usnews--2019-12-13--Documents: Mining Company Writing Own Environmental Report

The report, called a biological assessment, would typically be written by the Forest Service or an independent contractor. Its purpose is to examine the potential effect the open-pit mines would have on salmon, steelhead and bull trout protected under the Endangered Species Act.  An internal Forest Service document in February 2018 shows the agency deciding to deny Midas Gold's request to participate as a non-federal representative in writing the assessment because the massive project would likely harm protected fish. But by October 2018, Midas Gold was not only a participant, it had taken over leading the process and writing the document.  “We will prepare the draft assessment from that collaborative process," Lyon said. “We are really looking at this to make the process more inclusive and transparent in getting all the voices and input at the table."  Documents show ongoing lobbying efforts with federal agencies and then a meeting in May 2018 between Midas Gold and Dan Jiron, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's acting deputy under secretary for natural resources and environment. In November, Midas Gold met with Jim Hubbard, the Agriculture Department's under secretary for natural resources and environment.  John Freemuth, an expert on U.S. land policies at Boise State University, said it's not unusual for companies to lobby whatever administration is in power. But he said having a company get the OK to write its own biological assessment is something he's never heard of before.  Midas Gold says the Stibnite Mining District contains more than 4 million ounces (113 million grams) of gold and more than 100 million pounds of antimony. Antimony is used in lead for storage batteries as well as a flame retardant. The U.S. lists antimony as one of 35 mineral commodities critical to the economic and national security of the country. Midas Gold says the mines will directly create an average of 500 jobs for up to 25 years.  Mining in the area about 40 miles (65 kilometers) east of McCall dates back more than a century and has resulted in two open pits, including one that has been blocking a salmon spawning stream since the 1930s. The site also has extensive tailings left from mining operations that are the source of elevated levels of arsenic.  The Nez Perce Tribe has treaty rights to the area and has come out against new mining amid concerns for fish habitat. Below the mining area is about 80 river miles of habitat for spring/summer Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout in the South Fork of the Salmon River and its tributary, the East Fork of the South Fork. The Salmon River itself is home to additional federally protected salmon, including endangered sockeye salmon.  The biological assessment will be used to create a draft environmental impact statement expected to be released in early 2020, with a final decision possible later in the year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service will have to sign off on the plan.  "At the end of the day, people are going to sue if they think that the document is insufficient," he said. “This will be heavily scrutinized.”


usnews--2019-12-12--Environmental Groups Sue Steel Mill Over Lake Chemical Spill

PORTAGE, Ind. (AP) — Two environmental groups are suing a steelmaker for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act at its northwestern Indiana facility more than 100 times in the past five years, including an August spill that killed more than 3,000 fish.  The Environmental Law and Policy Center and Hoosier Environmental Council filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court after previously alerting ArcelorMittal of their plans to sue, The (Northwest Indiana) Times reported. ArcelorMittal's facility in Burns Harbor discharges pollution into the East Arm of the Little Calumet River, which flows directly into Lake Michigan.  The groups allege that the company breached its Clean Water Act permit after releasing impermissible levels of cyanide and ammonia in August. The chemical spill killed fish, forced nearby beaches to shutter and kept visitors away from the newly designated Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.  ArcelorMittal's toxic spill and permit infractions harm the environment, kill fish and endanger safe drinking water, said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy center.  The suit "calls for fines and penalties sufficiently large to change ArcelorMittal's environmental practices and modernize the company's equipment and operations to better reduce pollution damages going forward," Lerner said.  "ArcelorMittal should be held fully accountable for its pollution that harms local communities, the Lake Michigan shoreline and nearby waters, and the aquatic life and ecosystem of Northwest Indiana," he said.  A spokesman for ArcelorMittal said the company had not yet been served with the lawsuit.  Indra Frank, environmental health and water policy director for the Hoosier Environmental Council, said the community cannot continue waiting for the state and federal governments to act in the face of "repeated, illegal damage to Lake Michigan."  "The damage has to stop for the sake of everyone who gets their drinking water from the lake; everyone who swims, fishes, or boats in the Lake; and the wildlife that make their home in the Lake," Frank said.  The groups said ArcelorMittal did not disclose the spill until after the public began discovering thousands of dead fish.  ArcelorMittal, one of Porter County's largest employers, has nearly 3,400 workers on a nearly 2,000-acre (809-hectare) swath along Lake Michigan, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) southeast of Chicago.  Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


usnews--2019-12-06--Another Cut in Cod Fishing Not Enough for Environmentalists

Fishing regulators are proposing another cutback to the catch limits for Atlantic cod, but some environmentalists say the move isn't significant enough to slow the loss of the species.  Atlantic cod fishing was once one of the biggest marine industries in New England, but the fishery has deteriorated after years of overfishing and environmental changes. Fishermen caught less than 2 million pounds of the fish in 2017, decades after routinely catching more than 100 million pounds annually in the early 1980s. It was the worst year for the fishery in its history.  The cod fishing industry is now subject to strict quotas. The New England Fishery Management Council, a regulatory panel, proposed on Wednesday to cut the allowable commercial catch limit for cod on two key fishing areas off New England from more than 4 million pounds to less than 3 million pounds per year.  “The current stock status is overfished, and overfishing is occurring," said Jamie Cournane, groundfish plan coordinator with the management council. “Over the years, people have discussed the role of the environment and other factors on these stocks."  But Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based environmental group, said nothing short of an end to directed fishing of cod will be enough to rebuild the stock.  “It should be an incidental catch fishery. It's abundantly clear that decades of risky decisions have failed this fishery and generations of fishermen," said Erica Fuller, an attorney for the group, at Wednesday's meeting. “Put these stocks on a track to rebuild."  Atlantic cod were once the preferred fish for fish and chips, but other species have filled that void in the years since the species' population dropped and the fishing industry for it fell into decline.  The New England Fishery Management Council's recommendation must be approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce to go into effect.  Fishermen in the Northeast have long avoided cod because of the low quotas. The fish is a “choke species,” meaning fishermen must stop fishing altogether once they reach their quota for it. Most instead target more plentiful species, such as haddock and pollock.  The new catch limits would apply through 2022, though they could be updated in 2021 and 2022, because the U.S. shares some of the catch quota with Canada.  Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


usnews--2019-12-05--Transmission Line Foes Press for Full Environmental Review

LEWISTON, Maine (AP) — Opponents of Central Maine Power's proposed $1 billion transmission project that would bring Canadian hydropower to the New England power grid urged the Army Corps of Engineers on Thursday to perform a full environmental impact statement, one that CMP says would delay a final decision by a year.  Critics packed a public hearing on the 145-mile (230-kilometer) power transmission project, which would serve as a conduit for 1,200 megawatts of electricity from Hydro Quebec. They questioned the environmental benefits, decried the cutting of trees and argued that the project would hurt homegrown renewable projects.  “It's bad for Maine's North Woods. It's bad for Maine's renewable energy. And it's not going to help us at all with our climate crisis,” said Sue Ely, attorney for The Natural Resources Council of Maine, which is opposed to the project.  The environmental organization contends CMP's New England Clean Energy Connect deserves the same level of scrutiny that similar projects received in New Hampshire and Vermont, where the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers conducted full environmental impact statements.  “There is no reason that Maine shouldn't get the full look that New Hampshire's and Vermont's projects did,” she said.  Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden called on the Army Corps to hold a hearing on the project, which has met with stubborn resistance in many communities along the proposed path.  Golden encouraged CMP to ensure that Mainers are hired for the project, if it's approved. “In order to maximize the benefit to Maine communities, CMP should guarantee that these jobs go to Mainers," he wrote in a letter.  Most of the transmission line would follow established utility corridors, but a new swath would be cut through 53 miles (85 kilometers) of wilderness on land that CMP owns in western Maine.  Supporters say there will be benefits for all of New England by suppressing electricity rates and reducing carbon emissions by the equivalent of more than 700,000 vehicles.  “This is a decision that's extremely important in the context of the climate urgency that we face. We don't have decades to get this right. If you look at the projects that are available in the Northeast, this is the most significant one in terms of impact,” she said before the meeting.  The Maine Public Utilities Commission has given its green light to the project. But the Department of Environmental Protection and Land Use Planning Commission won't rule until the new year. The Army Corps of Engineers must also sign off on the project.  Col. William Conde, commander and district engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers, said the agency already has a good understanding of the environmental impact. He said he'll decide in a few months whether a full environmental impact statement is needed.  “We have a process. We've been doing it a long time. We issue about 2,500 permits in New England every year. We follow that process and that process will lead us to a decision,” he said.


