SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bpa
Dangerous Plastics Are a Threat to Us and Future Generations
Why a legally binding treaty cannot be postponed
Apr 04, 2019
Every day people make decisions about what to eat, sometimes opting for colorful fruits and veggies, sometimes finding the smell of bacon irresistible. At the end of the day people are controlling their own health. What is remarkable though, is the possibility that something one swallows today could have a lasting effect on future offspring--children, grandchildren, great grandchildren. New research is finding a generational impact of certain chemicals. This time it's not the bacon we're worried about--but plastics and the toxins within them.
A 2004 study of 2,517 people found that 93% had detectable quantities of BPA's by-product in their urine.
Twenty years ago, researchers at Washington State University discovered accidentally that the now-infamous bisphenol A (BPA) was leaching out of plastic cages, harming the mice within. The contamination caused abnormalities in mice eggs and fertility. Numerous subsequent studies found BPA exposure affects adult fertility and health across species, including monkeys, fish, and humans. Known to decrease sperm count in rats and to cause breast cancer in women, BPA was banned in 2012 by the FDA from being used in baby bottles and sippy cups. Yet BPA is still used in many products, including epoxy resins used to coat canned foods. A 2004 study of 2,517 people found that 93% had detectable quantities of BPA's by-product in their urine.
Since the toxic effects of BPA came to light, several replacement bisphenols were quickly brought to market by chemical companies and are now in widespread use. Twenty years after the BPA toxicity discovery, by remarkable chance, the same Washington State University lab recently noticed again that something was amiss with their mice. This time the mice were housed in cages comprised of replacement bisphenols, largely believed to be safer than BPA. The researchers subsequently performed controlled studies with several of the replacement bisphenols including BPS, a widely used replacement.
Results demonstrated that the new bisphenols behaved similarly to BPA, causing health problems including detrimental effects on fertility in both males and females, reported in Cell Biology in September 2018. Scientist Sarah Hunt explained, "This paper reports a strange deja vu experience in our laboratory." What the lab discovered once with BPA, it was seeing again with the replacements. Perhaps most troubling were the long-lasting effects of the toxins. Even if all bisphenols could be magically eliminated today, the toxic effects would still last about three generations through the germline of people already exposed. This means bisphenols ingested today could affect the fertility of one's great grandchildren.
The bisphenol case demonstrates that FDA bans do not necessarily solve the root problem. Chemical companies tend to roll out similar chemicals to those that have been banned, because this is the easiest way to bring something to market quickly. But more testing is needed before chemicals are released into the environment. Long term problems such as generational infertility and cancer risk often cannot easily be examined in clinical trials, and environmental effects are not rigorously analyzed prior to release.
The Washington State University study also proved that damaged and heated plastics are particularly deadly, as the damaged cages leached more toxins. This should serve as a warning for those who microwave food in plastic containers for their families. And it should remind us that discarded plastic bottles degrading in oceans and rivers are releasing toxins that cause irreversible infertility.
The current estimate of plastics in our oceans is approximately 150 million metric tons. By 2050, the amount is expected to 'outweigh the fish,' according to Jim Leape, co-director of the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions. A recent study has determined microplastics (small plastic particles) are present in every river and lake in Britain. And they have been found in tap water, everywhere from the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC to the Trump Grill in New York. A study of 159 drinking water samples on five continents found that 83% of those samples were contaminated. Plastics are everywhere, from the highest mountains to the deepest parts of the ocean and Arctic. Nanoplastics less than 50 nanometers long have even been found in plankton, which is ingested by fish that humans eat.
Scientists are finding that plastics are disrupting marine mammals' ability to reproduce. Many forms of plastic including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Bisphenol A are endocrine disruptors, meaning they affect the hormonal systems of animals. An orca of adult age called Lulu, researchers recently found, was barren as if she was a juvenile. Analysis revealed very high levels of PCBs in her lipid tissues. One orca pod off the coast of Scotland has not produced a calf in 25 years. Despite bans on PCBs 30 years ago, toxins remain in orca mothers' milk, and are passed from mother to baby. A recent study published in the journal Science predicts that half the world's population of orcas will be extinct in just a few decades due to PCB poisoning. Researchers have also found that despite the PCB ban in Europe, levels of PCBs have not decreased, indicated that they may be leaching out of landfills. Hormone disruptors have also been found to impair male frogs' fertility, and to cause tadpoles to more frequently develop ovaries rather than testicles, thus skewing the proportion of males to females. Similar problems have been found in fish. Reproductive risks associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals span species.
Bisphenol A is known to decrease sperm count and to cause cancer in many species. Its counterpart replacement plastics (BPS, BPF, BPAF, BPZ, BPP, BHPF... to name just a few), researchers have recently discovered, are no better. Whether these pollutants have already affected humans is anyone's guess, but it would be wise to view statistics during the time period since plastics became popular, starting in the 1960s, and to see if there is a significant trend over time.
It appears there is. Notably, a 2017 study found that sperm counts per milliliter declined by more than 50% from 1973 to 2011, with total sperm counts down almost 60%. Two other recent studies have demonstrated that over the past few decades in the U.S. and Europe, both sperm count and motility have decreased.
The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) recently debated a proposed legally binding treaty to address plastic pollution. One objective of the proposed treaty was to phase out single use plastics by 2025. Norway also suggested a global agreement for handling ocean plastic pollution. Sadly, the U.S. was the largest voice against the proposed treaty and the proposed global waste disposal plan.
Eventually a non-legally-binding agreement was reached in which the U.S. watered down the language to "significantly reduce" plastics by 2030, eleven years from now. One UN delegate described the Trump representatives as "trying to remove all targets and timelines."
