequences of its rule”, citing, among other figures, a cost estimate submitted to the SEC by the chamber.In their comments on the climate disclosure proposal, the Republican attorneys general and the chamber each cite Business Roundtable v SEC in claiming that the SEC’s cost-benefit analysis is flawed.The Republican letter is co-led by Patrick Morrisey, the West Virginia attorney general who recently helmed a successful legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).In West Virginia v EPA, the Supreme Court endorsed a relatively novel legal notion – the so-called “major questions doctrine” – to halt an EPA effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explained, “Under this doctrine, when a regulation crosses a certain threshold of being ‘major’ – a line which remains poorly defined – the court rejects the regulation unless it has been clearly authorized by Congress.”The major questions doctrine looks to be the basis of Morrisey’s campaign against the climate disclosure rule. In a July TV appearance, Morrisey said that the Biden administration “can’t get the congressional majorities behind their policies, so they’re trying to resort to the [regulations]. But as we saw with West Virginia v EPA, I don’t think the courts are going to let that happen.” (Morrisey’s office did not respond to emails requesting comment.)“I don’t think there’s any natural reason to infer that the court’s decision [in West Virginia v EPA] would have any implications for the SEC,” said the University of Pennsylvania’s Jill Fisch. “At the same time, you can read the West Virginia case, and you can say: ‘This is part of the Supreme Court, and the federal courts generally, taking a different look at government agencies. This is cutting back on the fourth branch, on the power of the administrative state.’ And if that’s true, in theory, everything is up for grabs.”“Historical legal precedent suggests that the SEC has a pretty strong case,” Tyler Gellasch, the president and CEO of the nonprofit Healthy Markets Association, said. “But if you’re the Business Roundtable, you don’t necessarily need historical legal precedent on your side. You just need a court today. And that seems far more likely today than it would have been at any time in modern history.”TopicsClimate crisisBiden administrationSecurities and Exchange CommissionUS politicsReuse this content More