usnews--2019-11-20--Lawmakers Request Environmental Review of Factory Closure

BENNINGTON, Vt. (AP) — Vermont lawmakers have asked environmental officials to monitor the pending closure of the Energizer factory for any pollution.  The Bennington Banner reports Democratic Sen. Brian Campion wants to avoid the toxic chemical contamination that was found when two former factories in Bennington closed in 2002.  Campion and Sen. Dick Sears say in an email that the battery factory is working with the state’s Agency of Natural Resources on its closure plan and keeping the process “public and transparent.”  The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation's Waste Management and Prevention Division says the notice of the facility’s closure is the first step in a comprehensive closure process.  The next step will be the development of closure plan to be reviewed by environmental officials and carried out 90 days prior to the plant shutdown.  Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


usnews--2019-11-15--Final Environmental Analysis of Jordan Cove Project Issued

COOS BAY, Ore. (AP) — The proposed Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas terminal and its 230-mile (370-kilometer) feeder pipeline in southern Oregon would have some adverse and significant impacts, according to staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  The agency’s staff issued their final environmental analysis of the contentious natural gas export project Friday, concluding it would result in “temporary, long-term and permanent impacts on the environment,” The Oregonian/OregonLive reported.  The report says many of those impacts would not be significant or could be reduced to less than significant levels with avoidance and mitigation measures, the analysis said, but some would be adverse and significant, staff concluded.  The staff analysis is neither an approval nor denial of the project; that’s up to a vote of the agency’s presidentially appointed commissioners after the analysis goes through a public comment period and incorporates any subsequent revisions.  A final order is expected from commissioners on Feb. 13. Even if it wins regulatory commission approval, construction of the project would be contingent on the project obtaining a host of other state, federal and local approvals.  Specifically, the regulatory staff concluded that the project would permanently and significantly impact the visual character of Coos Bay; generate significant but temporary noise and housing problems; significantly impact operations of the Southwest Oregon Regional Airport operations, and adversely affect 18 federally-listed or proposed threatened and endangered species.  Jordan Cove spokesman Paul Vogel pointed to the jobs and tax benefits the project would deliver and said backers had committed to undertake extensive mitigation to preserve old growth forests, wetlands and riparian habitat.  Opponents of the project emphasized in a news release that the project was earlier rejected by the regulatory commission in 2016 because backers couldn’t demonstrate a public need for the project that outweighed its impacts on landowners impacted by the proposed Pacific Connector pipeline, which would stretch across much of Southern Oregon.  Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


usnews--2019-11-11--Texas Petrochemical Plant Fire Environmental Impact Unclear

HOUSTON (AP) — Researchers are uncertain about the environmental impact of toxic chemicals used to extinguish a three-day blaze at a Houston-area petrochemical storage facility after some leaked into a busy commercial waterway.  The fire at the Intercontinental Terminals Company facility in Deer Park began in a naphtha tank March 17, igniting other tanks at the plant and sending plumes of thick, black smoke over the area. The fire and resulting air pollution forced the closure of roads, schools and the Houston Shipping Channel. It triggered air quality warnings but caused no injuries.  Foam used to control the spread of the fire was inadvertently released into the channel when a containment wall failed. Researchers with the Galveston Bay Foundation and Texas A&M Superfund Research Center spent months collecting and analyzing water samples from the channel and uncovered traces of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAs, the Houston Chronicle reported.  PFAs have been in use since the 1940s and can be found in products including food wrappers, fabrics and firefighting foam. Some PFA compounds have been linked to illnesses including cancer.  "The area where the fire was tidal, so the tides flow upstream and downstream a couple of times a day. So basically this stuff just sloshed around for a while before it could flush into the system into Galveston Bay proper and ultimately . be flushed down into the Gulf of Mexico as well," Bob Stokes, director of the foundation, said while presenting the researchers' findings in Seabrook last week.  Stokes said people aren't drinking water from the channel, and it's unlikely anyone is swimming in it. But he expressed concern that that the chemicals don't break down, and that researchers don't know how they could harm fish and the people who fish in the area.  "For the vast majority of these compounds, there aren't any regulatory limits at all and very little data on toxicity to use as a benchmark to compare whether or not levels we found are or are not of concern," said Weihsueh Chiu, professor at Texas A&M.  Stokes said the testing of samples from the channel is only a first step.  "What it doesn't do, and what we think there needs to be more research on, is what it really means, what health impacts might be caused because of this," Stokes said.  Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


usnews--2019-11-09--Dow Agrees to $77M Environmental Settlement in Michigan

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Dow Chemical Co. has agreed to fund environmental restoration projects worth an estimated $77 million to compensate for decades of pollution by its plant in Midland, Michigan, officials said Friday.  A deal between the company and government agencies calls for improvements to fish and wildlife habitats tainted by dioxins and other hazardous substances from Dow's manufacturing complex in its headquarters city of Midland.  "This settlement has been more than a decade in the making by a combined team of state, federal and tribal partners working together for the benefit of Michigan's environment and precious natural resources," state Attorney General Dana Nessel said.  The agreement would be legally binding and needs a federal judge's approval to take effect. It would resolve a complaint filed by government agencies that alleges the company's pollution harmed birds, fish, invertebrates and mammals in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers and their watersheds.  Dow's facility began operating in 1897. For generations it dumped or incinerated wastes that contaminated the 50-mile-long (80-kilometer-long) river valley, which extends into Lake Huron's Saginaw Bay, with dioxins and related compounds linked to cancer and other illnesses.  Cleanup of the Tittabawassee River began in 2007 and is expected to be finished in 2021. No completion date has been set for the other waterways.  The pollution has prompted warnings to limit consumption of some fish and wild game, and to avoid touching the soil in certain areas, including parks.  Construction of a fish passage ramp at a Tittabawassee River dam will provide hundreds of miles of new habitat for migratory species, while the state Department of Natural Resources will get funding to build spawning reefs in Saginaw Bay.  About 2,000 acres (800 hectares) of private land will be shielded from development through conservation easements. An expansion of the Shiawassee National Wildlife Reserve will provide more room for hunting.  As part of the settlement, Dow will pay $15 million to a team of trustees including officials with state and federal agencies and the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.  Some of the money will be used to maintain and monitor the effectiveness of the 13 projects, while at least $5 million will fund additional natural resource initiatives selected by the trustees with advice from the public.  In a statement, the company said it was "committed to working cooperatively with the ... trustees to move forward with implementation of the proposed restoration plan over the next five years" and had set aside money to pay for the settlement.  The trustees will host a public meeting Nov. 21 in Saginaw to provide more details about the plan, said Matthew Schneider, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.  "We are thankful to Dow and the trustees for their work in reaching this excellent result, which will benefit the residents of the Saginaw Bay area and the wildlife and waterfowl that inhabit it," Schneider said.


usnews--2019-10-12--2 Indiana Environmental Groups Merge, Plan Kids' Health Push

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Two longtime Indiana environmental groups have merged and drafted plans for a refocused mission on children's environmental and health initiatives.  The Hoosier Environmental Council and Improving Kids' Environment announced their merger Thursday. Both Indianapolis-based nonprofits will come under the banner of the Hoosier Environmental Council, which has been Indiana's leading environmental health advocate for more than 36 years.  Improving Kids' Environment worked for two decades to reduce toxic risks to Indiana children from lead, pesticides and other sources.  Jesse Kharbanda is the council's executive director. He says the merger "enables our combined organization to better tackle remaining challenges."  He says their focus will now be on three children's health initiatives, including reducing childhood lead poisoning and decreasing bacterial pollution so kids have clean drinking water and streams to play in.  Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


theirishtimes--2019-12-13--Grassland Farmer of the Year says sector is tackling environmental issues

A young farmer who has been named as the Grassland Farmer of the Year says the much-maligned sector is actively tackling environmental problems and seeking solutions.  Bryan Daniels from Co Kilkenny says many farmers are working towards creating sustainability within their farm gate.  He says that he is always striving to improve every aspect of his farm at Raheenarran in Kilmoganny and that there are many positives to share with the wider community.  “We are not the problem that some people perceive we are. We carry so many of the solutions coming with us in terms of the low carbon footprint on our milk and beef we produce but also what we can do in terms of rebuilding the environment’s biodiversity, and improving water quality,” he says.  “Most of the [criticism] of farmers is unwarranted. It comes from a context taken out of hand. It is case of correcting the mistruths and showing the good that we are doing.”  Mr Daniels, who attended the awards ceremony at Teagasc in Fermoy, Co Cork with his wife, Gail, and their son, Eli, said he was surprised to win. “I didn’t expect it but am pleased. The work on the farm has been ongoing for generations. I am lucky in that my father gave me control of the farm 19 years ago when I was in night college. We have worked on trying to improve the farm, to bring on the sustainability of it.”  The father of three is a former Teagasc young farmer of the year winner and is considered one of the bright lights of his generation.  After one year at Kildalton Agricultural College, Mr Daniels came back to the farm at Kilmoganny in 2001. He believes that grassland is Ireland’s natural advantage and advocates the optimisation of grass production and utilisation.  The Grassland Farmer of the Year awards have an overall prize fund of €30,000 funded by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.  Now in its third year, it rewards farmers who are achieving high levels of grass utilisation on their farms. All three winners to date have also previously won the young farmer of the year award.  Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Michael Creed said the judges had visited all 13 of the nominated farms “seeing the best in action”.  He said he wanted the overall winner to use the award as an opportunity to show other farmers what can be done.  “We are at a time in agriculture where we need champions, we need ambassadors. We need people to go as leaders in their own community,” he said.  “Don’t go home and bask in the glory in your front room. Take it to your farming neighbours and friends. Take it to the broader agricultural sector.  “Agriculture needs people who will stand up and say ‘We are not the problem. We are a big part of the solution’.”  Mr Creed said the “world has to be fed” and sustainability was vital to the future. “Grassland management is a critical ingredient in profitable farming. The challenge for all of us is to maximise the efficiencies and to do it in a more sustainable way.”


