Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      Clean Energy Not So Clean, Time to Restrict Consumption Too

      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

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Ohio is facing a chemical disaster. Biden must declare a state of emergency | Steven Donziger

      by

      Ohio is facing a chemical disaster. Biden must declare a state of emergencySteven DonzigerA train derailed and flooded a town with cancer-causing chemicals. But something larger, and more troubling, is at work Earlier this month, a train carrying toxic chemicals derailed in eastern Ohio, exploding into flames and unleashing a spume of chemical smoke on the small town of East Palestine. The train’s freight included vinyl chloride, a chemical known to cause liver cancer and other sicknesses.In response, government and railway officials decided to “burn off” the vinyl chloride – effectively dumping 1.1m lbs of the chemical into the local community, according to a new lawsuit. Officials said that they did so to avert the vinyl chloride from exploding; in contrast, an attorney for the lawsuit has said that the decision was cheap, unsafe, and more interested in restoring train service and appeasing railway shareholders than protecting local residents.East Palestine residents are reporting headaches, sore throats, and burning eyes; dead pets and chickens; and thousands of fish corpses in nearby waterways. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources has said that approximately 3,500 fish, of 12 different species, died across 7.5 miles.In other words, Norfolk Southern’s “controlled burn” may have caused a mushroom cloud of poison to spread over eastern Ohio. The situation demands immediate action from President Biden. Without it, thousands of people – including children and the elderly – and animals will be at continued risk of premature death. Biden must declare a state of emergency and create an independent taskforce to take over the remediation of this eco-catastrophe.Norfolk Southern “basically nuked a town with chemicals” to “get a railroad open”, a former hazmat technician told a local news outlet. It certainly seems like a company with a $55bn market cap chose to sacrifice the health of thousands of people to keep its profits flowing.We need to try to understand how this happened.For one thing, even the initial derailment wasn’t necessarily just an “accident.” It was a function of our out-of-control corporate culture in the United States, which has neutered effective government oversight of hazardous activities – including the rail transport of highly flammable and carcinogenic chemicals. The EPA’s response thus far has been to send a feckless letter to Norfolk Southern pleading it pay for clean-up.That’s not going to cut it. We need to do better.In terms of the sheer quantity of carcinogenic chemicals being released over an area of hundreds of miles, the catastrophe in Ohio is a major, unprecedented public health crisis. Biden must publicly recognize it as such and act to protect the people who live in the affected area. This requires a rapid, all-of-government response overseen not by the EPA but by independent scientists and taskmasters who will be immune to pressure from industry. This sort of taskforce must be willing to threaten the suspension or even nationalization of Norfolk Southern if it does not cooperate.After battling an oil company over the discharge of toxic waste in the Amazon, I can say with some assurance that Norfolk’s response to this crisis so far comes from a time-tested corporate strategy: manage the situation as a public relations challenge and not the humanitarian and ecological catastrophe that it is. Norfolk’s leadership bailed out of a townhall meeting this week, blaming security risks, and has refused to face residents to answer questions.That’s certainly cowardice. But it is also a function of the fact that industry does not respect the power of government to regulate it. Government is supposed to protect us from the excesses of industry; instead it often acts like its partner.If the consequences of not attending had included a sufficient threat to his bottom line, Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw – who earns a reported $4.5m a year – probably would have been at the town hall. And if the government had been doing its job in the first place, there is a good chance this accident would not have happened. During the Trump administration, Norfolk successfully lobbied to repeal a safety rule requiring new electronic brakes. The train was also dangerously long – with only two crew members, and a trainee, supervising its 1.7-mile length.I’m not a scientist. But I know a fair amount about toxicology and how the world’s polluters use a playbook invented by law firms and consultants to downplay the impact of major disasters and lower their legal liability. Local and state officials – who may be under enormous pressure from these industries in the form of campaign donations – often work alongside polluters to “manage” disasters’ political fallout.It’s a one-two punch of disaster mismanagement that is playing out now, in Ohio, with awful consequences for people and the planet. Here are three takeaways about what is really happening and what needs to be done:Be skeptical of claims by authorities that it is “safe” to return to the area. The EPA and state environmental officials have been opaque about what chemicals are being tested for and by what methods, and news reports haven’t indicated any plans so far for any sort of environmental restoration. We also do not know what new chemical compounds the so-called “controlled” burn may have created, and whether tests have been run for those chemicals. In fact, test results have not even been released publicly.Bottom line: there is no transparent scientific or public health basis for declaring the area safe. Until there is, I wouldn’t go near the site of the disaster.The EPA can help, but cannot oversee a clean-up. Corporate lobbying in recent years has undermined the ability of the EPA to regulate industry. Under the Trump administration, chemical lobbyists took over important jobs on the inside and the agency is severely understaffed. Further, the EPA is required by Congress to “balance” industry needs with public safety. It is not focused solely on protecting the community. It sent a letter to Norfolk pleading with it to pay for a cleanup; a real government would have sent a disaster management team to Ohio to take over.Longer-term, the railway industry needs to be revamped. We have civil-war era braking systems on trains carrying deadly chemicals though our communities. Railway unions and whistleblowers have repeatedly raised safety concerns only to be ignored. A new industry concept called “precision scheduling” has pushed trains and workers to the breaking point to extract greater profits for shareholders, which include some of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street.Our government institutions as currently constituted are unable or unwilling to respond effectively to industrial disasters. It is preposterous for any ostensibly advanced country to let a massive chemical polluter clean up a mess like this on its own terms and without effective oversight. This is not an isolated incident. Unless we demand accountability, it will happen again.President Biden: the ball is in your court.
      Steven Donziger is a human rights and environmental lawyer, a Guardian US columnist, and the creator of the Substack newsletter Donziger on Justice
      TopicsPollutionOpinionOhioUS politicsJoe BidenBiden administrationUS Environmental Protection AgencycommentReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Atlanta shooting part of alarming US crackdown on environmental defenders

