Pollution

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      From Kremlin leak to sperm counts: our readers’ favourite stories of 2021

      by

      From Kremlin leak to sperm counts: our readers’ favourite stories of 2021 Here are 20 articles that may have helped convince people to support the Guardian’s journalismThe Guardian benefited from hundreds of thousands of acts of support from digital readers in 2021 – almost one for every minute of the year. Here we look at the articles from 2021 that had a big hand in convincing readers to support our open, independent journalism.Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House – Luke Harding, Julian Borger and Dan SabbaghExclusive leak reveals Moscow’s deliberations on how it might help Donald Trump win 2016 US presidential race‘We are witnessing a crime against humanity’ – Arundhati RoyThe author and activist plumbs the depths of India’s Covid catastrophe and finds much to reproach the prime minister, Narendra Modi, for‘I’m facing a prison sentence’: US Capitol rioters plead with Trump for pardons – Oliver MilmanThe past very quickly catches up with those who ransacked the seat of US democracyClimate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse – Damian CarringtonA shutdown of the Atlantic current circulation system would have catastrophic consequences around the worldAn Afghan woman in Kabul: ‘Now I have to burn everything I achieved’ – A Kabul residentAs the Taliban take the Afghan capital, one woman describes being “a victim of a war that men started”.Plummeting sperm counts, shrinking penises: toxic chemicals threaten humanity – Erin BrockovichA warning from the environmental advocate and author about the damage being wrought by toxic chemicalsPandora papers: biggest ever leak of offshore data exposes financial secrets of rich and powerful – Guardian investigations teamMillions of documents reveal deals and assets of more than 100 billionaires, 30 world leaders and 300 public officialsThe Hill We Climb: the poem that stole the inauguration show – Amanda GormanShe spoke, and millions listened, at Joe Biden’s inaugurationRates of Parkinson’s disease are exploding. A common chemical may be to blame – Adrienne MateiIs an epidemic on the horizon? And is an unpronounceable chemical compound to blame?Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our own destruction – George MonbiotThe Guardian columnist at his most incandescent‘Take it easy, nothing matters in the end’: William Shatner at 90, on love, loss and Leonard Nimoy – Hadley FreemanThe actor discusses longevity, tragedy, friendship, success and his Star Trek co-star‘Our biggest challenge? Lack of imagination’: the scientists turning the desert green – Steve RoseIn China, scientists have turned vast swathes of arid land into a lush oasis. Now a team of maverick engineers want to do the same to the SinaiOff-road, off-grid: the modern nomads wandering America’s back country – Stevie TrujilloAcross US public lands thousands of people are taking to van lifeThe greatest danger for the US isn’t China. It’s much closer to home – Robert ReichThe columnist and former secretary of labour warns of enemies withinThe rice of the sea: how a tiny grain could change the way humanity eats – Ashifa KassamCelebrated chef discovered something in the seagrass that could transform our understanding of the sea itself – as a vast gardenRevealed: leak uncovers global abuse of cyber-surveillance weapon – Guardian staffThe Guardian teams up with 16 media organisations around the world to investigate hacking software sold by the Israeli surveillance company NSO GroupBeware: Gaia may destroy humans before we destroy the Earth – James LovelockLegendary environmentalist argues that Covid-19 may well have been one attempt by the planet to protect itself, and that next time it may try harder with something even nastierThe Rosenbergs were executed for spying in 1953. Can their sons reveal the truth? – Hadley FreemanEthel and Julius Rosenberg were sent to the electric chair for being Soviet spies, but their sons have spent decades trying to clear their mother’s name. Are they close to a breakthrough?Out of thin air: the mystery of the man who fell from the sky – Sirin KaleWho was the stowaway who fell from the wheel well of a Boeing plane into a south London garden in the summer of 2019?The life and tragic death of John Eyers – a fitness fanatic who refused the vaccine – Sirin KaleThe 42-year-old did triathlons, bodybuilding and mountain climbing and became sceptical of the Covid jab. Then he contracted the virusIf these pieces move you to support our independent journalism into 2022, you can do so here:
      Make a contribution from just £1
      Become a digital subscriber and get something in return for your money
      Join as a Patron to fund us at a higher level
      TopicsRussiaInside the GuardianDonald TrumpVladimir PutinCoronavirusIndiaUS Capitol attackClimate crisisfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Lethal ‘forever chemicals’ taint our food, water and even blood. The EPA is stalling | David Bond