theirishtimes--2019-12-10--Call for funds for environmentally-friendly farmers to protect rivers and lakes

Farmers and environmental campaigners have separately called on the Government to increase funding available for environmentally-friendly farming to protect rivers and lakes.  The Irish Farmers Association said more than 40 per cent of all farmers in Ireland took part in the Department of Agriculture’s Green Low Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme (GLAS).  However, the programmed was “over-subscribed and closed to new entrants”, said IFA president Joe Healy, who called for a series of extra State supports for farmers.  He said ineffective waste-water treatment plants run by Irish Water around the country were causing more damage to rivers and lakes than farmers.  Farmers take part in the Agricultural Sustainability Support and Advisory Programme, operated by Teagasc and dairy co-ops, which offers advice on how to protect water courses.  Calling for the reopening of GLAS to new farmers and an increase in the €10,000 grant to those qualifying, Mr Healy said efforts were also needed to improve the quality of Irish soil by a national lime-spreading programme.  Saying that action was urgently needed to tackle farming pollution, Karin Dubsky of environmental group Coastwatch said the State’s agriculture policies must change to reward good behaviour.  She said grants for better septic tanks must be made easier to get. People who knew their tanks were not adequate were “crying out” for inspections, but these could take years to happen.  The Department of Agriculture has a number of rules governing the use of fertilisers and the spreading of slurry:  * Not to spread slurry or use fertiliser when rain is due to prevent run-off;  * Not to spread both near ditches, streams and lake shores;  * Farmers should check their lands beforehand to discover how much phosphorus is needed, and not spread more than is needed;.  * Take extra care when spreading on heavy or wet soils, where fertiliser and slurry run-off is most dangerous;  Regarding nitrogen-based fertilisers, farmers are told not to spread too much since three-quarters of what is used is wasted.  * Make sure the soil fertility and soil pH is correct to get the best of the nutrients that are used.  Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government Eoghan Murphy, who is responsible for water quality, said it was “now more important than ever” that everyone assisted the Government’s plans to protect rivers, lakes and streams.


theirishtimes--2019-12-04--Europe is at an environmental tipping point, says report

Europe is at an environmental tipping point which threatens its prosperity and the risks go beyond the consequences of human-induced global warming, according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) report.  An alarming rate of biodiversity loss, increasing impacts of climate disruption and over-consumption of natural resources means “Europe faces environmental challenges of unprecedented scale and urgency”, it warns.  Its State of the Environment Report (SOER), published on Wednesday – which will be outlined at COP25 climate talks in Madrid – predicts Europe will not achieve its 2030 environmental goals and so risks undermining its ability to decarbonise in coming decades.  It indicates, however, there is reason for hope, due to increased public awareness of the need to shift to a sustainable future; the pace of technological innovations, and stepped-up EU action, notably the imminent European new green deal.  Most solutions are already identified but they risk failure if they are not implemented with the required urgency, concludes the report which evaluates data from 39 countries, and is used to frame EU climate and environmental policy.  While European policies have improved the environment, there is not enough progress and the outlook for the coming decade is not positive, the report found.  “A business as usual approach will not cut it,” warned EEA executive director Hans Bruyninckx.  “We have a narrow window of opportunity in the next decade to scale up measures to protect nature, lessen the impacts of climate change and radically reduce our consumption of natural resources,” he added that incremental changes have made some progress but not nearly enough to meet long-term goals.  “We already have knowledge, technologies and tools needed to make key production and consumption systems such as food, mobility [transport] and energy sustainable. Future wellbeing and prosperity depend on this and our ability to harness society-wide action to bring about change,” Mr Bruyninckx added.  He said Ireland’s biggest task was to improve its carbon emissions curtailment; most notably in transport and agriculture.  SOER 2020 is the most comprehensive environmental assessment ever undertaken on Europe. It provides a snapshot of where Europe stands in meeting 2020 and 2030 policy targets as well as 2050 goals in shifting to a sustainable, low carbon future.  It acknowledges progress over the past two decades in cutting emissions. Signs of progress are also evident in tackling air and water pollution, addressing plastic waste, “and bolstering climate change adaptation [to address physical impacts of global heating] and the circular and bio-economy”.  The EU’s sustainable finance initiative means the bloc’s financial sector is driving the necessary shift to a sustainable future – a world first. But based on current delivery rates, Europe will not achieve its sustainability vision of “living well within the limits of the planet by continuing to promote economic growth and seeking to manage the environmental and social impacts”.  The report calls on Europe’s leaders and policymakers to use the next decade to radically scale up – and speed up – actions to put Europe on track “to avoid irreversible change and damage”. Investing in sustainability while stopping subsidies for environmentally damaging activities, especially fossil fuels, are needed. “At the same time, it will be crucial to listen to public concerns and ensure widespread support for such a shift – a socially-fair transition.”  The report “is perfectly timed to give us the added impetus we need as we start a new five-year cycle in the European Commission and as we prepare to present the European green deal”, said commission vice president Frans Timmermans. “If we get this right, and our economy and our planet will be winners too.”


theirishtimes--2019-11-13--Environmentalists say proposed Bill makes it harder to object to planning decisions

A move by Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy to tighten up planning regulations and restrict the ability to legally challenge proposed developments has caused outrage among environmental organisations.  Details of proposed measures were revealed in an email to members of the Oireachtas Committee for Housing, Planning and Local Government in recent days.  The proposed Bill adds many requirements and restrictions that will make it much harder for citizens and environmental NGOs to achieve the necessary “standing” to take cases.  The Environmental Pillar (EP), a coalition of leading environmental organisations, said it was “shocked” at the Minister’s attempt to press for new planning legislation “that would make it near impossible to challenge planning decisions in the courts and hold public authorities and the government to account”.  The proposals are outlined in the Housing and Planning and Development Bill 2019.  The EP said the changes would “add to the complexity of the court process and increases the risks of exposure to significant costs to those seeking to challenge bad planning decisions”.  The Heads of the Bill appear “to favour developer’s interests at the cost of environmental rights”, the EP added.  Attracta Uí Bhroin, environmental law officer with the Irish Environmental Network, said: “The Government is proposing a Frankenstein-like monster approach to killing off access to justice in Ireland, drawing from the worst practices elsewhere, and putting them all together in a bid to obstruct the rights of citizens and concerned NGOs to challenge bad and unlawful planning decisions.”  “This legislation would row back on major changes introduced just a few years ago to enable ordinary people and small but committed environmental NGOs to legally challenge bad environmental decisions, without fear of incurring eye-watering costs and extensive obstacles to accessing justice.”  The Department has argued challenges cause delays.  The Minister defended the changes in the email. “In light of the level of proposed investment under the National Development Plan, it is considered that there is a need to safeguard the timely delivery of projects and value for public money while simultaneously maintaining the rights of citizens to challenge decisions that do not comply with EU environmental law…”  The current system allows for each side to bear their own costs, and it is feasible for successful litigants to be awarded a certain amount of their costs if successful. This enables lawyers to be employed on a “no foal no fee basis”.  The new rules would impose a cap of €5,000 for individuals and €10,000 for groups. A limit on awards of €40,000 in successful challenges would make it unsustainable for the small cohort of lawyers prepared to act for citizens and environmental NGOs, the EP said.


theirishtimes--2019-10-10--Leading environmentalist and former minister weigh in on Co Kerry greenway plan

The barrister representing 25 landowners opposed to the compulsory purchase of their lands for a greenway cycleway in south Kerry has told the An Bord Pleanála hearing the board would be acting contrary to a 2014 European directive and to Irish law if it does not grant an adjournment because of the volume of errors and changes to public documents by applicants, Kerry County Council.  The dramatic application was strongly supported by leading environmentalist Peter Sweetman, whose interventions on the necessity for complete habitat studies in the case of the Galway bypass in 2012 partly led to the 2014 EU directive on environmental impact assessments.


theirishtimes--2019-10-06--Environmental activists to hold protests in Dublin on Monday

Environmental activists will stage multiple demonstrations in Dublin on Monday as part of a week-long campaign of civil disobedience in the capital aimed at pressurising the Government to do more to tackle the climate emergency.  The disruption seeks to shine a light on climate breakdown and the biodiversity crisis and will see Extinction Rebellion Ireland (XRI) members join like-minded groups in other cities to stage an international “Rebellion Week”.


theirishtimes--2019-07-20--Environmental activists block traffic in Dublin city centre