Unearthed, Greenpeace's research group, has found that in the first six months of 2018, almost half of U.S. plastic waste was sent to developing countries: Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has been exporting large quantities of plastics overseas for years, historically mostly to China. In the previous year, 70% was exported to China and Hong Kong. But in 2018, China banned imports of plastic waste. Since the ban the U.S. has looked to poorer nations for its overseas garbage dump. Unearthed, Greenpeace's research group, has found that in the first six months of 2018, almost half of U.S. plastic waste was sent to developing countries: Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. U.S. plastic waste exports to Thailand went up by nearly 2,000% this year.
Most developing nations do not have sufficient recycling infrastructure to properly handle plastic waste. On Earth Day 2018, the top producers of mismanaged ocean plastic waste were ranked by tons of waste. The top five after China were Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. In some cases as in parts of the Philippines, recycling is done laboriously by hand, picking bottles out of large dumps. As this is very difficult and time consuming, large quantities find their way into oceans and rivers. Sadly and not surprisingly, the Pasig River in the Philippines transports approximately 72,000 tons of plastic downstream, and has been declared "biologically dead" since 1990. Instead of helping these countries to develop recycling infrastructure, we are sending them more toxic waste.
We might think we are kicking the can down the road by sending plastics overseas but they will wash right back up on the Hawaiian and California coast. Beachgoers might witness solid litter washing ashore, or unearthed from the stomachs of dead whales. Or they might not notice the pollution -- instead unknowingly consuming microplastics in their next Ahi Tuna sandwich. On the East Coast, one might encounter them in a glass of water at the Trump Grill in New York. There is only one world sink after all. Tossing poison to the other end of the tub only works for so long - it will inevitably, over time, mix and wash back to your side of the water. And when one of us is diagnosed with cancer, do we really know the cause?
It is instructive to remember the orca Lulu, a mammal like us, who no longer produces eggs. And to remember that if sperm counts continue to decline at the present rate, they will soon reach levels where it becomes difficult to have children. By then, the world's water supply may be irreversibly contaminated and an enforceable treaty will be too late.
Postponing a legally binding treaty may put us on the path of our fellow mammals the orcas, half of which already face inevitable extinction worldwide. And we can not forget the tragedy of the orca Tahlequah, who last summer carried her dead calf for a record 17 days and 1,000 miles in mourning.
Eleven years may be too late.
Keep ReadingShow Less
BP's Blatant Climate Hypocrisy on Show As it "Buys" Vote to Defeat Carbon Tax
So the company that at the beginning of the century promised to go “beyond petroleum” just defeated a ballot which would have helped the US to do that
Nov 07, 2018
As millions of people digest the saturated press coverage of the mid-terms, and wonder what the next two-years of a chaotic and destructive Trump Presidency will mean with the Republican loss of the House, it is easy to miss other issues that were also voted on this week.
On the Washington State ballot was something called the Carbon Emissions Fee and Revenue Allocation Initiative, known for short as Initiative 1631, which would have imposed a $15 fee on each tonne of carbon emissions, rising $2 a year until the state's 2035 emissions target is met.
It was a ground-breaking ballot that would have imposed the US's first ever carbon tax and if passed, would have been a spring-board for other states to follow.
It was a ground-breaking ballot that would have imposed the US's first ever carbon tax and if passed, would have been a spring-board for other states to follow.
According to Reuters "The carbon fee aimed to generate $2.3 billion over five years for clean energy and air programs" however the "oil industry was expected to feel most pain".
This said, as Rolling Stone point out: "The Initiative was hardly a fossil-fuel killer. In fact, it was distressingly modest .. This modest fee (don't call it a tax!) is far below what most economists believe is necessary to really have a transformative impact on our energy system, especially in a state like Washington, which has a lot of clean hydro power, but it was a start."
Even this modest start was too much for the Big Oil barons. For an industry that has decades of history of putting profits over people and planet, it is predictable what happens next. Big Oil effectively "bought" the election.
The measure was defeated 56 to 44 per cent after a Big Oil public relations campaign which said it would hurt the economy, including spending millions of dollars on television and digital ads, flyers and mail drops.
Reuters reports that "The Western States Petroleum Association raised $31.2 million from oil companies and business groups to oppose the measure". Top donors to the campaign were BP America, which donated just under $13 million, Phillips 66 and Marathon Oil Corp.
So the company that at the beginning of the century promised to go "beyond petroleum" just defeated a ballot which would have helped the US to do that.
BP's staggering hypocrisy even goes beyond that too: on its website the company says it is not only in favour of action on climate change but also in favour of carbon pricing, the very measure it just spent millions defeating.
So either this is corporate greenwash or a blatant lie to consumers and investors.
According to BP: "We believe that carbon pricing provides the right incentives for everyone - energy producers and consumers alike - to play their part in reducing emissions"
As Rolling Stone noted: "The big lesson of the defeat of 1631, if there is one, may be that before we can get carbon out of the atmosphere, we need to get dirty money out of American politics."
Towards this end, there was some good news on Tuesday night. According to an analysis by Oil Change US, "more than half of new Democrats in House refuse to take fossil fuel industry money".
Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change United States said:"Despite the fossil fuel industry-sponsored carpet-bombing of advertising against clean energy and climate around the country, several bright spots survived".
He continued: "In a sign of things to come, more than half of the new Democratic freshman class has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge.Of the anticipated 34 new Democratic seats taken over from the Republicans, 11 have signed the Pledge, which commits them to not take contributions from the oil, gas, and coal industry and instead prioritize the health of our families, climate, and democracy over fossil fuel industry profits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wrapped in a Sea of Plastic
Half a century of this “uncontrolled experiment” is fast becoming as serious a problem as climate change
Mar 31, 2018
By now most of us have read that plastic, that incredibly useful product that all of us use every day, is fast becoming public enemy number one. We have been using plastics for decades and as a result, plastic is everywhere: in our fish, in our food, in our oceans, in our waste water treatment systems, and in our public spaces. We use plastics in every part of our lives, from single use plastics, such as bags, bottles, and straws, to our babies' toys to our nylon clothes to our paint. Plastic particles and plastic microbeads are used in our shampoo, toothpaste, soap, and millions of other products, all of which contain different kinds of tiny particles of plastic, all of which come off in our bodies, our mouths, our scalp and our skin as we use them. And plastic use is on the rise, more than 10 percent a year, while industry titans build more and more profitable plastic factories with high priced fossil fuels.