      by

      OpinionPollutionLethal ‘forever chemicals’ taint our food, water and even blood. The EPA is stallingDavid BondThere is no longer any population or place on earth untouched by PFAS contamination. We are living through a toxic experiment with no control group Sun 24 Oct 2021 06.31 EDTLast modified on Sun 24 Oct 2021 06.32 EDTThis week the EPA announced a new roadmap to research, restrict, and remediate PFAS – a group of industrial “forever chemicals” that have been linked to cancer and are found in our food, water, and even our blood. President Biden is requesting $10bn in the infrastructure bill to address PFAS. But this new attention still falls short of what’s required to confront an unprecedented crisis that affects the health of the entire United States and countless people across the world.EPA unveils new strategy to address US contamination of ‘forever’ chemicalsRead moreToday, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are everywhere we’ve thought to look for them. As engineered, these synthetic chemicals glide through air and water with ease, evade all natural processes of decay, and inflict debilitating injuries even at exceedingly low levels of exposure. The petrochemical industry has its fingerprints all over the ubiquity of PFAS, yet that very ubiquity is now being used as an excuse against doing anything about it. PFAS are becoming too toxic to fail.The EPA’s hyped national PFAS testing strategy bemoans how “impossible” it is for the EPA “to expeditiously understand, let alone address, the risks these substances may pose to human health and the environment.” Overwhelmed by rampant PFAS contamination, the EPA is asking the petrochemical industry to study these chemicals one by one in the hopes of eventually building enough data to regulate them. Yes, one by one. The timeline proposed will take another century (or two) to make its way through the entire family of PFAS, which now number in the thousands.The manifold ways that PFAS makes a mockery of our regulation of toxins cannot be the end of our ability to prosecute petrochemical malfeasance. Rather, this should be the start to fixing everything that went wrong.The companies behind PFAS knew about its toxicity for decades, but that knowledge was hidden in corporate archives and subject to shamefully lax government oversight.When 3M and DuPont learned about alarming patterns of birth defects and cancers in their own workers at PFAS plants in the 1970s and 1980s, both companies smothered the evidence. In the 1970s, the navy and air force looked the other way when they found PFAS migrating off their bases and into nearby communities. By the 1990s, 3M and DuPont both realized that their PFAS operations were polluting municipal drinking water at levels they considered harmful. As revealed by investigative reporting and dramatized in the 2019 film Dark Waters, corporate executives helped destroy the evidence while giving false assurances to residents and regulators alike.Over the past century, the petrochemical industry had countless opportunities to recognize the dangers of PFAS and install safeguards. Instead, they launched even more PFAS into the world. In defiance of their own internal scientific appraisals of the deadly effects of PFAS, 3M and DuPont integrated these chemicals into a widening array of industrial ingredients, firefighting equipment, and consumer goods. Incredibly, both companies also disposed PFAS waste into watersheds providing drinking water to more than 20 million Americans and irrigation to farms in 13 states.Over the past 50 years, 3M and DuPont manufactured more than enough PFAS to contaminate the drinking water of every single American. PFAS was sold to plastics plants, carpet and shoe factories, and oil and gas drilling sites across the US, where it was routinely discarded by the ton into the environment. Some industries even endorsed the distribution of PFAS-laden waste to farmers as a soil supplement.Now worried about impending liability, the petrochemical industry and the military are busy torching stockpiles of PFOA and PFOS (the two PFAS compounds closest to being regulated) despite growing concern that burning merely redistributes these inflammable toxins, especially into the poor communities of color where waste incinerators cynically base their operations. As the US and Europe move towards regulating some PFAS chemicals, the petrochemical industry is moving PFAS operations to more permissive regimes in Brazil, China, India, and Russia.Each time the question of containing PFAS came into view, 3M, DuPont, and now Chemours launched a perfluorinated blitzkrieg. They flooded the zone. And looking back, a rather demented product defense strategy becomes apparent: total contamination. Rather than controlling PFAS toxicity, the petrochemical industry universalized it.By the time sickened industrialworkers and farmers demanded action, lawyers pried open the corporate archive, and the EPA started issuing voluntary guidelines for a handful of PFAS compounds, it was almost too late to clean up the mess. The poison was out of the bag. An EPA review released this week identified more than 120,000 sites in the US alone that are probably contaminated