A group of environmental and transport activists have blocked traffic in Dublin’s South William Street to highlight the “urgent” need for action to address the city’s air pollution.  Demonstrators erected temporary traffic measures that included tables and chairs to create a car-free zone between Chatham Street and Wicklow Street for a number of hours on Saturday.  The “clean air action” was organised by members of Dublin Commuter Coalition, Dublin Cycling Campaign, the Irish Pedestrian Network and Extinction Rebellion Ireland who are calling on the Government to take immediate action to reduce motor traffic and create clean air zones throughout the city.  Neasa Hourigan, Green Party councillor and co-founder of the Irish Pedestrian Network, said the capital’s poor air quality was “costing lives”.  “It is beyond time that the Government starts listening to groups like ourselves because the inertia we’ve seen from Government and local authorities on introducing low emission zones, clean air zones and pedestrian areas has resulted in the report from last week where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited dangerous levels of pollution in our city,” she said.  “We do a huge amount of work on road deaths in terms of traffic, we don’t anything in terms of air pollution and that is costing people their lives . . . We need to do more work on it. We need to take it more seriously and that can’t come fast enough.”  The EPA report found that the levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air in Dublin represents a possible public health risk and may be exceeding the annual limits deemed safe by the European Union.  Ms Hourigan said the group will continue to hold protests until measures to combat air pollution are introduced.  “When we’ve reached a point where we’re chocking on the air that we breathe, where children are developing increased cases of asthma, where people are struggling to breathe in the city, it is time to revisit this,” she added. “We are choking.”  She added that other European countries were taking action but said Ireland was lagging behind, making changes “at a snail’s pace”.  Janet Horner from the Dublin Cycling Campaign said: “We’re facing a climate emergency and we’re facing a public health emergency in terms of air pollution.  “Urgent action is required . . . Reducing traffic in the city works for everybody and it’s important on so many different grounds.”  Ms Horner said about 1,500 deaths a year are caused by air pollution in Ireland and that figure does not include all those impacted by respiratory illnesses.  “We know that the nitrogen dioxide in the air in the city is dangerously high,” she said.  “We need to reduce the traffic in our city centre, we need to do that for climate reasons, we need to do that for public health reasons and we need to do that for safety reasons. Out streets aren’t safe so we want to change that.”  She said it had been “obvious” for more than a decade now that South William Street should be pedestrianised to make it safe for people to walk and cycle along.  “It makes sense for businesses, it makes sense for pedestrians, it makes sense for shoppers,” Ms Horner said.  “The only party it doesn’t make sense for is the people who are making a lot of money out of a car park . . . There are simple obvious things we can do. And this is one of them. Pedestrianise this street, give it back to people of the city and allow us to enjoy it and stop holding us to ransom by polluting vehicles.” – PA


theirishtimes--2019-06-03--Irish traffic volume and polluted air creating major environmental health issue

Irish traffic volume and polluted air creating ‘major environmental health issue’

The high volume of traffic on Irish roads combined with the spread of polluted European air masses is creating a “major environmental health issue” in Ireland with air contamination rapidly on the increase, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has warned.  Speaking on Monday following the release of data which shows pollution safety levels across Ireland have been breached numerous times so far this year, EPA air quality manager Patrick Kenny warned of the increased presence of fine dust particles in Irish air. These particles, he said, are so tiny that people can breathe them deeply into their lungs which in turn can lead to pulmonary and respiratory issues.  This PM10 particulate matter (dust) comes from many different places including exhaust emissions, soil and road surfaces, construction works and industrial emission, according to the EPA.  The Pm10 daily limit of 50ug/m3 is considered breached if there are more than 35 breaches at one location in a calendar year. Data released by the authority under FOI to the Times Ireland edition shows 12 out of 19 stations recorded more air quality breaches in the first five months of the year than in the whole of 2018.  Most of these breaches were recorded in Dublin with 14 between January and May 2019 at the Davitt Road air quality station in Dublin 12 compared with only one in 2018. There were 12 breaches in Ringsend compared to three last year and eight breaches at Ballyfermot which recorded none last year.  The rise in air pollution breaches can, in part, be explained by the recent increase in monitoring stations across the State, according to Mr Kenny. There are currently 42 air monitoring stations across Ireland, up from 19 in 2017. However, the rising level of PM10 has become a “major environmental health issue” along with air pollution through “transboundary” gas emissions which travel from central and western Europe across Ireland.  This polluted air mass was particularly notable over April’s Easter weekend, added Mr Kenny. “We’ve had weather conditions which have led to higher levels of pollutants in our air,” he told RTÉ’S News at One programme. “We’ve had more still air and we’ve had dryer weather conditions which is good for other reasons but can have a negative impact on air quality. Equally, traffic volumes in Dublin do clearly contribute to the pollutants.”  A total of 1,500 premature deaths in Ireland are directly attributable each year to poor air quality caused by solid fuel burning, the EPA warned late last year. It also underlined the level of dust in Irish air as a “growing concern”. These levels are particularly high during the winter months when people’s use of solid fuels such as coal, peat and wood impacts on air quality and on health, especially in small towns and villages.  The burning of solid fuel - including ‘back yard burning’ and emissions from transport remain the main threats to good air quality in Ireland, according to the EPA’s 2017 air quality report released last November. The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment is currently developing the State’s first National Clean Air Strategy which is to provide a framework on how to reduce harmful emissions and improve air quality and public health.  A spokeswoman for the EPA said the EU must urgently adopt “stricter guidelines, especially for particulates” so that legal and enforceable standards can help improve air quality. “The choices that each of us makes about how we heat our homes and travel to work and school can directly impact on our local air quality, the public need to be supported in making clean heating and transport choices,” she said.


theirishtimes--2019-04-29--Environmental group challenges peat bog extraction regulations

An environmental group has brought a High Court challenge against the State over new regulations that allow for industrial extraction of peat from bogs.  Friends of the Irish Environment claims the new regulations mean that large-scale peat extraction does not require planning permission, and instead must be licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency.  It claims the effect of the new regulations will create a retention mechanism for the unauthorised industrial extraction of peat, and allow this activity to continue for many years in an unassessed and unregulated fashion.  The group claims the regulations fail to comply with several European Union directives on the protection of the environment.  The action is against the Minister for Communication, Climate Action and Environment, the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government, and the State.  The group seeks orders including one quashing the making of the 2019 European Union Environmental Impact Assessment (Peat Extraction) Regulations, and the Planning and Development Act 2000 (Exempted Development) regulations 2019.  It claims the statutory instruments are contrary to various EU Directives on Special Environmental Assessments, Habitats and Environmental Impact Assessments.  The group, represented in the High Court on Monday by James Devlin SC and Oisin Collins BL instructed by solicitor Aoife O’Connell, claims the majority of Irish industrial peatlands are operated by Bord Na Mona, which has been licensed by the EPA since 1999.  It claims the remainder of the industrial peat operations, which supplies approximately 500,000 m³ of horticultural peat into the UK market, have been operating without planning permission or licences from the EPA.  The group says none of the large-scale industrial activity on Irish bogs has undergone proper environmental assessments.  The unregulated industrial extraction can affect climate change, wild species, archaeology and human health, it also submits.  The group said that it has received a letter from the European Commission stating it shared the concerns held by the Friends of the Irish Environment about a lack of applications of the law to peat extraction activities. The Commission welcomed the creation of a new regime which it hopes will bring Ireland’s peat extraction activities into line with EU law.  The Commission added it will be raising its issues of concerns about peat extraction with the Irish authorities.  Permission to bring the action was granted, on an ex parte basis, by Mr Justice Seamus Noonan who returned the matter to next month.


theirishtimes--2019-04-16--No-deal Brexit threatens innumerable problems for environmental projects

No-deal Brexit threatens ‘innumerable problems’ for environmental projects

A no-deal Brexit and the potential for a border with Northern Ireland threatens “innumerable problems” for future environmental projects and standards, a new report has warned.  Its authors also say there is the potential for a loss of joint-action on environmental crime in the region once Britain leaves the EU.  While some of the regulatory questions surrounding environmental issues could be solved through future policy alignment, the report outlines concerns this may be undermined by the “taking back control” narrative that has accompanied the protracted Brexit process.  Brexit, The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement and the Environment: Issues Arising and Possible Solutions was launched in Leinster House on Tuesday.  The report looks at how environmental issues and projects have enjoyed a shared approach since 1998 and how this could be undone depending on the circumstances under which Britain leaves Europe. It was commissioned by the Environmental Pillar and Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL), and written by barrister Alison Hough.  A disorderly exit could “cause a major environmental headache on the island of Ireland” in the absence of a clear common rulebook regarding species, emissions, water quality and hazardous waste.  “It is likely that Brexit (in any form) will interfere with Good Friday/Belfast Agreement cross-border co-operation and place obstacles in its way in general, but in particular in the area of environmental co-operation,” it says.  “A hard border or a customs border would represent a potential physical obstacle to cross-border environmental projects, potentially causing innumerable problems from movement of staff on projects and goods necessary for the carrying out of projects, to the more abstract problems cause by regulatory divergence and governance changes as a result of Brexit.”  Concern points north in particular – the report notes the Belfast Agreement emphasis on environmental issues was partially a reflection of “a long history of failure” by Northern Ireland authorities to maintain standards.  This track record, coupled with the potential to neglect existing environmental standards established over the last two decades in the event of post-Brexit regulatory divergence, could mean “the actual gap in environmental protection will be much greater on the ground than the gap on paper”.  The specific threat posed by Brexit is the loss of a shared or harmonised regulatory approach that comes with common EU membership. With a potential for divergence at Westminster in the aftermath of the UK’s departure, and of questions over who will oversee environment policy in the North, the report’s authors believe market pressures could lead to deregulation pressure.  The existing oversight provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will also disappear.  While future regulatory alignment is both unpredictable and problematic, the report does suggest that common environment protections north and south of the border could be protected as an issue of human rights.  “This could provide a potential avenue for enforcement of some of the commitments in the GF/BA, where they impact on an individual’s right to a clean and healthy environment, by asserting environmental rights,” it said.