      by

      Atlanta shooting part of alarming US crackdown on environmental defenders Twenty states have enacted laws restricting rights to peaceful protest, as environmentalists are increasingly criminalized The shooting of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, believed to be the first environmental defender killed in the US, is the culmination of a dangerous escalation in the criminalization and repression of those who seek to protect natural resources in America, campaigners have warned.The death of the 26-year-old, who was also known as “Tortuguita” or “Little Turtle,” in a forest on the fringes of Atlanta was the sort of deadly act “people who have been paying attention to this issue assumed would happen soon, with no sense of joy”, according to Marla Marcum, founder of the Climate Disobedience Center, which supports climate protesters.“The police and the state have a callousness towards the lives of those on the frontline of environmental causes and I hope this is a wake-up call to those who didn’t know that,” she said. “I hope people take the time to notice what’s going on, because if this trajectory of criminalization continues, no one is going to be safe.”Terán was shot and killed by police as officers from an assortment of forces swept through the small camp of a loose-knit activist group defending the urban forest on 18 January. Police say Terán shot and injured a Georgia state trooper with a handgun first, but the Georgia bureau of investigation has said the shooting was not recorded on body cameras, prompting calls for an independent investigation.Locator map of Atlanta, Georgia with South River forest colored in red.State and local authorities have reacted aggressively to protesters trying to stop 85 acres of the forest being torn down to build a sprawling, state-of-the-art, $90m police training complex – dubbed “Cop City” by opponents as it will feature a mock city for “tactical” exercises.Nineteen forest defenders have been charged with felonies under Georgia’s domestic terrorism laws since December. Authorities have detailed the alleged acts of so-called terror by nine of those facing charges, which include trespassing, constructing a campsite and sitting in the trees of the woodland, a 300-acre wedge of land that once contained a prison farm but is now one of the largest urban forests in the US.Brian Kemp, the Georgia governor who declared a state of emergency and mobilized 1,000 members of the national guard over the protests, has blamed “out-of-state rioters” and a “network of militant activists who have committed similar acts of domestic terrorism across the country” for the troubles.Georgia’s response to the protests follows an alarming pattern of environmental and land rights defenders across the US being threatened, arrested and charged with increasingly drastic crimes, including terrorism, for opposing oil and gas pipelines or the destruction of forests or waterways, advocates claim.‘Assassinated in cold blood’: activist killed protesting Georgia’s ‘Cop City’Read more“This was meant as a chilling deterrent, to show that the state can kill and jail environmental defenders with impunity. It reflects a trend towards escalation and violence to distract from the real issue of advancing corporate interests over lands,” said Nick Estes, author of Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance.The current crackdown on environmental and land rights defenders can be traced back to the aftermath of 9/11 and the expansion of the definition of terrorism which sparked a wave of arrests known as the “green scare” targeting so-called eco- terrorists.This then spurred the subsequent proliferation of state legislation criminalizing – or at least attempting to criminalize – all kinds of civil disobedience including Black Lives Matter protests and opposition to fossil fuel projects like gas pipelines, defined as critical infrastructure, essentially to protect business interests over environmental and Indigenous sovereignty concerns.“The criminalization of land and water protectors and Indigenous nations using critical infrastructure security laws can be traced back to the Patriot Act. This has contributed to the current escalation as it allows the definition of terrorism to be more vague and expansive, which is intended to have a chilling effect on peaceful protesters,” said Kai Bosworth, author of Pipeline Populism and assistant professor of geography at Virginia Commonwealth University.The 2016-17 uprising against the Dakota Access oil pipeline (DAPL), which cut through the Standing Rock reservation in North and South Dakota and threatened tribal lands, burial sites and water sources, sparked a brutal response by authorities that can be seen as a before and after in how environmental defenders are policed.Law enforcement used automatic rifles, sound cannons, concussion grenades and police dogs against protesters, leading to hundreds of injuries as personnel and equipment poured in from over 75 agencies across the country. Indigenous leaders and journalists were among hundreds of arrests – including 142 on a single day in October 2016 – with scores facing felony charges and hefty fines.Cartogram of the US, with the 20 states that have enacted laws restricting the right to protest peacefully highlighted in red.Since then, a total of 20 states have enacted laws that impose harsh penalties for impeding “critical infrastructure”, such as making trespass a felony offense, or have brought in vaguely defined domestic terrorism laws that have been used to target environmentalists and Indigenous communities. Overall, 45 states have considered legislation restricting peaceful protests, and seven currently have laws pending.These laws have “been successful in really tamping down dissent and sowing fear among people”, said Marcum. Much of this fear has been fueled by the labeling of protestors as “terrorists” by senior elected figures such as Kemp, according to Elly Page, senior legal advisor at the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, which has tracked the anti-protest bills.