with PFAS.There is no longer any population or place on earth untouched by PFAS contamination. We are living through a toxic experiment with no control group. This alarming reality trips up the comparative methods typically used to study toxicity and public health. It is also becoming a rather shameless legal argument in courtrooms across the country.When PFAS was discovered in my hometown of Bennington, Vermont, the plastics factory that emitted these chemicals for decades landed on a novel defense: that PFAS are so pervasive that it’s impossible to determine who is responsible. Residential trash with trace amounts of PFAS and the world at large, the company argued, were the real perpetrators of our PFAS troubles, not the plastics factory that accepted delivery of PFAS by the truckload for more than 30 years.And now American Chemistry Council lobbyists and defense attorneys for the petrochemical industry are hard at work nominating PFAS contamination to the welcoming committee of a brave new world of total contamination. It’s a planetary future they cast as inevitable, surprisingly democratic, and without any liable author. According to their victim-blaming PR campaign, anyone who has worn a Gore-Tex rain jacket or thrown away a McDonalds wrapper is just as guilty as the companies that illegally hid the toxicity of PFAS while spewing millions of pounds of this poison into our lives.PFAS are everywhere, but this disconcerting fact should not distract us from the petrochemical operations holding the smoking gun – smoking, in no small part, because they are still emitting PFAS. The omnipresence of PFAS does not lessen the threat they pose to our health, but it does mean we need bolder ways of prosecuting these environmental crimes against humanity.Yet instead of toughening regulation of the petrochemical industry, the EPA and many state agencies are throwing their hands up at the sheer ubiquity of the problem.Regulatory agencies are proposing natural “background levels” for a synthetic chemical conjured up a mere 75 years ago – in effect giving tacit approval for the history of gross negligence that got us here. That’s not all. The agencies shift blame for this predicament to residents by listing household items containing trace amounts of PFAS alongside factories that emitted it by the ton annually, as if those are equivalent sources; agencies refrain from sampling groundwater near industries suspected of using PFAS; agencies stack science committees with industry lobbyists while putting up roadblocks for independent scientists to participate; agencies applaud a pyrrhic victory of finally deciding to regulate PFOA and PFOS some 20 years after they learned about their toxicity while the petrochemical industry happily churns out a witches’ brew of new unregulated PFAS chemicals; and agencies endorse incineration as a PFAS disposal method while acknowledging that there is no evidence that combustion destroys these flameproof chemicals. And, of course, they make grand commitments to keep studying the problem in the hopes of taking action in, oh, a decade or so.Revealed: more than 120,000 US sites feared to handle harmful PFAS ‘forever’ chemicalsRead moreThe point is clear: by way of regulatory indifference, delay, and now despair, responsibility for the toxicity of forever chemicals is shifting from the corporations who profited from them to the communities who must now live with them.All is not lost. While PFAS inspires paralysis in state agencies, people living on the frontlines of this crisis – in rural towns next to military bases, working-class neighborhoods adjacent to plastics factories, communities of color near incinerators burning PFAS – insist we do everything we can, now. They demand an immediate stop to all releases of PFAS. They demand we compel the industry and the military to start cleaning up sources of PFAS contamination. They demand we ban PFAS as a family of chemicals, not only in the US but across the world. They demand we pass the PFAS Accountability Act, legislation that insists manufacturers retain liability for all the damage PFAS inflicts after they leave the factory. And they demand we hold polluters fully accountable for the decades of damage they’ve done.These communities insist polluters pay for water filtration systems for every affected home and business, medical monitoring for the lifetime of worry that people in polluted communities now carry, and independent scientific monitoring for the generations that PFAS will haunt affected areas.The EPA and state agencies must follow their lead. We cannot retreat into a broken system of indifference and carefully planned inaction. Nor can the ubiquity of PFAS become an excuse for those that profitably manufactured this mess. Any further delay would be an epic dereliction of duty.
      David Bond is the associate director of the Center for the Advancement of Public Action (CAPA) at Bennington College. He leads the “Understanding PFOA” project and is writing a book on PFAS contamination
      TopicsPollutionOpinionUS Environmental Protection AgencyDuPontUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Pollution takes centre stage for Louisiana congressional hopefuls