theintercept--2019-09-20--The Environmental Left Is Softening on Carbon-Capture Technology Maybe Thats OK

The Environmental Left Is Softening on Carbon-Capture Technology. Maybe That’s OK.

of this year, more than 600 environmental groups — including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Sunrise Movement — sent a letter to Congress saying they will “vigorously oppose” federal climate legislation that promotes “corporate schemes” like carbon-capture and storage. Congress was not chastened. This past July, tucked in the Senate’s $287 billion highway reauthorization bill, was a bipartisan measure to support carbon-capture research and development. The measure — the Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies, or USE IT, Act — was also included in the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act, an omnibus package passed a month earlier. It has not yet passed the House, but last year, Congress passed a separate measure to expand a tax credit — known as 45Q — projected to generate $1 billion in investment in carbon-capture projects by 2024. Neither have been the most outspoken advocates of a Green New Deal. Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, unveiled the landmark resolution with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., in February, and has been one of its leading advocates since. He has drawn a centrist primary challenge from Rep. Joe Kennedy, and has been backed by the Sunrise Movement and Ocasio-Cortez. He’s comfortable with carbon-capture, and supported it in his 2009 climate bill, Waxman-Markey, the last time Congress made a serious effort to tackle the crisis. “I have personally spoken to Senator Markey after the Green New Deal was introduced, and he said carbon capture is in,” said Brad Crabtree, co-director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, a group of roughly 60 companies, unions, research institutes, and energy groups that support carbon-capture technology. “I asked him directly, and he was pretty categorical, and immediately then talked about what he tried to do for carbon capture in Waxman-Markey.” A Markey spokesperson said the senator “has not advocated for specific energy approaches, nor advocated against any” and believes all proposals “should be on the table.” The spokesperson also noted that the Green New Deal resolution — while “policy agnostic”— calls for reductions in emissions as much as is “technologically feasible.”  Rachel Ventura is running a Democratic primary challenge against incumbent Bill Foster, a business-friendly congressman in Illinois, a decision she told The Intercept she made after he announced that he would not support a Green New Deal. A progressive member of a county board, one of Ventura’s highest-profile efforts is a massive carbon-capture project to stem emissions and produce energy from a local landfill — a project she describes as putting the Green New Deal in action at the local level. In April, the left-wing People’s Policy Project released a report on the Green New Deal that included support for new federal investments in direct-air capture. “I support all the carbon-capture technologies in the abstract, but when it comes to the question of what the federal government should be investing in, it seems like the carbon-negative CCS is the one where it is uniquely needed,” said Matt Bruenig, founder of the think tank, using an acronym for carbon-capture storage. “Industry can figure out its own point-source stuff.”  And there is even evidence that some groups on the left are willing to moderate their maximalist opposition to carbon-capture, having recently signaled more willingness to compromise than they expressed in their letter sent to Congress earlier this year. “Sunrise Movement does not support carbon capture for fossil fuel plants,” said Evan Weber, the group’s political director. “There’s no good justification for doing carbon capture for oil, gas, and coal power other than to keep an industry alive that has not been good for the planet. That doesn’t mean there aren’t valid uses for it, and there are some — like in the industrial sector, heavy industry, where we don’t have a clear path forward yet. There I do think we should continue to do more research and development because ultimately we do need to decarbonize every sector of our economy.” John Noël, a senior climate campaigner with Greenpeace, echoed Weber. “We don’t have a lot of issues with capturing emissions from industrial sources,” he said. Quietly, but unmistakably, carbon capture, long loathed by the left, is moving back into the conversation. effort by fossil companies to sow doubt about the science of climate change has shaped the way activists and policymakers talk about it. One unintended consequence of the rejection of the scientific consensus has been the advent of the mantra “believe the science.” That puts the IPCC, or the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a powerful position when it comes to setting the terms of the debate. To disagree with the IPCC is to disagree with the science. That dynamic, however, can leave the environmental left boxed in when it disagrees with the IPCC. That’s the case with carbon capture, which the IPCC says is necessary to hit carbon-concentration targets absent rapid reforestation and major changes to global diets and energy consumption. “Those changes would be positive, but I’d rather not rely on them manifesting at global scale to stabilize the climate,” said James Mulligan, a senior associate at the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank.  A number of factors have driven renewed attention to carbon-capture technology, most notably the growing agreement among scientists that keeping average global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius will require not only reducing future emissions, but also removing some of the carbon dioxide that’s already been released. Modeling by the International Energy Agency suggests that nearly 15 percent of all emissions reduction must come from carbon capture by midcentury. There’s also greater recognition among climate experts that emissions from the industrial sector — like those associated with aviation fuel, cement, and steel — can’t be easily reduced with renewable sources. Nearly 30 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from industry. The opposition to carbon-capture is rooted largely in politics, as opponents argue that it is merely being put forward cynically by a fossil fuel industry intent on its own survival at the expense of the planet’s. Sen. Bernie Sanders, in his recently released climate change plan, came out against carbon-capture technology, calling it a “false solution.” Noël, of Greenpeace, who stipulated support for carbon-capture in an industrial scenario, drew the line at power plants. “If you’re building new power plants with the intent to put carbon capture, we don’t think that’s a good use of money, especially federal subsidies, and we think it further entrenches the extractive mindset and the fossil fuel’s political grip which thwarts meaningful action,” he said. Activists on the environmental left view financial support for carbon-capture as yet another misguided subsidy for polluters and a barrier to transitioning away from fossil fuels once and for all. But if political concerns are driving opposition to carbon capture, there are important political reasons to support it, too. Opponents currently lack a political strategy to deal with the fact that nearly all of organized labor (and not just the building trades) is committed to advancing the technology. Unions will be a key constituency to organize in the fight to pass any sort of Green New Deal. “I don’t see labor supporting any climate policy that doesn’t include support for carbon capture and storage,” said Brad Markell, executive director for the Industrial Union Council at the AFL-CIO. “You can very safely say that.” Some Democratic legislators who support a Green New Deal, like Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Brian Schatz, have backed recent carbon-capture bills. investments in carbon-capture technology because, they say, it will help preserve the high-paying, unionized jobs in the fossil fuel industry, while also taking steps to tackle a warming planet that scientists say is necessary. Unions argue that the most important priority is to reduce emissions and decarbonize the economy, not necessarily to move off fossil fuels as fast as possible. “Some groups have a strain of thought to leave everything in the ground, and that’s a difficult discussion for labor,” Markell of the AFL-CIO said.  Earlier this summer, the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of eight large labor unions and six national environmental groups released a plan for tackling inequality and climate change that included support for carbon-capture tech. Environmental groups in the BlueGreen Alliance include the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, and the League of Conservation Voters, collectively known in environmental circles as “big green.” These groups declined to sign the letter outlining opposition to carbon capture sent by other green groups to Congress earlier this year. The BlueGreen Alliance includes a number of building trade unions, as well as unions that represent industries that won’t necessarily be directly impacted by investments in carbon capture, like the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Communications Workers of America. SEIU was also the first international union to back the federal Green New Deal resolution. “I think about carbon capture every day. It’s more than just useful — it’s indispensable for addressing climate change,” said Lee Anderson, director of governmental affairs for the Utility Workers Union of America. “Even if we close every coal fire plant in America — which I don’t think we’re going to do for a while — but even if we did that, it doesn’t change the basic fact that if you believe and follow the science, carbon capture is a thing we must do globally at scale or we won’t make it.”  Anderson thinks there’s a fundamental misconception about labor’s motives. “There’s this idea that we want to save coal and natural gas and petroleum for its own sake because we love those things,” he said. “What we love is the things associated with them, which is cheap and abundant energy and really good jobs that support the economy. It’s about combatting emissions, saving jobs and the communities around those places that rely on those jobs. It’s about not driving people out of middle-class jobs that are almost impossible to replace. Why would we not support it?” “It’s about economic stability, not just job preservation,” emphasized Cecile Conroy, director of government affairs for the International Brotherhood of Boilmakers. “We’re not just being selfish here. The Boilmakers, the IBEW, the Utility Workers — you unload our jobs, what’s going to happen to our multimillion-dollar health care and pension plans on Wall Street? Surely people don’t want to see those things collapse. There’s a whole thread of this that’s for economic and social stability and the tax base and making sure communities have jobs to go to.” significant barrier for carbon-capture technology — but supporters say if the government backed it like it did for wind and solar, we’d see similarly steep drops in price. One study published in 2018 suggested that direct-air capture — a carbon-capture method that sucks CO2 from the atmosphere — could cost between $94 and $232 per metric ton, a significant reduction from a 2011 study that estimated the price at more than $600 per metric ton. The most economical form of carbon-capture technology right now is through enhanced oil recovery, in which companies capture carbon dioxide, store it geologically, and then use that CO2 injection for producing additional oil. According to the International Energy Agency, using carbon capture yields a 37 percent reduction in emissions per barrel of oil compared to conventional oil production. There’s certainly growing scientific momentum behind investing in the technology, and a study published in Nature Communications this past summer used computer modeling to show that a “massive” rollout of direct-air capture technology could help bring down climate mitigation costs. Though opponents of carbon capture usually argue in the political arena that we can’t afford not to invest in fighting climate change, when it comes to carbon capture, critics generally emphasize that the technology is too costly, too underdeveloped, and will detract from more important steps society needs to take. Other critics see the fossil fuel industry’s interest in carbon capture as glaring proof that this is not really about environmental protection at all, but a way to boost the bottom line of oil and gas companies. After years of denying and obfuscating climate science, why should the government help out these companies and effectively give them more political power to fight climate regulation?


