Blue Marble

Why Is the Toxic Dispersant Used After BP's Gulf Disaster Still the Cleanup Agent of Choice in the US?

| Fri Apr. 19, 2013 12:37 PM PDT
The Deepwater Horizon debacle began three years ago tomorrow.The Deepwater Horizon debacle began three years ago tomorrow.

Great Britain, the home country of BP, has banned the stuff. So has Sweden. But BP says as long as the US allows it, they'll use Corexit dispersant on their next oil spill. "If this vision becomes reality, long-term destruction to our health and environment will expand exponentially." This according to a damning new report, Deadly Dispersants in the Gulf: Are Public Health and Environmental Tragedies the New Norm for Oil Spill Cleanups?, by the nonprofit Government Accountability Project (GAP).

The GAP report was issued today in advance of tomorrow's three-year anniversary of BP's monster debacle in Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in US history, that killed eleven people and injured sixteen others. BP managed to hide most of the 4.9 million barrels of oil erupting from its maimed well from human eyes by flooding it with 1.84 million gallons of Corexit dispersant, both at the wellhead on the deep sea floor (a first) and at the surface.

That had devastating affects on human health, says the GAP, based on data they collected from extensive Freedom of Information Act requests and from evidence collected over 20 months from more than two dozen employee and citizen whistleblowers who experienced the cleanup's effects firsthand.

BP oil spill clean-up worker near Grande Isle, LA, June 2010.
BP oil spill clean-up worker near Grande Isle, LA, June 2010. © Julia Whitty

The report cites four major areas of concern: 1) existing health problems; 2) failure to protect clean-up workers; 3) ecological problems and food safety issues; 4) and inadequate compensation. Ongoing health problems from the "BP Syndrome" include: blood in urine, heart palpitations, kidney and liver damage, migraines, multiple chemical sensitivity, memory loss, rapid weight loss, respiratory system and nervous system damage, seizures, skin irritation (burning and lesions), and temporary paralysis, plus long-term concerns about exposure to known carcinogens.

Failure to protect clean-up workers began with BP and the government misrepresenting known risks by asserting that Corexit was low in toxicity—this contrary to warnings in BP's own internal manual—says the GAP. They cite other problems:

  • Interviewed cleanup workers reported they either didn't receive any training or didn't receive the federally required training.
  • Worker resource manuals detailing Corexit health hazards were not delivered or were removed from BP worksites early in the cleanup, when health problems began.
  • Divers were allowed to enter the water after assurances it was safe and additional protective equipment was unnecessary, despite government agency regulations prohibited diving during the spill due to health risks.
  • BP and the federal government publicly denied any significant chemical exposure to humans was occurring, though of the workers the GAP interviewed, 87% reported contact with Corexit while on the job, and subsequent blood test results revealed high levels of chemical exposure.
  • BP and the federal government believed that allowing workers to wear respirators would not create a positive public image and the feds permitted BP's retaliation against workers who insisted on wearing this protection. Nearly half of the cleanup workers interviewed by GAP reported that they were threatened with termination when they tried to wear respirators or additional safety equipment on the job. Many received early termination notices after raising safety concerns on the job.
  • All workers interviewed reported that they were provided minimal or no personal protective equipment on the job.

As for compensation: "BP's Gulf Coast Claims Fund denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence."

Living mollusk trying to escape BP oil spill.
© Julia Whitty Living mollusk trying to escape BP oil spill:

Among the ecological damage in the report the GAP notes: "The FDA grossly misrepresented the results of its analysis of Gulf seafood safety. Of GAP's witnesses, a majority expressed concern over the quality of government seafood testing, and reported seeing new seafood deformities firsthand. A majority of fishermen reported that their catch has decreased significantly since the spill."  

I've written extensively about ongoing problems regarding Corexit emerging from the science: overview here; dispersant made spill 52 times more toxic here; dispersant allowed oil to penetrate beaches more deeply here; fish hammered by oil and dispersant here; the decline of microscopic life on oil-and-dispersal-tainted beaches here, and horrific and ongoing whale and dolphin deaths here and here.