Plastics everywhere was bad enough, but now multiple studies have found that 94 percent of our drinking water and 93 percent of sampled bottled water worldwide are full of plastic particles and chemicals, including BPA, heavy metals, phthalates, pesticides, PCBs and other chemicals, many of which are linked in animal studies as well as some human studies to cancer, premature puberty, reduced immunity, birth defects, endocrine disruption, insulin resistance, and other major diseases. And we have no idea and neither does the FDA, EPA, or any other federal agency, whether this lethal cocktail, which binds together with other toxins, is having an even more profound impact on our health and that of our kids. What we get now from those agencies is "conflicting findings" and "uncertainties" about the potential impact of plastics-related chemicals. What we do know is that governments only test or analyze the impacts of individual chemicals to determine the levels of potentially life-threatening exposure, making it impossible to figure out the combined total load of chemicals from plastics our babies can safely absorb.
We, the general public, have unleashed this problem on ourselves without understanding the impacts that fossil-fuel based plastics were having on our environment or our health. Half a century of this "uncontrolled experiment" is fast becoming as serious a problem as climate change because no corner of the earth, no animal, no body of water, no human, is immune from its impacts.
The plastics industry, and our fast food industry which relies on single use plastics, along with others, perhaps taking a page from Big Tobacco, have assured us that everything is perfectly fine. Yet many countries are banning BPA, phthalates, and other chemicals from plastics in some plastic products, and even industry is scouring around for suitable alternatives to fossil fuel based plastics, although so far many "biodegradable" plastics aren't living up to their reputation. What's the alternative for us, the consumers and multi-decade guinea pigs, while we wait? Getting rid of single use plastics, using less plastic and getting involved in local legislation and regulation to reduce and recycle plastics is a good start.
In the meantime, some countries and some U.S. states are wising up to the problem and the plastics lobby. An international treaty on plastics is under consideration but that may be a decade away. In the meantime, we know for sure that our plastic bottles, sippy cups, and the water in them are spiked with chemically laced plastic micro-particles that should not be there.
This op-ed was distributed by American Forum.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Administration Condemned for Plan to 'Recklessly' Expand Offshore Drilling
A new proposal "continues the Trump administration's all-out assault on public lands and waters."
Jan 04, 2018
Environmental groups are responding with fury and condemnation to the Trump administration's new plans, announced Thursday by the Interior Department, to "recklessly" expand offshore drilling for gas and oil in the Gulf of Mexico, around Alaska, and all along the East and West coasts of the United States.
"Instead of threatening our waterways and marine wildlife, President Trump should pay attention to the thousands of citizens, fishermen, and business owners along the Atlantic Coast and the millions of Americans from Alaska to Maine who have already said 'no' to offshore drilling."
--Kelsey Lamp, Environment America
"This is not only bad news for the oceans and our coastal communities--it's a disaster for the climate," warned Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "At a time when we need to put the brakes on fossil fuel development, Trump continues to double down on dirty energy."
If Trump's plan is adopted, oil companies could be permitted to drill for oil in nearly all of the country's waters, including off the coasts of Florida, California, and Maine.
Such a far-reaching expansion, said Earthjustice president Trip Van Noppen in a statement, "continues the Trump administration's all-out assault on public lands and waters. The plan proposes to expand offshore oil drilling everywhere, including in our most sensitive waters. It puts irreplaceable wildlife and coastal communities at risk for the sole benefit of Big Oil, and it takes us in exactly the wrong direction on the urgently needed transition to a clean energy future."
Marcie Keever, director of Friends of the Earth's Oceans and Vessels Program, also condemned the plan. "Climate science is clear that the remaining untapped fossil fuel reserves must be kept 'in the ground' if we are to have any chance of leaving a stable climate for future generations," said Keever. "The reckless move by the Trump administration to pursue increased offshore oil drilling is an appalling attack on our already imperiled communities, both marine and terrestrial."
"Instead of threatening our waterways and marine wildlife, President Trump should pay attention to the thousands of citizens, fishermen, and business owners along the Atlantic Coast and the millions of Americans from Alaska to Maine who have already said 'no' to offshore drilling," said Kelsey Lamp, an oceans associate at Environment America who vowed to "fight for our coasts by fighting this plan."
"This plan was hastily concocted, has no basis in science, employs faulty economics, and blatantly disregards the flood of public opinion that strongly opposes opening the Atlantic Ocean to risky, dirty, and unnecessary offshore drilling," concluded Sierra Club Virginia Chapter director Kate Addleson, who pointed to a plan finalized under the Obama administration that excluded the Atlantic coast and nearly the entire Arctic Ocean in response to outcry from environmentalists and millions of residents of coastal communities.
In a statement released Thursday, the Interior Department outlined its five-year plan for authorizing "the largest number of lease sales in U.S. history" for drilling in the National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The department "proposes to make over 90 percent of the total OCS acreage and more than 98 percent of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in federal offshore areas available to consider for future exploration and development," noting that "the current program puts 94 percent of the OCS off limits."
The five-year leases, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke claimed Thursday, would account for about $15 billion in federal revenue. By contrast, the recently passed Republican tax "scam" includes a permanent corporate tax cut and tax breaks for the wealthy that will cost the federal government $1.4 trillion or more over the next decade.
The proposal also comes just days after the administration announced its intention to scrap several safety requirements for offshore drilling operations, saving the oil industry an estimated $900 million but risking yet more loss of life for workers and increasing the chances of future accidents and spills.
