The Obama administration has nominated a senior executive from the pesticide industry’s main trade association to be chief agricultural negotiator for the US Trade Representative. If confirmed, Isi Siddiqui will be responsible for, among other things, negotiating international agreements governing the use of pesticides.The Obama administration has nominated a senior executive from the pesticide... more
In May, President Obama nominated a renowned scientist known as the "father of green chemistry" to head the EPA's Office of Research and Development. For an administration that supports ambitious climate change legislation and stresses the importance of sustainability, the nomination of Paul Anastas, director of Yale's Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering and a former White House environment director, was very much in keeping with its broader agenda. Anastas' nomination was unanimously approved in committee in July, and his confirmation seemed all but assured. Yet six months later Anastas still isn't confirmed. Standing in his way is Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), whose block on Anastas' nomination raises questions about Vitter's close ties to the formaldehyde industry.
Today, the future of the formaldehyde industry is very much in jeopardy. A few years back, the International Agency for Research on Cancer definitively announced that the chemical, used in building materials and household products, causes cancer in humans. The EPA, which has studied formaldehyde's risks for more than a decade, doesn't go quite so far, saying it's a "probable human carcinogen." But that could soon change. The EPA has recently signaled that it plans to definitively assess formaldehyde's health effects. "This is not the time for more delay," an EPA spokeswoman told the New Orleans Times-Picayune in September. As the agency's research director, Anastas would surely have a role in this assessment. Given that one of Anastas' specialties is researching "the design of safer chemicals and chemical processes to replace hazardous substances," the formaldehyde industry is predictably concerned about his nomination.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered two of its attorneys to remove a video they posted on YouTube about problems with climate change legislation backed by the Obama administration. According to documents released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the employees were told that if they did not willingly censor themselves, they would face disciplinary action.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered two of its attorneys to remove a... more
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today reaches a milestone for the Energy Star program by passing the 1 millionth Energy Star qualified home mark.
With more than 15,000 partners in sectors all across the economy, Energy Star has been enormously successful at saving consumers money by reducing the energy usage of products used in the home and office everyday.
Since the program began labeling new homes in 1995, Americans have saved $1.2 billion on their energy bills, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 22 billion pounds. This year alone, families living in Energy Star qualified homes will save more than $270 million on their utility bills, while avoiding greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from about 370,000 vehicles.
A recent article in Nature Biotechnology on how biotechnology companies restrict independent research described a study showing that a genetically modified corn killed ladybugs and that the study was suppressed by the corn’s developer.
In 2001, Pioneer Hi-Bred developed a GM corn variety that contained two Bt toxins, Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1, to kill corn rootworms.
The company asked university laboratories to test for unintended consequences on ladybugs. Scientists fed the corn to ladybugs and found that nearly 100% died after the eighth day in the life cycle.
Pioneer forbade the scientists from publicizing the data. A scientist with the group who wants to remain anonymous said “The company came back and said ‘you are under no circumstances able to publicize this data in any way.’”
Pioneer submitted data to the EPA showing no harm to ladybugs and received government approval to commercialize the corn in 2003.
A Pioneer scientist says the commercialized variety contains a different genetic construct than the corn that killed the ladybugs.
The EPA was told about the independently produced data, but did nothing, according to the anonymous scientist. The same scientist also says Pioneer’s data is flawed.
(Source: Nature Biotechnology)A recent article in Nature Biotechnology on how biotechnology companies restrict... more
Beyond the Line is a DVD and web film program (www.beyond-the-line.org) that illustrates why and how businesses everywhere are turning the risks of climate & environmental change into compelling business opportunities. The film, produced by Serious Nature, explores how to move beyond the line of business-as-usual and become a winner in the face of the fundamental changes that are already affecting businesses around the world. It shows that there is an undeniable business case for proactive environmental strategies.
Companies moving beyond the line, and featured in the film, include General Electric, Marks & Spencer, Ikea, and Marriott International as well as SME’s like Ecoigo, Green Clean and Terracycle.
The film also features interviews with experts from Carbon Disclosure Project, Environmental Defense Fund, Forum for the Future, World Resources Institute and other organizations that have successfully partnered with companies to help them reduce their environmental impacts and increase their business performance.
Paul Dickinson, Chief Executive, Carbon Disclosure Project, says in his interview “Climate change is like the Internet for business - it arrives one day, it gets bigger every year, it never goes away, and you have to learn to make money from it, or you're going to get eaten for lunch.”