The GAP report demands that both BP and the government take corrective action to mitigate ongoing suffering and to prevent the future use of this toxic substance, including: a federal ban on Corexit; Congressional hearings on the link between the current public health crisis in the Gulf and Corexit exposure; immediate reform of EPA dispersant policy, specifically to determine whether such products are safe for humans and the environment prior to granting approval; establishment of effective medical treatment programs run by medical experts specializing in chemical exposure for Gulf residents and workers; funding by the federal government of third-party independent assessments of both the spill's health impact on Gulf residents and workers, and such treatment programs when established. 

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The First—And Last—Hearing on Keystone XL Environmental Impact

| Thu Apr. 18, 2013 3:34 PM PDT
Jane Kleeb of anti-pipeline group Bold Nebraska

State Department officials trekked to Grand Island, Nebraska today to hear statements from ranchers, geologists, construction workers, oil executives, and a colorful cast of other characters in the only public hearing on the Department's latest Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Speakers for and against the pipeline began lining up at 7 a.m. amid frigid cold and snow for a chance to get three minutes on the soapbox at the Heartland Events Center. There was the blustering, hoarse representative of the local Cowboy-Indian Alliance who exhorted Transcanada to "ship your toxic crap to Asia and India" instead of the US; the moody, varsity jacket-wearing teenager who recited an angst-ridden poetic diatribe against the pipeline ("The earth shudders beneath our feet / we are tectonic"); the welder with Pipeliners Local 798 who argued that moving oil through a pipeline was "greener" than using trucks or trains; and the members of a local Sioux tribe who sang prayer songs into the record.

During the three-hour afternoon session, sixty speakers stood before a weary-looking State Dept. panel and lobbed by-now-familiar arguments: jobs and the inevitability of development on one side, and water contamination and climate change on the other. Anti-pipeliners, many dressed in matching red and white t-shirts, held the clear majority, and alternated between sitting stony-faced with upheld power fists, and guffawing and booing when suit-clad oil reps and fleece-jacketed blue collar union leaders voiced their support for the project. The usual suspects from both camps were on hand: Transcanada VP Corey Goulet, and activist Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska, who described the mood in the room as relatively friendly considering the high, longstanding tensions between the two factions.

"Folks that have been dealing with this for four years now aren't holding back," Kleeb said, but "we had a lot of union guys say they agree with our concerns about the environment, but just want to get jobs for their guys."

"Every time citizens get an opportunity to address the government on the pipeline is good," Kleeb said. "It brings all of us together in one place."

Today's hearing was the first and last time for the public to comment in person on this EIS; written comments will still be accepted through April 22. President Obama is expected to make a final decision on the project by September.

States to Feds: Give Us Greenhouse Gas Rules, Or Else!

| Thu Apr. 18, 2013 11:55 AM PDT

A coalition of 10 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, and three national environmental groups, announced Wednesday that they intend to sue if the Environmental Protect Agency does not issue final emissions rules for new power plants in the next two months.

The EPA announced draft rules in March 2012, but the agency still hasn't issued final rules, even though they were required to do so by April 13. And they don't seem to be in any rush: The Washington Post reported last month that the EPA is considering revising the proposed rules, which could further delay implementation.

"While the Obama administration has pledged to combat climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency has now missed the deadline for adopting New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new fossil fuel power plants," said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in a statement announcing the coalition's plans (via The Hill). "Addressing emissions from power plants is critically important. Today’s notice makes clear that if the EPA does not promptly issue these rules, we will take legal action to hold the agency to its commitment."

You can read the complaint here. The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday afternoon that the EPA is in no hurry to finalize those rules:

In a reply, the EPA declined to set a deadline for releasing the final regulations on the plants. “We are working on the rule and no timetable has been set. We continue to review the more than 2.7 million comments we have received on the rule,” spokeswoman Alisha Johnson said.

Snowshoe Hares Can't Keep Up With Climate Change

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 3:05 AM PDT
Wearing the wrong seasonal coat is like a death sentence for haresGrowing or shedding a white winter coat at the wrong time is a monster liability for snowshoe hares:

Snowshoe hares live or die by their coat color—turning brown in the growing season and white in the winter. But the timing of the snow is changing faster than some hares can keep up.