"The new plan will not immediately green-light drilling," the New York Times notes, as "finalizing the plan could take as long as 18 months, experts said, and in the meantime a number of states, including some led by Republican governors, are expected to challenge it in an effort to protect their coastlines."
In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Fla.) promised to fight against all Interior plans to drill off the coast of Florida, and called on residents of his state to pledge their support to the fight, recalling the consequences of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill--"when the beaches of Pensacola Beach were blackened with tar and oil, and we lost a whole season of our guests, our tourists who come to this extraordinary state."
Lamp urged all those who oppose increased offshore oil and gas exploration to put pressure on the Trump administration to protect the country's precious waters and coastlines.
"Everyone who cares about clean and healthy oceans should make his or her voice heard by commenting against this proposal," said Lamp. "We will fight for our coasts by fighting this plan."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Rejects Own Science to Greenlight Brain-Damaging Pesticide
"EPA chief Pruitt's move rejecting his scientists' advice to ban a pesticide? That's exactly what the pesticide maker, DowChem, asked for."
Mar 30, 2017
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt denied a 10-year-old petition late Wednesday to ban the use of chlorpyrifos, a widely-used pesticide that harms children's brains, in a decision that outraged public health advocates and environmentalists.
In greenlighting the dangerous chemical, the EPA defied its own research--and acquiesced to Dow Chemical, the maker of chlorpyrifos, which has been lobbying the agency for years to allow the pesticide's continued use.
"Without the ban, farmworkers, their children, and others can't escape exposure because the poison is in [the] air they breathe, in the food they eat, the soil where children play."
--Erik Nicholson,
United Farm Workers
As the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) observed: "The Trump EPA's denial of the NRDC and Pesticide Action Network 2007 petition to ban chlorpyrifos contradicts EPA's own analysis from November 2016 (just five months ago!) that found widespread risk to children from residues of the pesticide on food, in drinking water, and in the air in agricultural communities. Up until last night, EPA explained that because of these risks a ban was needed to protect children's health."
Environmental law group Earthjustice listed the risks the EPA discovered through its own research into chlorpyrifos:
- All exposure to chlorpyrifos through food exceeds safe levels of the chemical. The most exposed population is children between one and two years of age. On average, this vulnerable group is exposed to 140 times the level of chlorpyrifos the EPA deems safe.
- Chlorpyrifos contaminates drinking water.
- Chlorpyrifos drifts to schools, homes, and fields in toxic amounts at more than 300 feet from the fields.
- Workers face unacceptable risks from exposures when they mix and apply chlorpyrifos and when they enter fields to tend to crops.
There is little doubt about the science. Mother Jones' Tom Philpott reported that "Stephanie Engel, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina and a co-author of [a major study on chlorpyrifos at Mount Sinai], says the evidence that chlorpyrifos exposure causes harm is 'compelling'--and is 'much stronger' even than the case against BPA (bisphenol A), the controversial plastic additive. She says babies and fetuses are particularly susceptible to damage from chlorpyrifos because they metabolize toxic chemicals more slowly than adults do. And 'many adults' are susceptible, too, because they lack a gene that allows for metabolizing the chemical efficiently, Engel adds."
And the New York Times reported that "Jim Jones, who ran the chemical safety unit at the EPA for five years, and spent more than 20 years working there until he left the agency in January when President Trump took office, said he was disappointed by Mr. Pruitt's action. 'They are ignoring the science that is pretty solid,' Mr. Jones said."
The decision is in line with Pruitt's anti-science, pro-corporate stance. Yet advocates and researchers who have followed the years-long campaign to end the use of chlorpyrifos were still shocked by Pruitt's outrageous move.
As a result of Pruitt's decision, children and farmworkers nationwide are endangered, rights advocates and environmental groups charge.
"Without the ban, farmworkers, their children, and others can't escape exposure because the poison is in [the] air they breathe, in the food they eat, the soil where children play," observed Erik Nicholson, national vice president of United Farm Workers. "We all have a basic right to a healthy life."
Some further argued that the decision breaks the law.
"We have a law that requires the EPA to ban pesticides that it cannot determine are safe, and the EPA has repeatedly said this pesticide is not safe," Patti Goldman, managing attorney at Earthjustice, told the New York Times.
Earthjustice has vowed to fight Pruitt's decision in court, reported NPR.
Keep ReadingShow Less
25 Smears, Hoaxes, Grifts and Whoppers on Climate and the Environment in the Obama Era
Environmental bloopers from the past 8 years, including some from Obama himself. (Yes, Inhofe's snowball toss made the cut)
Jan 08, 2017
As the curtain comes down on Barack Obama's eight years in the White House, most Americans seemed convinced of one of two things: We're either about to Make America Great Again(r), or we're about to hurtle into an uncertain epoch that I like to call the Idiocene.
But before we turn the page on this administration let's take a look back at the tall tales, regrettable pronouncements, farces and scams on climate and the environment during the Obama years. Anti-regulatory zealots led the pack, but President Obama contributed a few of his own - starting on his first full day in office:
After promising transparency, President Obama's Administration was called "one of the most secretive."
1) January 2009: The most transparent administration? Not quite.
A day after his inauguration, President Obama signed a memorandum promising: "the most transparent administration in history."
By May 2016, a different verdict came in. Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan called it "one of the most secretive." In August 2015, 52 journalism organizations, including the Society of Environmental Journalists, sent an appeal to the White House, asking for an end to restrictions on government employees' contact with reporters.
2) October 2009: Global warming stops (except it totally doesn't)
Scientists begin asking questions about why the pace of rising temperatures seems to be defying projections and slowing. Despite the emergence of serious, credible reasons for this - notably that the oceans are working overtime to absorb excess heat - climate deniers have a field day with cherry-picked data.