thehuffingtonpostuk--2019-12-23--Donald Trump Says He 'Never Understood Wind' In Bizarre Environmental Rant

How Verizon Media and our partners bring you better ad experiences To give you a better overall experience, we want to provide relevant ads that are more useful to you. For example, when you search for a film, we use your search information and location to show the most relevant cinemas near you. We also use this information to show you ads for similar films you may like in the future. Like Verizon Media, our partners may also show you ads that they think match your interests. Learn more about how Verizon Media collects and uses data and how our partners collect and use data.  HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. Verizon Media and our partners need your consent to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. Verizon Media will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products. Learn more. Select 'OK' to continue and allow Verizon Media and our partners to use your data, or select 'Manage options' to view your choices.


thehuffingtonpost--2019-08-29--Trump Administration To Undo Limits On Methane Ignoring Environmental Concerns

Trump Administration To Undo Limits On Methane, Ignoring Environmental Concerns

President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday reportedly plans to roll back regulation of methane emissions by the oil and gas industry ― a major contributor to climate change.  The proposed rule change reflects the Trump administration view that the government overstepped its authority with mandates during the Obama administration that oil and gas companies take steps to repair methane leaks, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the rollback.  “The purpose of this rule is to get to the fundamental basis of whether [methane] should have been regulated in the first place,” Anne Idsal, the acting assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, told the Journal. “It’s not about whether we’re doing the maximum we can or should do to deal with” climate change.  Idsal added that she doesn’t believe “that there’s going to be some big climate concern here.”  “This is extraordinarily harmful,” Rachel Kyte, the United Nations special representative on sustainable energy, told The New York Times. “Just at a time when the federal government’s job should be to help localities and states move faster toward cleaner energy and a cleaner economy, just at that moment when speed and scale is what’s at stake, the government is walking off the field.”  The primary component of natural gas is methane, which is odorless when it comes directly out of the gas well.  Oil companies, including Shell, Exxon and BP America, have urged Trump’s  administration to maintain or tighten methane regulations ― not loosen them, according to the Times.  Other industrial companies have opposed other Trump rollbacks of environmental regulations, including those aimed at curbing pollutants like mercury and auto emissions.  By easing regulations, the Trump administration hopes to boost crude oil and natural gas production, according to the Journal.  Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, slammed the methane rollback as “reckless” and evidence of “complete contempt for our climate” by Trump and his administration.  “The EPA is now so determined to actually increase greenhouse pollution that it’s even shrugging off concerns from oil and gas companies about gutting these protections,” Siegel told The Washington Post. “Fracked gas is a climate killer, and Trump’s rash embrace of this dirty stuff showcases the need for the next president to commit to a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels.”


thehuffingtonpost--2019-08-20--Top Environmental Group Faces Upheaval Over Boards Ties To Jeffrey Epstein Trump

Top Environmental Group Faces Upheaval Over Board’s Ties To Jeffrey Epstein, Trump

World Resources Institute World Resources Institute CEO Andrew Steer responded: “Every healthy organization faces challenges from time to time. The key is to use such events as an opportunity to improve the way we operate.”  The World Resources Institute quietly cut ties with former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson after a young woman named the Democrat as one of the powerful men with whom Epstein, the accused pedophile who died Aug. 10 in an apparent suicide in jail, ordered her to have sex. After HuffPost sent questions to a spokesman, WRI emailed its staff late Monday announcing Richardson’s resignation from the board.  The twin scandals highlight the growing tension between the work of big environmental groups and the donors whose celebrity or fortunes help fund it. At a moment when the climate crisis is rapidly worsening, the strife at WRI raises questions about what compromises are worth making in pursuit of new resources and expanded reach.  The problems started last month, when FBI agents arrested Epstein for allegedly sex trafficking dozens of minors in the early 2000s. The accusations put new scrutiny on the moguls and powerbrokers ― including Trump and his predecessor Bill Clinton ― previously accused of raping underage girls provided by the multimillionaire. In court documents unsealed earlier this month, Virginia Giuffre, who accused Epstein of keeping her as a teenage sex slave, said she was directed to have sex with Richardson.  “Governor Bill Richardson felt it was time to resign from the board of the World Resources Institute after serving for more than eight years, a tenure that is longer than most board members’ terms,” the statement read.  Richardson’s name no longer appears on the WRI’s board. His profile on the WRI website now redirects to an error page. WRI declined to comment on the record about Richardson, but confirmed his departure from the 32-member board.  The WRI staff remains in upheaval over the political hobnobbing of Ross, who’s donated about $37 million to WRI, after he hosted a fundraiser earlier this month for Trump. Reelecting a president who’s crippling the U.S. effort to cut climate-changing emissions directly undermines the work WRI is doing, employees said.  “Mr. Ross’s actions pose a serious reputational risk to WRI and materially disadvantages our mission,” the petition reads. “How can we lead on ambitious climate action and work with the most climate-vulnerable communities if our Directors, and by extension our Institute, negate our efforts?”  The petition came after management held a meeting last Thursday with staffers to hear out concerns over Ross’s seat on the board. Employees sent the petition to their bosses on Friday and emailed the document to an all-staff listserv on Monday.  Besides calling for a town-hall-style meeting with Ross, the petition calls for the creation of a “Staff Association” to press for changes to the board, including more diversity and strict rules against acting “publicly in any way that is counter to” WRI’s core mission. The demands also include ending the practice of naming programs, prizes or rooms after benefactors and donors.  Each year, WRI grants a Ross Prize for Cities to a business, nonprofit or local government that brought “transformative change” to a “city’s economic vitality, resilience, environmental sustainability or quality of life.” The award includes a $250,000 prize ― the same amount Ross charged for a VIP ticket to his fundraiser for Trump in the Hamptons earlier this month.  Juggling the interests of donors with the mission of the organization is a high-wire act for environmental groups. In 2012, the Sierra Club took heat for accepting nearly $26 million from the natural gas industry while advocating for the demise of coal, its biggest power sector rival. A year later, the Environmental Defense Fund started facing criticism for its close ties to the billionaire Walmart heirs.  Since then, the climate crisis has grown more urgent. Wildfires scorched the Arctic this summer, emitting more carbon dioxide in June alone than Sweden produces in a full year. An Indian metropolis of roughly 10 million is on the verge of running out of water. July was the hottest month ever recorded.  “We need to put additional scrutiny on these board members to see if they are legitimately representing the public interest or if they’re on there to represent their own particular vested interests,” Brulle said by phone. “That’s the real question for these people.”


thehuffingtonpost--2019-07-29--Jay Inslee Calls For Banning Forever Chemicals In New Environmental Justice Plan

Jay Inslee Calls For Banning 'Forever Chemicals' In New Environmental Justice Plan