The authors of a new paper in PNAS report that natural populations of North American snowshoe hares (Lepus americanusexposed to three years of widely varying snowpack (2009, 2011, 2012) seemed able to adapt to some extent to changes in spring snow melt dates by changing how quickly they molted from white fur to brown, depending on the presence or absence of snow. But they couldn't change the speed of their autumn molt from brown to white. That's because the fall molt appears to be purely a response to the shortening days and unrelated to the appearance of actual snow. 

"On average, it takes about 40 days for a hare to completely change from brown to white," says lead author L. Scott Mills, at the University of Montana College of Forestry and Conservation. "The white-to-brown change takes a few days longer and shows some ability to speed up or slow down according to temperature or snow."

Beyond these findings, the researchers also used an ensemble of climate change projections to predict how changing snow dates might affect hares in the future. Their results suggest that by 2050 there'll be between 29 and 35 fewer days of snow cover, and by 2100 40 to 69 fewer days. That means hares might be hopping on a mismatched background for four to eight times as many days as they do now.

Projections of increasing seasonal color mismatch in the future. The black line for all panels shows average phenology of hare seasonal color molt across the 3 y of the field study. The blue line shows mean modeled snow duration for the recent past (1970–1999). The orange and red lines show the future (mid-century and late-century) mean modeled snow duration for different emissions scenarios. The gray highlighted regions represent coat color mismatch, where white hares (≥60%) would be expected on a snowless background. As the duration with snow on the ground decreases in the future, mismatch will increase by as much as fourfold in the mid-century and eightfold in the late-century.
In the top graph, the gray area shows dates from three recent years where hares' coats didn't match the season. The bottom two charts' gray areas project more and more color mismatch over the coming century. Credit: L. Scot Mills, et el. PNAS (2013). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1222724110

The future of these hares may boil down to plasticity: the ability of a plant or animal to change its appearance in response to changes in the environment. The authors write:

For example, male rock ptarmigan exhibit behavioral plasticity to reduce conspicuousness by soiling their white plumage after their mates begin egg laying in spring, a phenomenon likely underlain by tradeoffs between sexual selection and predation risk. A more direct avenue for plasticity to reduce mismatch when confronted by reduced snow duration would arise from plasticity in the initiation date or the rate of the seasonal coat color molts. It is not known how much plasticity exists in these traits, nor how much seasonal color mismatch is expected in the future as snow cover lasts a shorter time in the fall and spring. 

Snowshoe hares are the main dinner course for the endangered Canadian lynx, which also inhabits the US. So the hares' ability to adapt or not could fatten lynx in the short term but, as their population declines, leave the cats starving in the future.

Canadian lynx
Canadian lynx: kdee64 at Flickr

At least nine other widely distributed mammals also undergo seasonal color changes: Arctic foxes, collared lemmings, long-tailed weasels, stoats, mountain hares, Arctic hares, white-tailed jackrabbits, and Siberian hamsters. Their ability to match coat color to coming changes in snow cover could determine their fates—and might serve as a lesson for us. As the authors conclude:

The compelling image of a white animal on a brown snowless background can be a poster child for both educational outreach and for profound scientific inquiry into fitness consequences, mechanisms of seasonal coat color change, and the potential for rapid local adaptation. 

CHARTS: 'Messy' US Climate Policy is Kinda Working

| Tue Apr. 16, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
What a mess.

A national climate change plan is nowhere in sight from Congress, and last week the Obama administration pushed back a deadline to crack down on power plant emissions. But despite those—and many other—familiar setbacks, a new report has found that the US is nonetheless inching ahead on climate action.

Yesterday the Climate Policy Initiative released a sweeping overview of climate change policies across the globe. It paints a picture of the US that climate hawks might find distressingly, if familiarly, chaotic: A tangle of federal subsidies, differing state-level clean energy mandates, and a host of natural resources, from wind to coal to natural gas, scrambling for political favor.

"What makes the US unique is that we have no overall climate strategy where all these policies fit," said David Nelson, a CPI researcher and lead author of the report, which describes the thicket of state and federal climate policies as "messy but useful," in that it lacks clarity and direction but can, with luck, produce results.