The 55 minute version of Beyond the Line is now available at www.beyond-the-line.org as a DVD, as streaming video or as a download.Beyond the Line is a DVD and web film program (www.beyond-the-line.org) that... more
A list of suspects that destroyed an ecosystem and poisoned their people.
Since at least 2002, the DEP has listed Dunkard Creek and several tributaries as "biologically impaired." At least two major coal discharges have consistently violated water quality limits -- sometimes discharging five or six times the legal standards -- for years.
West Virginia DNR search for remaining fish in Dunkard Creek turned up only one white sucker at a site in Mason-Dixon Historical Park.A list of suspects that destroyed an ecosystem and poisoned their people.
Since at... more
"The words on ingredient labels can be misleading. The word fragrance, a misleading term, is too often overlooked, as it might really indicate a combination of 100 or more different chemicals.
Many of them may be toxic or harmful like phthalates, petroleum based ingredients, or flowers sprayed with chemicals or fertilizer. Organic perfumes are fragrance-free and reduce the risks associated with cosmetic toxicity.
Perfume requires only three fundamental ingredients: 1. Essential oils 2.Distilled water 3. Grain alcohol. Natural perfumes composed of essential oils from plants and flowers can energize, unlike harmful ingredients, and are therapeutically potent."
Below are the most common chemicals used which cause all kinds of illnesses.
All we need is three or four ingredients to make perfumes, they are essentially oils that come from herbs and flowers.
That is the real deal.
Also support products cruelty free and 100% natural.
I just called and was told there have been several hundred other calls and that they are looking into legal ways to stop it. The person I spoke to didn't sound very enthused though. But please, call the number at the link and tell the EPA to intervene. It is the one way we can stop this once and for all!
Is the Earth worth one phone call?
___________
Mountaintop removal blasting has begun on Coal River Mountain.
These operations are happening only a few hundred feet away from the Brushy Fork impoundment dam, which holds over 8.2 billion gallons of toxic coal sludge above Pettus, WV. If the dam bursts, nearly a thousand people in the Coal River Valley would likely lose their lives within minutes.
At the same time, Coal River Mountain is the proposed site of an industrial wind farm. Studies have shown that its ridges have the highest and most productive wind potential. The Coal River Wind Project has done research to demonstrate that a wind farm on top of the mountain could generate approximately 1.2% of West Virginia's total energy needs, create 300 jobs in the area, and generate a long-term tax revenue stream. Every day that blasting happens, the possibility for the wind farm diminishes.
The state of West Virginia refuses to do anything about this destruction. Please contact the EPA and ask them to intevene at Coal River Mountain.
Call Lisa Jackson's office at (202) 564-4700.I just called and was told there have been several hundred other calls and that they... more
Green Giants: Conversations with Global Environmental Leaders
BS Top - Dakotah Electric Cars - Mercedes SLS Not long ago, the electric car was left for dead by greedy special interests. In a new documentary, Chris Paine chronicles its unlikely resurrection.Green Giants: Conversations with Global Environmental Leaders
BS Top - Dakotah... more
The Environmental Protection Agency is serious: It really is taking on Big Coal in a big way.
Following up on word last month that it would delay action on 79 mountaintop coal mining projects (EPA Takes on the Coal Industry), the agency on Friday moved to halt the Clean Water Act permit for the nation’s largest proposed mountaintop removal coal mining site, the Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.
EPA letters to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and mine owner Arch Coal say it “has reason to believe” that the Spruce No. 1 mine, as currently authorized, “may result in unacceptable adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.”
It will issue a proposed determination to “restrict or prohibit the discharge of dredged and/or fill material at the Spruce No. Mine project” under the provisions of the Clean Water Act and specifically its Section 404(c).
The provision, never exercised until now, gives EPA the authority to “prohibit, deny or restrict” the use of any defined area for specification as a disposal site. If the determination is finalized the Spruce mine is kaput.
EPA says that while the Spruce No. 1 permit contains some provisions that address concerns about the environmental and water quality impacts on the surrounding region’s watershed, “further modifications to the permit are necessary if the project is to meet fully the requirements of the Clean Water Act” and agency regulations.
While that wording might appear to give Arch some room to fix its permit and wriggle out of an adverse determination, EPA’s unusual and precedent-setting move will require some deft and difficult wriggling.
For example the EPA states that specific to the Spruce project, the Little Coal River watershed has 98 miles of impaired streams, representing 33 percent of the watershed. Meanwhile the Coal River sub-basin has 743 miles of impaired streams, or about 30 percent of the sub-basin.