The Washington state governor vowed to enact regulations prohibiting the use of cancer-causing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, common ingredients in nonstick fabrics, food packaging and firefighting foam that now pollute the drinking water of an estimated 19 million Americans.  The 36-page memo, released Monday ahead of the next set of Democratic primary debates in Detroit, provides a detailed look at how an Inslee administration would implement his grand vision of pulling ecological systems back from the brink of collapse while restoring health in poor, predominantly minority communities that bear the brunt of the last century’s pollution.  The governor has already sketched out how he’d eliminate planet-heating emissions across major sectors over the next decade and challenged his competitors to oppose the Enbridge Line 5 proposal to build a new oil and gas pipeline under Michigan’s Straits of Mackinac.  The plan calls for reconstituting the Council on Environmental Quality, a sleepy White House department tasked with coordinating public health policy across federal agencies, as the Council on Environmental Justice. The new entity would ensure that people on the front lines have a role in informing federal policy and put justice and equity at the center of a national climate mobilization. It reiterates the Inslee campaign’s earlier proposals to direct the Department of Justice to aggressively investigate and prosecute corporate polluters.  Income and race are strong indicators of how much pollution exposure an average American can expect to face. Air in Black communities is, on average, 48% more polluted than in wealthier, white neighborhoods, an NAACP report found last year, and they are 75% more likely to live in neighborhoods abutting industrial sites. Black, Hispanic and poor students face the highest risk of inhaling toxic pollutants in crumbling schools across the country, a study published last year in the journal Environmental Research.  “I look at these two concepts as linked both in cause and solution,” Inslee told HuffPost by phone Sunday. “Its cause is pollution. Its solution is ending the dominance of fossil fuels.”  Inslee also proposes a new federal “Equity Impact Mapping” program to “track pollution hotspots, economic inequality and climate change impacts” and suggests implementing an “equity screen” to analyze how federal climate, energy and environmental funding is spent in marginalized communities.  Recalling to the climate equity law New York passed earlier this summer, Inslee’s plan pledges to spend $1.2 trillion ― a guaranteed 40% of the $3 trillion in federal spending the candidate outlined in his inaugural economic proposal ― to poor, pollution-ravaged communities. The proposal includes a provision to create a Universal Clean Energy Services Fund to offset working-class families’ monthly energy bills, which could increase in a rapid transition from fossil fuels.  “Anytime you can solve two problems instead of one, you’ve got to do it,” Inslee said. “It doesn’t mean this is going to solve racial disparity and income inequality, but we think these are good steps.”  Inslee remains at roughly 1% in aggregated polling of a crowded field of candidates. His bid to be the lone champion of addressing climate change, always a long-shot, now faces competition from billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, who reportedly entered the race this month partly out of frustration that Inslee had yet to achieve a breakout moment.  At last month’s first round of televised primary debates, Inslee took heat for failing to seize the stage and to channel the sort of righteousness on the fast-worsening climate crisis that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) did on racism.  Last week alone, Steyer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) released their own climate proposals that, while far behind what Inslee put forward, earned praise from groups like 350.org, which said the plans respond “to our calls for climate leadership.”  But the Inslee campaign has nevertheless produced ann unrivaled inventory of detailed environmental proposals, setting what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) dubbed the “gold standard” for what a Green New Deal could ultimately look like.


thehuffingtonpost--2019-05-06--Environmentalists Fight Mining Plan By Ivanka Trumps Billionaire Landlord

Environmentalists Fight Mining Plan By Ivanka Trump's Billionaire Landlord

The Washington Post via Getty Images A U.S. Secret Service agent guards Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's rented home in Washington's Kalorama neighborhood on March 24, 2017.  Minnesota activists have gone to court challenging the Trump administration’s approval of a wilderness area ore mine to be operated by a billionaire Chilean who owns the mansion that Ivanka Trump rents in Washington.  A coalition of Minnesota businesses, environmental advocates and outdoor recreation groups asked for a summary judgment last month in their lawsuit against the Interior Department and Chilean copper conglomerate Antofagasta’s local subsidiary. The company plans an extensive sulfide-ore mine to extract copper and nickel in Minnesota’s Rainy River watershed, which drains into the protected 1.1 million-acre Boundary Waters wilderness area.  The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s reversal of an Obama-era decision blocking the mine and requiring an environmental impact study. Some of the mine would be on U.S. Forest Service land, and the lawsuit asks a federal judge to rule that the Trump administration wrongly reinstated mineral leases for the Antofagasta subsidiary, called Twin Metals Minnesota, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported.  The nonprofit Save the Boundary Waters called the Trump decision a “big fat Christmas gift for a giant foreign mining corporation willing to do anything to exploit the watershed of Minnesota’s crown jewel wilderness.” The mining operation threatens to contaminate a key water source and destroy the area’s  ecosystem, the environmental groups say.  Antofagasta is a family-owned company headed by Chilean businessman Andrónico Luksic, who bought a $5.5 million mansion in Washington shortly after Donald Trump won the presidency. Luksic now rents the mansion to the first daughter and husband Jared Kushner for $15,000 a month, The Wall Street Journal has reported.  Richard Painter, who was President George W. Bush’s chief ethics lawyer and is now a law professor at the University of Minnesota, accused the Trump administration of allowing Luksic to use the Boundary Waters area “as his toilet.”  Jared and Ivanka’s landlord — a billionaire from Chile who rents them their mansion in D.C. — will use the Boundary Waters as his toilet. Pro-sulfide mining politicians in Minnesota and Washington are handing him the washroom key.https://t.co/5LPmD1xage — Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) May 4, 2019  Painter told Newsweek that the landlord-tenant relationship between Luksic and Ivanka Trump “looks bad.” Trump and Kushner “have enough money [that] they could have bought a house or rented something from somebody who wasn’t trying to get things from the U.S. government,” he said.  Trump and Kushner “were not aware” of the link between the mining operation and their landlord, a White House official told The Wall Street Journal in 2017. A spokesman for Luksic said he purchased the mansion as an investment and renting it to the president’s family was coincidental, according to the Journal.  The mining planned by Antofgasta has serious environmental risks because copper is extracted from sulfur-bearing ore. When exposed to oxygen or water, the ore generates toxic sulfuric acid that can pollute nearby waters, the Star Tribune noted.  In 2017, the president blasted Hillary Clinton for a uranium mining operation in the U.S. that he falsely claimed she had approved selling to a Russian company.


thehill--2019-08-26--Trump says hes an environmentalist after skipping G-7 climate meeting

President Trump Donald John TrumpJoe Kennedy says he's considering Senate run Biden tells supporters after flub: 'I'm not going nuts' Seoul's relations with Pyongyang and Tokyo need a jolt of reality MORE on Monday touted his environmentalist credentials hours after skipping a Group of Seven (G-7) summit meeting focused on climate, oceans and biodiversity.  At a closing press conference before departing the summit, Trump was asked whether he still harbors skepticism about climate change. He did not directly answer, saying he is an "environmentalist" but that he is unwilling to sacrifice the country's economic success to protect the environment.  "I’m an environmentalist. A lot of people don’t understand that," Trump said, citing his experience filing environmental impact statements for real estate developments.  "I think I know more about the environment than most people," he added. "I want clean air. I want clean water. I want a wealthy country. I want a spectacular country with jobs, with pensions, with so many things. And that’s what we’re getting."  "At the same time, it’s very important to me ... we have to maintain this incredible place that we’ve all built," Trump continued. The U.S. has "become a much richer country. And that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Because that wealth allows us to take care of people."  Earlier Monday, the president skipped a G-7 session focused on climate and sent another administration official in his place. The heads of government of the other six nations that comprise the G-7 were there.  During the climate meeting, leaders approved a $20 million aid package to help Brazil and other South American countries address fires engulfing the Amazon rainforest, French President Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Jean-Michel MacronTrump says he's 'an environmentalist' after skipping G-7 climate meeting Trump says he'd meet with Iranians under 'right' circumstances Macron: US, France reached 'very good agreement' on digital tax MORE said.  Trump has in the past characterized climate change as a hoax, mocked the idea of global warming by citing winter storms and cast doubt on government reports warning about how the changing environment might adversely affect the economy.  His administration has rolled back a number of environmental protections enacted by the Obama administration, and Trump announced shortly after taking office that he would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement that seeks to combat global emissions.  The president on Monday cited the expansion of energy exports under his administration and the opening of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as ways he has made the country more prosperous.  "I’m not going to lose that wealth," he said. "I'm not going to lose that on dreams. On windmills."


theguardianuk--2019-10-09--Warren debuts ambitious policy plan that addresses environmental racism