Even as daily, monthly, and annual warmth records continue to be broken, there's been "no global warming at all" for nearly two decades in Deniertown.
In a November 2009 press release, the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce declares the "War On Coal" is underway.
3) November 2009: War is declared, a slogan is born
In a press release, the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce declares the "War On Coal" is underway.
4) November 2009: Russian hack (no, the other one)
Hackers, believed to be Russian-based, steal thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. Climate deniers spin a few poorly worded correspondences between scientists into a vast conspiracy to fake climate research.
The faux scandal upends coverage of the Copenhagen climate summit, the scientists are cleared of any wrongdoing by multiple investigations, and the hackers are never caught. But their work foreshadows the 2016 election hack.
5) January 2010: Moderate Republicans join Endangered Species List
The Citizens United decision breaches the dam on corporate cash. The high court votes 5-4 to fundamentally reshape the already-cockeyed way election campaigns are financed, offering cover to corporations and super-PACs to target undesirable candidates for defeat.
"Moderate" Republicans are virtually driven into extinction, and the few who acknowledge climate change have a change of heart.
6) March 2010: Fake fishing news sends real readers reeling
An ESPN.com outdoors columnist launches a viral hoax, suggesting that Obama is planning to outlaw all recreational fishing. Within days, chronic Obama critics--from Fox News and the Daily Caller to columnist Michelle Malkin, RedState.com and GatewayPundit.com--dutifully spread the word about "Obama's latest assault on freedom." Except not a word of it is remotely true.
7) April 2010: Obama's oil comment gaffe
18 days before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Obama says "Oil rigs today don't generally cause spills."
8) May 2010: Limbaugh gets to the bottom of Deepwater Horizon
Rush Limbaugh says "environmental wackos" staged Deepwater Horizon as a fundraising scheme.
9) May 2010: Anti-vax doctor defrocked
The UK's General Medical Council strips Dr. Andrew Wakefield of his license to practice. He authored the 1998 paper linking vaccines to autism. The paper was later retracted by The Lancet and declared "utterly false."
10) February 2011: The Maine governor doesn't understand BPA
Maine Gov. Paul LePage, possibly the only politician too dumb for the Trump Administration, declares that BPA's worst-case scenario would be women with beards.
11) September 2011: Solyndra slips, solar scandal soars
Solyndra fails. The solar company stranded investors and bailed on a half-billion dollar Energy Department loan amid evidence that Obama Administration cronies stood to benefit. But solar energy critics vault a relatively minor scandal into a renewables Benghazi - overlooking the generally successful record of DOE's startup loans as well as the much larger handouts given to fossil fuel companies.
12) September 2011: The Donald picks a wind fight. Fore!
Donald Trump sends the first of 16 angry, obsessive letters or emails to Scotland's First Minister about the proposed windfarm near his golf resort. Sad!!
13) May 2012: Heartless Heartland campaign
An electronic billboard on a Chicago freeway heralds the start of a campaign by the Heartland Institute to brand climate-change advocates as cold-blooded serial killers. The first features the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. It draws such a backlash that the billboards featuring climate advocates Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden (really) never get a full airing. Heartland is further tarnished by revelations that it solicited fossil fuel money to pursue its climate denial agenda.
Lamar Smith becomes Chair of House Science Committee, and eventually the Torquemada-in-Chief of government climate scientists. Rep. Smith's committee room becomes an inquisition chamber for government climate scientists and their agency bosses.
15) July 2013: Denial turns to defamation
A blogger for the Competitive Enterprise Institute likens Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach convicted of serial child molestation. Mann continues to pursue defamation litigation.
16) December 2013: Dirty energy or no energy
Master distractionist Bjorn Lomborg helps launch pro-coal "energy poverty" meme. Coal giant Peabody Energy launches a full-fledged PR sales pitch under the banner "Advanced Energy for Life," and others scramble to re-brand black coal as the White Hat in a Green World.
17) January 2014: Rush nails it. Again.
As record cold grips much of the U.S., Rush Limbaugh and others accuse meteorologists of inventing the term "polar vortex" in an attempt to hide Mother Nature's harsh rebuke of climate science. Cooler heads like Al Roker point out that "polar vortex" has been discussed in meteorology texts since at least the 1950's.
18) February 2014: Energy giant CEO gets all NIMBY
ExxonMobil boss Rex Tillerson joins a lawsuit against a fracking project near his home. He quits the case a few months later after harsh accusations that he's a NIMBYllionaire.
19) April 2014: Meet the Bundys
Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy leads an armed standoff against BLM agents. Bundy has refused to pay BLM grazing fees since 1993. In 2016, his sons lead an armed takeover at a National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. They've vowed to do it again.
20) April 2014: A disaster in Flint
The struggling city of Flint switches its water source. Reports of discolored water, foul smell and taste, and high bacteria and lead levels go ignored for more than a year. The local, state and federal governments declare a state of emergency nineteen months later.
21) February 2015: An exposed Willie
Documents obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center show climate researcher Willie Soon took more than a million dollars in funding from fossil fuel interests. He promised "deliverables" to his benefactors, and generated studies that cast doubt on human-caused climate change.
22) February 2015: Inhofe's (cold) curveball
Senator and alpha-male among deniers Jim Inhofe throws a snowball at the Senate President's podium, forever proving climate change is a hoax.
23) April 2015: Pilgrimage gets no press
Climate deniers stage a pilgrimage to Rome to "educate" Pope Francis on his "unholy alliance with the UN's climate agenda" and to suggest that Jesus would have served the poor by burning more coal. They are not granted an audience. Their press conference didn't really get one, either.
24) September 2015: Exxon ignores itself
Investigations by InsideClimate News and The Los Angeles Times reveal that Exxon's scientists had confirmed the dangers of climate change decades ago, while the company took virtually no action to curb it and continued to fund climate-denying scientists and groups.