      by

      In Ascension parish at a jambalaya cookout, bathed in the afternoon sun, a politician made promises rarely heard in this heavily polluted region of south Louisiana, known colloquially as Cancer Alley.Karen Carter Peterson, a state senator and one of three frontrunners to become the next congressional representative for Louisiana’s second district, told the assembled crowd that she would fight the proliferation of polluting oil, gas and petrochemical plants.“We can’t afford to have plants continue to come in this community and you not have leadership when people are dying of asthma and cancer and all these other health implications from these industries that are just ignoring … Black communities,” she said.On Saturday the residents of Ascension, along with citizens in nine other parishes including the city of New Orleans and parts of the state capital, Baton Rouge, will vote in a special election to send a new representative to Congress.It marks the first time in over a decade that Cedric Richmond, who held this majority-Black, solidly Democratic seat for over a decade will not appear on the ballot. He had long been Louisiana’s sole Democrat in Congress. Richmond, who moved into the Biden administration as a senior adviser to the president, had faced criticism throughout his tenure for paying little attention to the chronic air pollution issues in his district, which includes the heavily industrialized parishes that line the lower Mississippi river, and taking $400,000 in campaign donations from oil, gas and chemical companies.But now the issue has become unavoidable for Democrats seeking to replace him. Joe Biden specifically name-checked Cancer Alley as he signed new environmental justice orders in January. This month a UN human rights expert panel raised serious concerns about environmental racism in the region and urged federal agencies to strengthen clean air and water enforcement in the region.All three Democratic frontrunners, including Troy Carter, another state senator who was publicly endorsed by Richmond, and Gary Chambers Jr, a charismatic young organizer with a large social media following, have publicly pledged to receive no fossil fuel donations. All three, in a field of 15 candidates, described pollution issues as one of their top three district priorities during local TV interviews. Both Chambers and Carter Peterson have endorsed the Green New Deal, the environmental reform platform endorsed by progressive members of the Democratic caucus.“The candidates are responding to a tidal wave of bad news about oil and gas expansion here,” said Dr Pearson Cross, head of political science at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. “Right now I would say the message of climate change and pollution is outweighing the message of oil and gas, jobs and the economy.”Anne Rolfes, director of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a grassroots organization working with communities in polluted areas of the state, argued the newfound political attention to the issue was a result of “the power of the movement and the fact there have been really strong community leaders in Cancer Alley for decades”.“This district always could and should have had a climate and environmental justice champion,” she said, adding that the organization had deliberately not endorsed during the race. “So of course it’s really welcome that people are finally being listened to, at least in election season.”Despite the outward rhetoric, however, there remain significant differences in the environmental platforms of the candidates, and evidence to suggest some of the pledges made in public are not being upheld in private.Chambers, 35, an activist from Baton Rouge has built a strong grassroots campaign holding in-person events in all 10 parishes as well as broadcasting to hundreds of thousands of followers online. He claims to have led the way in forcing the issue of environmental justice into the race.