Democratic presidential frontrunner Elizabeth Warren has unveiled an ambitious climate and environmental justice plan that places poor communities of color at the centre of a sweeping reform package aimed at bolstering environmental protection, curbing pollution and preserving clean water and air.  The plan, shared with the Guardian ahead of launch, references a number of predominantly minority communities suffering from severe pollution, including those in Flint and southern Detroit in Michigan, the Navajo nation and Reserve, Louisiana. Reserve is the focus of a year-long Guardian series, Cancer Town, focused on air pollution linked to cancer in the town.  The detailed policy proposal draws on the seminal 17 principles of environmental justice formulated by the National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit in 1991- widely lauded but mostly ignored by consecutive federal governments.  Warren’s plan states: “We didn’t get here by accident. Our crisis of environmental injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long. It is the result of multiple choices that put corporate profits before people, while our government looked the other way. It is unacceptable, and it must change.”  The policy package builds on Warren’s previously announced platform to combat the climate crisis by investing $3tn over the next decade to combat global heating. The plan’s acknowledgement of environmental racism – the disproportionate impact of the environmental crisis on people of colour – comes after US senator Kamala Harris pushed the issue at the first Democratic debate in July. It has since been acknowledged by most of the high profile Democratic candidates, 13 of whom have endorsed a Green New Deal resolution.  But Warren’s newly released platform stands out as one of the most detailed plans among the candidates.  The US senator for Massachusetts argues that the climate crisis represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle decades of environmental discrimination and injustice fueled by the fossil fuel economy by creating millions of decent stable American jobs in clean and renewable energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing, which would unleash the best of American innovation and creativity.  “We also cannot fight climate change with a low-wage economy. Workers should not be forced to make an impossible choice between fossil fuel industry jobs with superior wages and benefits and green economy jobs that pay far less,” the plan states.  To address this, Warren pledges to make her proposed $1.5tn Green Manufacturing procurement plan contingent on companies providing fair wages, paid family and medical leave, and collective bargaining rights. In a nod to Trump’s blue collar base, she promises investment in training for fossil fuel workers – coal miners, oil rig workers, and pipeline builders – to ensure they are not left behind by the Green Deal transition.  In addition, Warren proposes new legislation – the Climate Risk Disclosure Act – which would require banks and other companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and price their exposure to climate risk into their valuations. Improving transparency about corporate fossil fuel dependence, would accelerate the transition to clean energy, claims Warren.  Warren pledges to elevate environmental justice at the executive and federal level, in stark contrast to the rollback of environmental protections and systematic sacking of pollution and climate scientists under Trump.  The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council would report directly to the White House, and include leaders of frontline community leaders at the highest levels.  Trump has threatened to slash the EPA budget by almost a third, including its civil rights office, and to dismantle its Office of Environmental Justice entirely. Warren promises to expand both programmes, and instruct the civil rights office to more aggressively pursue cases of environmental discrimination: nine out of 10 complaints between 1997 and 2013 were rejected.  The plan also promises more proactive and co-ordinated data assessments by federal government agencies to identify communities at risk due to pollution and contamination, which the senator says will affect the way in which corporations are granted permits under clean air and water laws.  Water is another focus area. The policy proposal highlights widespread challenges faced by rural and urban communities across the country in accessing clean water, as a result of inadequate investment in public water systems and poor enforcement of water quality standards which led to major health scandals in Flint and Newark, New Jersey.  In rural areas, Warren wants to boost the Conservation Stewardship Program to $15bn annually to help limit agricultural runoff that harms local wells and water systems. In cities, decaying water infrastructure would be refurbished by fully funding the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.  In 2018, the three costliest environmental catastrophes globally took place in the US, and low-income communities, people with disabilities, and people of color were worst affected. Warren pledges to quintuple funding for FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, which the Trump administration has threatened to slash, and prioritize disaster and climate mitigation in communities at high risk of extreme, increasingly common, weather events including floods, storms and wildfires.  The final point in her five-point plan builds on earlier commitments to aggressively prosecute corporate polluters especially those contributing to the climate crisis and environmental discrimination. This includes her proposed Corporate Executive Accountability Act which could signal hefty fines and jail time for company executives found guilty of criminal negligence which resulted in environmental damage.


bbc--2019-08-24--Amazon fires Fines for environmental crimes drop under Bolsonaro

Amazon fires: Fines for environmental crimes drop under Bolsonaro

The record number of fires in Brazil's Amazon rainforest has coincided with a sharp drop in fines for environmental violations, BBC analysis has found.  Official data from Brazil's environment agency shows fines from January to 23 August dropped almost a third compared with the same period last year.  At the same time, the number of fires burning in Brazil has increased by 84%.  It is not known how many of these fires have been set deliberately, but critics have accused President Jair Bolsonaro's administration of "green lighting" the destruction of the rainforest through a culture of impunity.  Mr Bolsonaro has sent in the military to help put out the fires after coming under pressure from the international community, saying he wanted to "help protect" the Amazon.  The largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon is a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming. It is known as the "lungs of the world" and is home to about three million species of plants and animals, and one million indigenous people.  Analysis by BBC Brasil shows the number of fines handed out by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama) for environmental violations has dropped significantly since Mr Bolsonaro took office on 1 January.  Neither Ibama nor the ministry of the environment answered the BBC's queries about the figures.  Mariangélica de Almeida, a professor of environmental law who has defended clients over unfair fines, suggested to BBC Brasil that the figures for previous years could have reflected a culture of over-fining, in order to meet goals.  However, others have pointed the finger directly at Mr Bolsonaro, who has scorned environmental activists and declared his support for clearing areas of the Amazon for agriculture and mining.  Elisabeth Uema, who retired from Ibama last year, said it was clear even before Mr Bolsonaro was elected that he did not like Ibama. During his campaign, he pledged to limit fines for damaging the rainforest and to weaken the influence of the environmental agency.  The message was further underlined in April when Mr Bolsonaro ordered an investigation into officials who burned tractors and trucks belonging to loggers who were allegedly involved in illegal activities in the Jamari National Forest. This was a long-held policy seen as a deterrent against illegal loggers.  The agency's work, she said, had also been hampered by the fact that just eight of its 27 offices across the country now had a permanent head.  "The usual inspections, which had been planned since 2018, are happening. But little beyond that," Ms Uema, now the executive secretary of Ascema Nacional, the body representing Ibama employees, told BBC Brasil.  Critics of the Bolsonaro administration insist the drop in fines does not mean fewer crimes against the environment are being committed.  The decline in the number of environmental fines at a time when Brazil has seen a spike in deforestation does not seem a coincidence to many.  During last year's presidential race, Mr Bolsonaro vowed to open up the Amazon for commercial activity. When he was sworn in, he stayed true to his word.  Many of his critics say that Mr Bolsonaro operates a double standard when it comes to addressing environmental crimes, most of which remain unpunished. After all, the president promised a tough stance on criminal activity.  Now, in face of national and international pressure, Mr Bolsonaro appears to have changed his tone and finally adopted measures to battle the fires.  But he still hasn't acknowledged the link between the fires and the increase in deforestation in Brazil this year. And in a televised address on Friday he reinforced his plans to bring "economic dynamism" to the Amazon.  The question now is whether Mr Bolsonaro's recent moves in fighting the fires will be accompanied by a consistent change in his environmental policies.  Environmental activists have drawn links between Mr Bolsonaro's attitudes towards the environment and the recent surge in the number of fires in the Amazon rainforest.  Satellite data published by the National Institute for Space Research (Inpe) has shown an increase of 85% this year in fires across Brazil, most of them in the Amazon region.  Mr Bolsonaro initially brushed it off, arguing that it was the season of the "queimada", when farmers burn land to clear it before planting.  The president has also previously questioned data from Brazil's National Space Research Institute which showed an 88% increase in deforestation in June compared with the same month a year ago.  But Inpe has noted that the number of fires is not in line with those normally reported during the dry season.  Wildfires often occur in the dry season in Brazil but they are also deliberately started in efforts to illegally deforest land for cattle ranching.  Whether there will now be a spike in fines remains to be seen.  On Friday, Mr Bolsonaro confirmed that he had authorised the armed forces to help fight the fires. "I've learned as a military man to love the Amazon forest and I want to help protect it," he said.  The decree itself was fairly vague in its wording, but specified that the military would be deployed to nature reserves, indigenous lands and border areas in the region.  Brazil's defence minister said a helicopter and two airplanes had already been deployed to the Amazon to help identify fire outbreaks and to carry equipment and military personnel.  The announcement came after the international community began to exert pressure on Mr Bolsonaro.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have called the fires an international crisis.  France and Ireland have also said they will not ratify a large trade deal with South American nations and Finland's finance minister has called on the EU to consider banning Brazilian beef imports.  Both Ms Merkel and Mr Macron said the issue must be discussed at this weekend's G7 summit in Biarritz, France.


breitbart--2019-09-03--Environmental Justice Fund Cory Booker Unveils 3 Trillion Climate Plan

'Environmental Justice Fund': Cory Booker Unveils $3 Trillion Climate Plan

“To end the real and growing threat of climate change and to create a more just country for everyone, we must heal these past mistakes and act boldly to create a green and equitable future. That’s exactly what I’ll do as president,” Booker said in a statement on Tuesday.  Booker’s plan also calls to “accelerate the end” of fossil fuels and aims to achieve “100% carbon-free electricity” by the year 2030. Booker also aims to achieve “a carbon neutral economy by 2045.”  The plan includes multiple executive actions, such as imposing greater EPA enforcement on those that pollute, requiring all new passenger vehicles to have zero emisions by the year 2030, and placing a ban on new fossil fuel leases.  Booker also stated he intends to reenter the Paris Climate Agreement and remove orders from President Donald Trump to approve Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines.  In order to “advance environmental justice and invest in communities long left behind,” Booker’s plan calls for the creation of a United States Environmental Justice Fund, which would commit $50 billion a year to those communities.  According to Booker’s announcement, a few of the ideas behind the Environmental Justice Plan include:  Replace all residential, school, and daycare lead drinking water service lines and remediate all housing units and schools that contain peeling or chipping lead-based paint and high levels of lead-contaminated dust. Ensure that every household in the U.S. has adequate plumbing, including a functional wastewater disposal system. Initiate the cleanup of every “orphaned” shovel-ready Superfund site. Clean up every abandoned coal, uranium, and hard rock mine in the country. Plant 100 million trees in urban areas by 2030 to reduce air pollution causing disproportionate harm in low-income and Black and Brown communities.  “We’re facing a dual crisis of climate change and economic inequality—and without immediate action, the toll is unimaginable,” Booker said in a social media post Tuesday. “But this is a fight I know we can win.”