25) December 2015: Giants join forces
Chemical giants Dow and DuPont announce a $130 billion merger. The deal, along with the proposed merger of two other chemical giants, Bayer and Monsanto, is still pending.
Next week we'll look back at 25 signs of hope from the Obama era.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Toxic Economy: Common Chemicals Cost US Billions Every Year
Researchers estimate the United States economy takes a $340 billion hit annually as endocrine-disrupting compounds lower IQs, increase behavior problems and exacerbate health woes like obesity and diabetes.
Oct 18, 2016
Exposure to chemicals in pesticides, toys, makeup, food packaging and detergents costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually due to health care costs and lost wages, according to a new analysis.
The chemicals, known as endocrine disruptors, impact how human hormones function and have been linked to a variety of health problems such as impaired brain development, lower IQs, behavior problems, infertility, birth defects, obesity and diabetes.
The estimated economic toll is more than 2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP).
The findings, researchers say, "document the urgent public threat posed by endocrine disrupting chemicals."
The study was published Monday in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology journal. Pete Myers--founder of Environmental Health Sciences, publisher of Environmental Health News and The Daily Climate--is a co-author on the study.
The researchers estimated costs by looking at exposures, then projecting 15 medical conditions linked to the chemicals and the associated health costs and lost wages.
The findings are built upon calculations made by the Endocrine Society, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. A similar study conducted in Europe found about $217 billion in annual costs due to exposure to these compounds.
The much higher cost in the United States "is due to a major difference in policy and regulation," said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor and researcher at the NYU School of Medicine and senior author of the study.
The U.S. public has greater exposure to flame retardant chemicals, due in part to stringent fire-safety rules. These compounds are added to furniture foam and electronics to slow the spread of flames.
In Europe, pesticides were the main cost driver. Both flame retardants and certain pesticides can impact brain development when unborn babies are exposed.
Trasande noted the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 requires consideration of children's safety before a pesticide is approved for use in farming. No such policy exists in Europe. Conversely, Europe has been much more proactive in tackling a particularly concerning groups of flame retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
PBDEs were the worst offenders in the U.S., accounting for nearly two thirds of the estimated health problems. PBDEs were estimated to annually cause about 11 million lost IQ points and 43,000 additional cases of intellectual disability to the tune of $268 billion.
Pesticide exposure--the second most costly chemical group in the U.S.--causes an estimated 1.8 million lost IQ points and another 7,500 intellectual disability cases annually, with an estimated cost of $44.7 billion.
The researchers also looked at common chemicals such as bisphenol-A (BPA), used in polycarbonate plastics, food tin cans and receipts; and phthalates, found in food containers and cosmetics.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents chemical manufacturers, slammed the new report, alleging Trasande and co authors "demonstrate a casual indifference toward scientific principles, yet a dogged pursuit of headlines." The Council said the research was speculative and the conclusions drawn from "cherry-picked" data.
Trasande countered that estimates are on the conservative side. Researchers calculated the health-related costs from just a fraction--less than 5 percent--of known endocrine disrupting chemicals, he said.
"We also didn't focus on chemicals already banned, such as persistent organic pollutants," he said. Those compounds, which include DDT and PCBs, remain common in the environment and in human blood despite being off the market for years, even decades.
"Given that [persistent organic pollutants] are known to also contribute to diabetes, obesity and adverse neurological outcomes, that's another source of underestimating," Trasande said.
Trasande added that the researchers "significantly discounted" the disease numbers, wanting to reflect those people where chemicals played a role rather than total people with the disease.
Philippe Grandjean, a renowned environmental health researcher and professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, said the study doesn't confirm whether the health effects are due to endocrine disruption or if other toxics play a role. However, he said in an emailed comment, "we must seriously take into regard adverse health effects and not just ignore them while calling for more evidence."
"Of course it would be great to know more, but my prediction is that the calculated costs to society will increase substantially once we get better documentation on ... additional substances and additional adverse effects," said Grandjean, who was not involved in the study.
Trasande said the study highlights the need to address endocrine disruptor exposure in the United States, especially as the country updates the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.
The 2016 updates to the act, which regulates both existing and new chemicals, contained no mention of endocrine disruption, Trasande said. Chemicals should be screened for any potential impacts to human hormones before they hit the marketplace, he added.
"The cost of required testing is likely to be small when weighed against the $340 billion in costs we have identified as being related to exposure to [endocrine disrupting compounds]," the authors wrote.
While many of these toxics linger in the body for a long time, people can take steps to avoid exposure.
"We can ask questions about flame retardants and perfluorinated compounds when we buy rugs and furniture, and choose products without these substances," Grandjean said. "We can choose to avoid tuna and other large predatory species of fish, and we can choose organic fruits and leafy vegetables."
Keep ReadingShow Less
BP-Sponsored 'Sunken Cities' Show Provokes Museum-Climbing Climate Protest
BP is funding British Museum's "Sunken Cities" exhibit—a name that "practically spells out the impacts of climate change"
May 19, 2016
London's British Museum was shut down on Thursday after Greenpeace activists scaled its columns to call on the museum to drop BP's sponsorship for a "blockbuster" exhibit--about flooded cities.
"Sunken cities aren't a thing of the past, they are happening now. And if BP gets its way, they could come to define our future."
--Greenpeace
BP, responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters of all time and untold greenhouse gas emissions, is sponsoring the museum's "Sunken Cities" exhibit about submerged Alexandrian cities. The exhibit opens today.
"In the eyes of BP, whose logo appears all over the show, it's an exquisite opportunity to clean up its image and distract from the polluting realities of its business," writes Greenpeace UK.
But modern cities are sinking in real time because of climate change, the activists say, and as a multinational oil company BP is one of those parties responsible. "We're here today taking a stand because of the irony of an oil company sponsoring an exhibition whose name practically spells out impacts of climate change," Greenpeace UK says. "What were they thinking?"