“I understand what it’s like to be from a forgotten community,” he said in an interview with the Guardian, pointing out he lives less than five miles away from a gargantuan ExxonMobil oil refinery in Baton Rouge and has family in many of the parishes along the Mississippi.He added: “I think the insult is you have these plants that pretend to be such good community partners, and then when I walk in and see the people who work there, they don’t look like me. They don’t look like the people who live in the zip codes they’re in.”Chambers’s platform contains the most detail of any of the three main candidates and argues for the need to increase financial penalties for emissions violations, engage affected communities in regulation, and calls for more federal funding to assist the state environment department.He said of the Green New Deal’s relevance to the region: “We need to transition to create the jobs of the future because this [continued oil and gas investment] is going to bottom out our economy and it is already killing our people.”Chambers also told the Guardian he supports community efforts to revoke a federal permit for a proposed new plastics factory in St James parish by the Taiwanese firm Formosa. If constructed, the plant could emit up to 13m tonnes of greenhouse gases a year, the equivalent of three coal-fired power plants, and would emit thousands of tonnes of other dangerous pollutants, including up to 15,400lb of the cancer-causing chemical ethylene oxide. A federal permit was suspended at the end of last year after the army corps of engineers said it warranted “additional evaluation” but a final decision on the plant’s future has yet to be made.Carter Peterson, who is vying to become Louisiana’s first Black female congressional representative, also believes the Formosa plant should be stopped. It was a position she came to only a few weeks ago, she said in an interview with the Guardian, after visiting the proposed site and meeting with local activists there.“I was there for about four hours,” she said. “And listen, it was not even a question about where I would stand after I heard about the implications for people there. It was a pretty easy decision to make.”Carter Peterson, a former corporate lawyer who has represented state senate district 5, which covers most of New Orleans, has been endorsed by Stacey Abrams and the progressive organization Our Revolution. She claimed the campaign had been a learning curve for her to understand the pollution issues communities outside New Orleans have faced for years.She said: “The word that resonates with me right now, just in the last few months in this campaign has been disrespect. I feel like not only Black women, but the Black community has been disrespected.”Both Chambers and Carter Peterson also backed calls for enforcement of the EPA’s recommended exposure limit to the likely cancer-causing pollutant chloroprene at a petrochemical plant in St John the Baptist parish run by the Japanese firm Denka. Census tracts next to the plant, in a majority-Black neighbourhood, have the highest risk of cancer due to airborne pollution anywhere in America, according to EPA data. But neither backed calls from environmental groups in the state for a blanket moratorium on new petrochemical plants.Troy Carter did not grant the Guardian an interview and did not answer questions on the Formosa or Denka plants via email.He has publicly backed independent third-party monitoring of petrochemical plants in the region, but has argued for the continuance of oil and gas exploration in the state. He also declined to commit to the Green New Deal during a public appearance this month, describing it instead as a “great framework”.Despite committing to receiving no fossil fuel money, campaign contributions listed on the FEC website indicate that Carter has taken a small number of donations from the industry, including $500 from the CEO of Entergy, Phillip May, and $2,800 from Infinity Fuels LLC. Carter did not respond to a request for comment on the donations.With turnout on Saturday expected to be low, Dr Cross argued that the race remained open for any of the leading candidates, adding there was significant likelihood of a runoff being triggered if no candidate takes a majority.“This race will be decided by the people who can turn out their voters,” he said. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump seizes on pandemic to speed up opening of public lands to industry

      by

      The Trump administration has ratcheted up its efforts amid the coronavirus pandemic to overhaul and overturn Obama-era environmental regulations and increase industry access to public lands. The secretary of the interior, David Bernhardt, has sped efforts to drill, mine and cut timber on fragile western landscapes. Meanwhile, the EPA, headed by the former coal lobbyist […] More