The Spruce No. 1 Mine “represents the largest authorized mountaintop removal operation in Appalachia and occurs in a watershed where many streams have been impacted by previous mining activities,” EPA explains. While the project has been modified to reduce project impacts, EPA continues that it will “still bury more than seven miles of streams.” And there is the potential for additional discharges to cause further stream degradation.
“We are shocked that the EPA would take such an action in light of the strong support for the Spruce permit voiced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,” says a statement from Arch Coal and its Mingo Logan Coal Company subsidiary.
Arch calls Spruce No. 1 the “most carefully scrutinized and fully considered mine permit” in West Virginia’s history, adding that the permit was “legally issued in 2007” with the intimate involvement of the EPA. That makes the EPA’s recent action “even more difficult to understand,” Arch says.The Environmental Protection Agency is serious: It really is taking on Big Coal in a... more
Industry bias, lax scientific standards, exemption of food crops containing pesticides from registration requirements, and failure to independently monitor GM crops after approval, are among the regulatory problems exhibited by the EPA when it comes to regulating GMOs.Industry bias, lax scientific standards, exemption of food crops containing pesticides... more
"The Environmental Protection Agency today reversed its stance on the potential hazards of atrazine, one of the most commonly-used herbicides in the country, saying it will re-examine how the chemical affects human health."
Wouldn't you say that all herbicides affect one's health? I mean, even if it seems safe, I don't think they can be 100% safe all the time. Is there a natural herbicide that exists?"The Environmental Protection Agency today reversed its stance on the potential... more
Just how far will they go to shill for the coal industry? I actually thought this was a joke. It's not enough with all of the pesticides, GMOs, and artificial crap in our food. Let's just add some toxic coal ash to the mix to make it taste real good. Unbelievable.
Excerpt:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency are asking farmers to use coal ash to grow their crops, despite a paucity of research on possible risks, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). USDA endorses use of coal combustion wastes by farmers "for crop production" while acknowledging uncertainty on the extent to which "toxic elements" are absorbed into produce entering the market.
This month, USDA enters the final year of a three-year partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency as part of a larger effort by the American Coal Ash Association, the Electric Power Research Institute and others to "promote appropriate increased use of" coal ash in agriculture. The implementing Memorandum of Understanding obliges USDA to generate "documentation of the effectiveness, safety and environmental benefits, including bioavailability of trace elements such as mercury, arsenic and selenium...to satisfy the concerns of producers, generators, regulators and the public."
According to EPA, agriculture annually uses more than 180,000 tons of coal ash and other coal combustion byproducts. There are no federal standards governing agricultural applications of coal ash. EPA has publicly vowed to promulgate hazardous waste rules by the end of 2009 for coal ash, one year after last December's disastrous coal ash spills from Tennessee Valley Authority sludge ponds.
"USDA should pull out of the coal ash business tomorrow morning," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who obtained the documents under the Freedom of Information Act. "USDA does American agriculture no favors by duping farmers into spreading hazardous wastes across their fields."
In an April 2, 2009 letter to EPA, USDA Agricultural Research Service Deputy Administrator Steven Shafer expressed "ARS interest" in exploring greater use of coal combustion wastes in crop production as a fertilizer treatment and soil amendment. His letter cites current application of coal ash in growing corn, tomatoes, alfalfa, peanuts, and other crops. While generally sanguine about coal ash use, Shafer concedes that the "long-term effects...remain a subject of research."
Nonetheless, EPA promotional materials state that EPA and "USDA support the use of" coal combustion byproducts "in appropriate soil and hydrogeologic conditions as an effective method of soil conservation and industrial material recycling."
"The public does not want its food to come from ‘industrial material recycling' any more than it wants coal-flavored cauliflower," Ruch added. "This coal ash re-use campaign is really just a multi-billion dollar backdoor subsidy to the coal industry to relieve it of the true costs of handling its toxic wastes."Just how far will they go to shill for the coal industry? I actually thought this was... more
An estimated one in 10 Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains dangerous chemicals, parasites, bacteria or viruses, or fails to meet federal health standards. Part of the problem, says journalist Charles Duhigg, is that water-pollution laws are not being enforced.An estimated one in 10 Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains... more
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finally put an end to the saga of the infamous Spruce Mine, jamming a stake in the heart of what would have been the largest mountaintop removal project in the history of West Virginia.