“We see autocrats around the world use rhetoric like that to clamp down on dissent,” Page said. “The widespread demonization of protestors we’ve seen from politicians who call them terrorists or a mob is incredibly harmful. I think that creates an environment where violence against protestors is not unlikely and that more of these tragedies will take place.”This lawyer should be world-famous for his battle with Chevron – but he’s in jail | Erin BrockovichRead moreMany of the states’ legislation shares language drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a rightwing group backed by fossil fuel companies.In Florida, South Dakota and Oklahoma, for example, a “riot” is considered to be any unauthorized action by three or more people, while in Florida, Oklahoma and Iowa drivers who injure protestors blocking traffic, a common tactic used by environmental activists, are given legal immunity.In Arkansas, an “act of terrorism” is considered to be anything that causes “substantial damage” to a public “monument”, which could include graffiti. Across 17 Republican-controlled states, protesters face up to 10 years in prison and million-dollar fines for offences.The broad application of these laws, as well as accompanying legislation that criminalize people and organizations that support allegedly dangerous protestors, “chill activism and make it riskier for people to be involved in their right to protest”, said Page.“Many of the laws have language so broad it makes constitutionally-protected speech illegal,” she said. “It gives authorities discretion to apply the law to an activity they don’t like … We know fossil fuel interests are promoting these sorts of laws.”As the criminalization of peaceful protesters has spread, so has the rollout of new fossil fuel projects projects under both Democrat and Republican administrations – despite the escalation of costly and destructive extreme weather events caused by the climate breakdown.“There have been no effective federal efforts to help protesters or defend against criminalization,” said Charmaine Chua, assistant professor of global studies at the University of California. “If you’ve been paying attention at the way cops indiscriminately kill people and the virulent antipathy towards protest movements trying to solve climate change, it’s hard to be surprised at Manuel’s death but still it does feel unprecedented.”Indigenous tribes tried to block a car battery mine. But the courts stood in the wayRead moreSabine von Mering, one of around 900 protestors who were arrested for opposing the Line 3 pipeline that moves oil through Minnesota, said she was “deeply shocked” to hear of Terán’s killing but that she hoped it will galvanize more people to get involved in climate activism. “Any criminalization of protest is an attack on our democracy,” said von Mering, an academic at Brandeis University.“At Line 3 there were several cases of police being extremely aggressive and violent, it was traumatizing to witness it and I’m an old white lady – I didn’t experience the worst of it. The charges were used to intimidate and quell protest.”To critics of the fossil fuel industry, the Line 3 protests are a prime example of its ability to shape the law enforcement that is increasingly cracking down on its opponents. In 2021 it emerged that Enbridge, the Canadian company behind the pipeline, reimbursed US police $2.4m for arresting and surveilling hundreds of Line 3 demonstrators. The payments covered officer training, police surveillance, wages, overtime, meals, hotels and equipment.Steven Donziger, an attorney who was embroiled in a long-running legal battle with Chevron on behalf of Indigenous people in Ecuador, said the payments are part of a “dangerous trend” of fossil fuel influence over the functions of government and the law.“As we get closer to tipping point of no return on climate change, the effort to silence advocacy to have clean energy transition is intensifying,” Donziger said. “To attack young people who are trying to preserve a forest with a military-style assault is totally inappropriate but is unfortunately a sad reflection of where the country has gone.“For weeks these people were called terrorists, which is a complete misuse of the word. The police have been conditioned to believe these people are terrorists and what do you do with terrorists? In the US you kill them. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”TopicsEnvironmental activismUS policingAtlantaGeorgiaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      Climate Change Is Now a Defense Matter

      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

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      What Jakarta Climate Change Lawsuit Means for the Future

      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

    • 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