For their protest, Greenpeace volunteers "rebranded the exhibition and dressed the pillars at the entrance with five places that evoke flooding, extreme weather and rising sea levels in the 21st century," the group writes. "Among them there's New Orleans, a city almost lost in Hurricane Katrina, and also British towns like Hebden Bridge that were submerged by floods last winter."
The protestors also argue that BP's interests as a corporation directly oppose the British Museum's goals as a cultural institution.
"The British Museum dedicates itself to learning, discovery and the conservation of human cultures, but the only discoveries BP seeks are more fossil fuels to dig up and burn which are already polluting our air and warming our world," argues the environmental group.
For BP, however, such a partnership makes sense, says Greenpeace UK, which describes its image-burnishing potential:
BP's cash contributes less than 1% of the British Museum's annual income, but the benefits it can glean from cosying up to the UK's most popular cultural attraction can be priceless.
Oil companies use partnerships with our most popular cultural institutions to protect their business interests, cover up negative news coverage and promote an air of respectability. BP, for example, positions itself as a "cultural supporter," which you'd have to agree does sound softer than, "the company responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, one of the world's worst environmental disasters of all time."
Thursday's action was not the first time BP's sponsorship of the "Sunken Cities" exhibit has been criticized. "It follows an earlier protest by campaign group BP or Not BP, which sent 10 performers to the courtyard outside the exhibition launch to be repeated drenched in water," reports the Telegraph.
Nor was it the first time climate activists have targeted a UK cultural institution for accepting BP funds.
"Sunken cities aren't a thing of the past, they are happening now," argues Greenpeace. "And if BP gets its way, they could come to define our future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Exxon Faces Questions Over Climate as Gates Dumps BP
The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is that "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes".
Another certainty is that you know that the top executives of controversial companies absolutely hate the one day in the year that they are accountable to their shareholders: the AGM.
May 14, 2016
The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is that "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes".
Another certainty is that you know that the top executives of controversial companies absolutely hate the one day in the year that they are accountable to their shareholders: the AGM.
It is a day to be endured under extreme duress. A day when normally aloof executives have to answer awkward questions. There is no escape. There is no spin doctor to wheel out instead. The chief executive and chairman have to go face to face with the public. And it can hurt.
Often the questions are over ridiculously high pay levels. In addition, Big Oil executives are used to being quizzed on a whole host of other abuses: over the years answering why they were propping up apartheid; polluting the coasts of Alaska; colluding with the military who were murdering their critics in Nigeria; over-stating their reserves; polluting the Gulf of Mexico or spending silly money looking for oil in the Arctic. I could go on.
And that is before we get to the thorny issue of climate change and stranded assets and pouring invaluable shareholder money down a big black hole.
The companies are coming under increasing criticism over their flawed long-term business strategy.
Just last week, the influential Economist Magazine reported that "it has been a grim decade for investors in international oil firms--among them, many of the world's biggest pension funds. Even before oil prices started to fall in 2014, the supermajors threw money away on grandiose schemes: drilling in the Arctic and building giant gas terminals."
The magazine continued that "Not only do the supermajors need to brace for the possibility of a renewed slide in oil prices in the short term; they must also prepare for a future in which oil demand is increasingly uncertain because of climate change, pollution and the emergence of alternative sources of energy."
The article finished by concluding that "investors may pressure" the companies from "thinking differently" that the world "will want more hydrocarbons".
And this is happening. At its AGM this month, Exxon will face further questioning over climate change.
Along with Chevron, the board of Exxon is being urged by over 1,000 leading academics from some of the world's top Universities to vote in favour of resolutions which are demanding greater openness by the oil giants on how climate change impacts their business strategy.
The letter says: "Climate change poses financial risks, and investors need better disclosure to understand and price those risks." Lily Tomson from Positive Investment, from the coalition behind the letter to Exxon, argues: "This is a chance to change the trajectory of two of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world."
There are those who argue that Exxon and the other oil majors are running out of time to change, though. Professor Paul Stevens from the Chatham House think tank in London, argues that Big Oil has about ten years to figure out a new business model. If they do not adapt to climate change they could face a rapid and and "brutish" decline within a decade.
Stevens argues that "this would require a major change in the corporate culture" of Big Oil; however, it "remains to be seen whether their senior management could handle such a fundamental shift."
So far Exxon's senior management are adopting the age old "head in the sand" response and the company's board has so far advised shareholders to vote against the measures over climate at the AGM on May 25.
Meanwhile, after months of intense pressure, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has dumped its entire $187 million holding in BP. "We are thrilled that the Gates foundation continues to divest from fossil fuel stocks, but it's time to divest the rest," said Alec Connon, an organiser for the Gates Divest campaign, based in Washington state.
Other large investors are being urged to follow suit and divest their fossil fuel stocks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Our Breasts Are Telling Us
Author Florence Williams and her daughter discovered they had high levels of toxins—like flame retardants—in their bodies. Getting rid of the chemicals was harder than they expected.
Jan 27, 2016
When Florence Williams was breastfeeding her infant daughter a decade ago, she started thinking more about the mechanics of her body. A longtime science and environmental journalist, Williams began to delve into the purpose and function of women's breasts and to examine the chemicals that were reportedly found in breast milk. Her investigation would span years and would lead her to a dramatic step: testing her own breast milk and, later, having both herself and her young daughter evaluated for chemicals in their bodies.
The result: higher than average levels of the kinds of substances found in common consumer products, such as phthalates, triclosan, and BPA (bisphenol A). Williams and her daughter started a "detox diet," weaning themselves off perfumed soaps and other exposure risks. Her research became the 2012 book, Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History, which won a Los Angeles Times Book Prize and an Audie audiobook award for general nonfiction.