EPA rejected the permit for this mine due to massive water quality impacts that would have resulted from a series of mega-valley fills. As the agency said in its just-released statement:
"EPA is taking this action because it is concerned about the magnitude, scale, and severity of the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse environmental and water quality impacts associated with this project . The Spruce Mine as currently configured would bury more than seven miles of streams."The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finally put an end to the saga of the... more
An e-mail message buried by the Bush administration because of its conclusions on global warming surfaced Tuesday, nearly two years after it was first sent to the White House and never opened.
The Bush administration, and then EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, refused to release the document when it was written in 2007, and labeled it "deliberative, do not distribute" to Democratic lawmakers. The White House instead allowed three senators to review it in July 2008, when excerpts were released.
The e-mail and the 28-page document attached to it, released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, show that back in December of 2007 the agency concluded that six gases linked to global warming pose dangers to public welfare, and wanted to take steps to regulate their release from automobiles and the burning of gasoline.
The document specifically cites global warming's effects on air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources and coastal areas as endangering public welfare.
That finding was rejected by the Bush White House, which strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing a so-called "endangerment finding" that had been ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007.An e-mail message buried by the Bush administration because of its conclusions on... more
"The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded -- based on science -- that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.
The report, known as an "endangerment finding," was done in 2007. The Bush White House refused to make it public because it opposed new government efforts to regulate the gases most scientists see as the major cause of global warming."
Ideology trumps science when it comes to the actions of a dictator, but the truth is enduring."The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by... more
When the Environmental Protection Agency declared this year on September 11 that all pending mountaintop removal mining permits in four Appalachian states stood in violation of the Clean Water Act and required further review, Lora Webb didn't have time to join in any celebrations. As she and her husband, Steve, a coal miner, packed up their possessions and left his family's ancestral property outside Lindytown, West Virginia, Lora was more concerned about finding a place to sleep that night.
For the past few years, ever since a massive twenty-story dragline landed on a ridge near their home, the Webbs had endured twice-daily, bone-rattling explosions and the quasi-apocalyptic storms of coal dust and fly rock that blanketed their home and garden. Lindytown's creeks and mountain hollows no longer exist, and a once-thriving community has been reduced to a ghost town. "It's unreal. It's like we're living in a war zone," Lora Webb told a local newspaper last fall.
By the spring of this year, the Webbs were one of the last holdouts in the area. Hoping to avoid displacement, they pleaded with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and various federal agencies to enforce mining laws. Lora Webb even toted a jar of coal dust to Capitol Hill. In the end, though, they threw up their hands in bewilderment at the government's inaction and sold their beloved home to Massey Energy, the Richmond-based corporation that runs the nearby Twilight mountaintop removal site. Then they were issued a sixty-day order to evacuate.
The temporarily homeless Webbs are a stark example that mountaintop removal does more than "likely cause water quality impacts," as the EPA has determined. More than 3.5 million pounds of explosives rip daily across the ridges and historic mountain communities in West Virginia; a similar amount of explosives are employed in eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia and eastern Tennessee. Mountaintop removal operations have destroyed more than 500 mountains and 1.2 million acres of forest in our nation's oldest and most diverse range, and jammed more than 1,200 miles of streams with mining waste.
In cautious but no uncertain terms, the Obama administration has finally acknowledged these hazards, and has taken some important steps toward mitigating the damage. On June 11 the Council on Environmental Quality chief, Nancy Sutley, declared that the administration "has serious concerns about the impacts of mountaintop coal mining on our natural resources and on the health and welfare of the Appalachian communities."
more at link...When the Environmental Protection Agency declared this year on September 11 that all... more
A few excerpts:
"The Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with a plan to disclose the identities of all inert ingredients in pesticides including those that are potentially hazardous. This increased transparency will assist consumers and users of pesticides in making informed decisions and will better protect public health and the environment."
"EPA believes one way of discouraging the use of the more hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide formulations is by making their identities public."
On one hand I say we are moving forward, on the other making public these ingredients will not stop the destruction on our Nature or diminish their toxicity.
I have learned that campaigns or regulations like this one only help a bit in the beginning but in the long term things go back the way they were before.
One example is the tobacco industry.
How many warnings are there on the packaging of cigarettes?
A lot.
It seems the more they scare you with: "tobacco kills you or "causes cancer", the more this industry keeps on growing or at least does not lose profits.
One explanation I can come up with is from a psychological point of view, I call it the:
NUMB EFFECT, which repeats the same information over and over again untill it passes unnoticed.
We need to ban these substances from the planet and start embracing organic and natural methods instead.