The surprising thing, Nelson said, is that while the US's approach to dealing with climate change lacks the focus of, say, the EU's carbon trading market, it must be doing something right: Carbon dioxide emissions have fallen 13 percent in the last seven years, and yesterday the EPA announced that greenhouse gas emissions fell 1.6 percent from 2010 to 2011.

New data released yesterday by the federal Energy Information Administration indicates that CO2 emissions could soon start climbing. But they are projected to rise much more slowly than in recent decades—and to stay below their 2007 peak—because of new policies that encourage increased vehicle efficiency, promote renewable energy, and clear the way for the extraction of more low-emissions natural gas through fracking:

Tim McDonnell

Feds Will Take Their Sweet Time Evaluating Pesticide Linked to Bee Deaths

| Fri Apr. 12, 2013 7:45 AM PDT

Back in 2010, when I first started writing about the possible link between a ubiquitous class of pesticides called neonicotinoids and declining honeybee health, major media organizations largely ignored the story. Since then, evidence of the link has piled up in peer-reviewed studies—and now the bug killers, marketed by European chemical giants Syngenta and Bayer, are under suspicion for killing birds, too. Finally, big media are taking note. In recent weeks, The New York Times editorial page, NPR's generally agribiz-friendly Dan Charles, and CBS News have all weighed in with reports on the suspect pesticides and their effects on honeybees. Meanwhile, the annual bee die-offs that have come to be known as "colony-collapse disorder" appear to be accelerating.

Here's that recent CBS report:

Where is the Environmental Protection Agency in all of this? Neonics took a famously dodgy path through the agency's registration process—and a Bayer-funded study purporting to show that the pesticides are harmless to bees, which the EPA had required as a condition for registration, ended up being rejected as bad science by the EPA's own scientists. Stung, so to speak, by the uproar, the EPA announced in 2011 that it would review the registration of one prominent neonic, Bayer's clothianidin, "given the concern about clothianidin and other neonicotinoid pesticides and the EPA’s dedication to pollinator protection."

Neonics are used on a land mass as much as twice as big as California.

Well, given the weight of evidence that has accumulated since 2011 on the pesticides' harm, can we expect the EPA to ban or at least restrict them anytime soon? No. The agency is sticking to its guns—not in defense of honeybees, but rather in defense of the chemicals that appear to be killing them. Last week, CBS News "checked in" with EPA about its review. The agency's response: it "should be completed in five years." Which means at least another half-decade of vast swaths of lands planted with neonic-treated crops.

How much land? Sadly, neither the EPA nor the USDA keeps tabs on pesticide use, so I asked Christian Krupke, an agricultural entomologist at Purdue who has published research implicating neonics in declining bee health, to estimate. His response, via email:

Virtually 100% of corn seed is treated with neonics—that is nearly 100 million acres, add in conservatively 65% of soybeans, all canola, most cotton, most wheat, many smaller acreage crops, and I generally come to a number in the 150-200 million acre range altogether. But it is admittedly not an exact number. In any case, it's an awful lot of land.

The entire state of California occupies 100 million acres, so we're talking about a a land mass equivalent to as much as twice the size of the Golden State.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

That Sustainable Seafood Label May Be Fishy

| Fri Apr. 12, 2013 3:10 AM PDT
Large swordfish (Xiphias gladius) on deck during long-lining operationsLarge swordfish (Xiphias gladius) on deck during long-lining operations:

The Marine Stewardship Council's principles for sustainable fishing are "too lenient and discretionary," according to a new analysis published in Biological Conservation. The MSC's principles "allow for overly generous interpretation by third-party certifiers and adjudicators, which means that the MSC label may be misleading both consumers and conservation funders." This is another black eye for the MSC, which was already failing its own strict standards for awarding the coveted "sustainable" label.

For the 20,000 swordfish 'sustainably' hooked in Canadian waters yearly, longliners also catch 100,000 sharks, 1,200 endangered loggerhead turtles, and 170 leatherback turtles.

The World Wildlife Fund, one of the world's biggest environmental groups, and Unilever, one of the world's biggest seafood processors, founded the MSC in 1997 to provide "the best environmental choice in seafood." But as I've reported herehere, here, and here—and as MoJo's Tom Philpott reported recently here—the prestige of the MSC sustainable blue label has been eroded, challenged, and at times undermined by scientific assessment of the fisheries and genetic analysis of the fish going to market.

The authors of this latest study write:

Despite high costs and difficult procedures, conservation organizations and other groups have filed and paid for 19 formal objections to MSC fisheries certifications. Only one objection has been upheld such that the fishery was not certified. Here, we collate and summarize these objections and the major concerns as they relate to the MSC's three main principles: sustainability of the target fish stock, low impacts on the ecosystem, and effective, responsive management.

Here are some of the lowlights of the MSC report card:

  • Over the past decade, there have been 19 formal objections to Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) fisheries certifications 
  • Adjudicators have upheld only one objection: the Faroese Northeast Atlantic mackerel
  • 12 percent of MSC fisheries have received formal objections
  • By weight, these fisheries represent 35 percent of MSC-certified seafood
  • Loopholes and loose wording in MSC standards allow for controversial fisheries to be certified

​​

School of sardines
Sardines: TANAKA Juuyoh (田中十洋) at Wikimedia Commons.

I wrote about one of these contested fisheries—the Gulf of California sardine—in my portrait of Mexican ecologist Enriqueta Velarde. She's one of the the authors of this Biological Conservation paper who noted that the Gulf of California sardine is only one of several forage fish and other species at or near the bottom of the food chain that have been labeled sustainable, but whose populations are of great concern to scientists. From the paper

The MSC has certified these small pelagic fisheries all over the world, including Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), Norway spring spawning herring (Clupea harengus), Gulf of California sardine (Sardinops sagax) and Argentine anchovy (Engraulis anchoita). These forage species are important in the diets of seabirds, marine mammals and larger finfish and therefore the overfishing of forage fish can lead to declines in their predators. When sardines are available in the Gulf of California, they comprise up to 97% of the diet of some seabird species. Despite the importance of these small pelagic fish in supporting healthy ecosystems, few forage fisheries are managed in an appropriately precautionary fashion. A recent report recommended cutting catches of forage fish in half in many ecosystems, thereby doubling the minimum biomass of forage fish that must be left in the water. ​

The authors also found great fault with the sustainable label awarded to Canada's longline swordfishery because of its extraordinarily high bycatch of other species. For the 20,000 swordfish "sustainably" hooked in Canadian waters yearly, longliners also catch 100,000 sharks, 1,200 endangered loggerhead turtles, and 170 leatherback turtles. As Yale Environment 360 reported: "When the MSC labels a swordfish fishery that catches more sharks than swordfish 'sustainable,' it's time to re-evaluate its standards," says lead author Claire Christian, director of the Secretariat of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition.

Obama Biofuel Budget Spills Few Details, Still Attacked by House GOP

| Thu Apr. 11, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Rep. Goodlatte's proposed bill would throw a wrench in Obama's clean fuel plan.

Enviros hoping for details on President Obama's promised biofuel push got a few answers yesterday in the president's new budget, which still left some questions as to how the administration plans to pay for expensive new biofuels research. The budget indicates the Interior Department may charge the fossil fuel industry more to drill on public lands, a plan that already had Republicans bristling when the president hinted at it last month. 

In mid-March, in a speech at Illinois' Argonne National Lab, Obama pitched an Energy Security Trust, which would collect $2 billion in additional revenues by 2020 from oil and gas companies that drill on federal land, and invest the funds in R&D for cutting-edge biofuels and clean vehicles. According to the Interior Department, these royalties totaled roughly $7.9 billion in FY 2012.

The speech left unclear the question of how an additional $2 billion in royalties could be raised without either raising royalty rates—a non-starter for the fossil fuel industry—or allowing more drilling on more public lands. A White House spokesman was quick to rule out expanded drilling in Alaska, but left the possibility elsewhere. A Climate Desk calculation reviewed by MIT-based energy blogger Jesse Jenkins found that to raise an additional $2 billion in royalties through expanded drilling alone, oil and gas development on public land would need to increase by 1.5 percent and 7.2 percent, respectively, by 2020.

"You certainly don't gain anything by promoting clean energy that ends up promoting the production of more dirty energy sources," NRDC policy analyst Bob Deans told Climate Desk last month.

Deans had hoped that today's budget would clear things up. While the proposal doesn't mention the Energy Security Trust by name, it calls for unspecified adjustments to royalty rates that The Hill reports would be redirected from the general treasury toward the Trust. An Interior Department spokesperson said that annual oil and gas income to the government is projected to rise by $2.8 billion by 2023, but was unsure whether this money would come from new public land drilling or solely via increased royalties.

The budget also carves out $2.3 billion for the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which oversees R&D on advanced biofuels (as well as solar, wind, and other clean energy research), but doesn't specify how much of that would go toward biofuels specifically, or whether these funds are in addition to the $2 billion for the Energy Security Trust. A White House spokesperson did not return repeated calls for comment.

Did Keystone XL Contractor Hide Its Conflict of Interest?

| Tue Apr. 9, 2013 3:30 PM PDT

The environmental consulting firm hired to evaluate the impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline should have been barred from working on the project, according to a group of environmentalists. On Monday, representatives from 13 environmental organizations asked State Department's Inspector General to investigate whether the firm's previous relationships with TransCanada should have qualified as a conflict of interest.

As my colleague Andy Kroll reported last month, three staff members employed by the environmental consulting firm hired to produce the report, Environmental Resources Management (ERM), had previously worked for TransCanada (the company that wants to build the 1,600-mile pipeline). Within the past three years, ERM has also worked for oil companies that could stand to benefit from the pipeline. The bios of those staffers had been redacted from the background documents posted online.

The organizations sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Harold Geisel, the deputy inspector general of the State Department, on Monday calling for an investigation into whether this constitutes a conflict of interest, and whether ERM was not transparent on that conflict. The letter's authors point to the conflict of interest statement that ERM provided in its supporting documents (see page 42 here), which asks the company, "Within the past three years, have you (or your organization) had a direct or indirect relationship (financial, organizational, contractual or otherwise) with any business entity that could be affected in any way by the proposed work?" ERM responds:

(X) No. ERM has no existing contract or working relationship with TransCanada.

The letter argues that this is misleading; the questions asks about the "past three years," while the response addresses a "current or working relationship." The groups write:

The State Department Contracting Officer should have flagged these inconsistencies on ERM's Organizational Conflict of Interest questionnaire, when he/she reviewed ERM’s proposal.
Because this was not flagged, we are calling for the State Department Inspector General to pursue an investigation into how the Contracting Officer overlooked these discrepancies on ERM’s documents, and given these incomplete statements, whether ERM is a "responsible party" under the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

"I May Be a Republican. I'm Not an Idiot."

| Tue Apr. 9, 2013 1:14 PM PDT
dunce cap

Lancaster, California is the state's 30th largest city, with a population of more than 150,000. Its Republican mayor, class-action attorney and alleged "unstoppable control freak" R. Rex Parris, has big plans for solar and clean energy. Lancaster requires virtually all new homes to either install solar panels or be built in subdivisions that generate a kilowatt of solar energy per house. The mandate is the first of its kind in the United States.

When asked by New York Times reporter Felicity Barringer if he views global warming as an imminent threat, Parris replied "absolutely." He continued: "I may be a Republican. I'm not an idiot."

Parris may be going out on a political limb, but science is on his side. Only about 0.17 percent of peer-reviewed papers on the subject actually question the science behind global warming or whether carbon emissions are causing it.

Parris has been on the solar-energy warpath for a while. In a ClimateWire story published last month, he is quoted as describing climate change as the biggest threat to the planet: "There isn't any greater crisis facing the world today. We're going to see the displacement of millions and millions of people. Whether we can survive the wars that that's going to cause is an open question."

"[Our mandate] serves as a model," he later told E&E News. "Here I am in an extremely conservative area, and there was almost no push-back."

h/t Taegan Goddard