Editor at Large Sarah van Gelder spoke with Williams about her book and how the environment affects breasts at every stage of life.
Sarah van Gelder: Are there any other organs of the body that go through as many changes?
Florence Williams: There really aren't. And the reason for that is because breasts are really the last organs in our body to develop. They really don't develop until the last trimester of pregnancy in adulthood, and so because of that, they're sort of undifferentiated for a long time. They go through these incredible cellular changes every monthly cycle and then, of course, every pregnancy. They're these incredibly dynamic organs, and then because of that, they are very influenced by the environment.
Evolution designed breasts to be responsive to the environment. They're full of estrogen receptors, which are the body's way of communicating with the outside world. Circulating estrogen tells the breasts when to grow in puberty. Estrogen tells our breasts when we're pregnant and when they need to start building the mammary glands, so they're very hormonally sensitive. Our world is filled with hormones and substances that mimic hormones.
van Gelder: One of the things I found fascinating about your book is that you actually test yourself to find out what kind of chemical body burden you're carrying around and what's going on with your child, as well. Why did you choose to essentially experiment on yourself and your daughter?
Williams: Participatory journalism appeals to me. I think it makes the science a little bit more human. I found out that there were a handful of chemicals that government scientists were looking at to try and figure out why girls were going through puberty earlier. A number of those chemicals could be tested fairly cheaply in urine. My daughter [then around 6 or 7 years old] and I both were curious about our body burdens for those chemicals. We worked with a nonprofit near Boston, the Silent Spring Institute. Their toxicologists walked us through a little study of our own.
van Gelder: What did you find?
Williams: We tested for three or four of these hormonally active chemicals, including phthalates, which are commonly found in products like paint and plastics; and triclosan, which is an antibacterial compound frequently added to products like soaps and cutting boards. We also tested for BPA (bisphenol A). We found out that we had higher than the U.S. average levels for some of these chemicals.
We worked with the toxicologists to try to reduce our levels by doing a "detox diet" and trying to reduce our exposures by avoiding products like scented shampoos and soaps. For some of the chemicals, such as BPA, it was quite easy to reduce our bodies' chemical loads. But for other substances, like the phthalates, we couldn't budge our chemical loads very much. So even though we try to control our exposures, we can only have so much impact on our chemical load because we don't really know where these exposures are coming from.
For me, this brought home the necessity for manufacturers and the government to take responsibility for keeping hazardous substances out of the marketplace. We cannot be totally effective gatekeepers for our own families.
van Gelder: When you went on that low-toxin diet and found that some chemicals weren't reduced, are those the chemicals that bioaccumulate? Whatever chemicals you've been exposed to over the years are just staying with you?
Williams: The chemicals that we tested for were detectable in urine. And those chemicals actually do not bioaccumulate. Our bodies metabolize them pretty quickly, like in a 24-hour cycle. We did that because they're cheaper to test for. The chemicals that bioaccumulate in fat you have to test by testing blood or breast milk. I tested myself, but not my daughter, for flame retardants and some pesticides.
I tested my breast milk when I was still breastfeeding my daughter, so that was a number of years earlier. I found that, again, I had above-average levels of flame retardants, which at the time were very, very pervasive in American consumer products. They've actually since been largely removed, or are in the process of being removed, from upholstered furnishings, for example, because of consumer concern and California being proactive about changing their flammability standards.
van Gelder: So you didn't know why you had above-average ratings?
Williams: No, I really didn't. I tried to find out where these flame retardants were coming from. Flame retardants have a signature sort of fingerprint, so you can tell by the molecular structure what kind of products they tend to be in. I had particularly high levels of flame retardants that are common in upholstered furnishings and also in consumer electronics, like computers. So we think that's where most of them came from.
van Gelder: What was it like for you when you realized that your breast milk that you were feeding to your babies contained these substances?
"They're these incredibly dynamic organs, and then because of that, they are very influenced by the environment."
Williams: Well, it was a big question mark for me. I realized that we don't know all that much about what they do to our health. There's been a lot of research since then, and what we're learning is not reassuring: These flame retardants, especially, tend to interfere with the thyroid hormone and thyroid hormone signaling. And of course, the thyroid hormone regulates all sorts of critical bodily functions, from metabolism to brain and neurodevelopment. What's encouraging is that when the marketplace changes, our bodies, pretty quickly, reflect those changes. So breast-milk levels of flame retardants are dropping quickly. When we change policy, we can really change our bodies. That's empowering and important to know.
van Gelder: You write in your book about men who end up having breast cancer because of environmental contamination. Are male breasts also so sensitive to the environment?
Williams: For a long time we didn't know the causes of cancer in general or of breast cancer. Women's breasts are governed by these monthly cycles, they're governed by pregnancy, and they're governed by menopause. So when women get breast cancer, it's hard to tease out what's going on. But when men get breast cancer, it's a much clearer picture for scientists. When a cluster started emerging on the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, epidemiologists were quickly fascinated. If the men were getting cancer, it probably wouldn't be so hormonally mediated. So there might be a clear link to the chemicals.
The men getting breast cancer who lived on Camp Lejeune seem to have been exposed to a number of carcinogenic chemicals. And the men were unusually young when they were getting the cancers--in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. The average age for men to get breast cancer, which is still quite a rare disease in men, is about 70.
van Gelder: Are there signs that greater awareness about breast health is taking hold? What's the most promising response you're seeing?
Williams: Women are talking more openly about protecting the right to breastfeed in public. Celebrities like Beyonce are modeling breastfeeding, and Angelina Jolie is increasing awareness of genetic vulnerabilities. I wish we'd talk more about body image and social pressures for young girls, who today grow up expecting and wanting their breasts to look a certain way, and this in turn is feeding the plastic surgery beast. I'm hopeful, though, that this and other conversations are ripe to happen soon.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy