Opinion

March 24, 2023

Postcard from California: How a local natural gas ban sparked a national culture war

By Bill Walker

Like some other once-fringe environmental ideas, this one began in Berkeley: In 2019, the staunchly progressive university town across the bay from San Francisco became the first US city to ban natural gas hookups in most new buildings, citing the fossil fuel’s contribution to the climate crisis.

From Berkeley, the no-new-gas movement spread steadily, one local jurisdiction at a time. As of last month, more than 70 California cities and counties had adopted ordinances mandating all-electric utilities and appliances in new construction. Nationwide, nearly 100 cities and counties, including New York City, Seattle and Montgomery County, Md., have moved to ban gas in new buildings.

But in January, the issue ignited a national political firestorm.

An official of the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) said a ban on gas stoves and ovens was “on the table” because emissions of hazardous air pollutants from gas stoves are strongly linked to childhood asthma. Said CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka, Jr.: “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

A fierce and hysterical backlash erupted, opening overnight a fresh front in the nation’s culture wars, as many on the right framed the idea as one more liberal assault on American freedom.

depositphotos_9241363-stock-photo-fiery-skull-and-crossbones (1)

March 7, 2023

Guest Column: Paraquat and the deliberate production of ignorance

By E. Ray Dorsey, M.D., and Amit Ray, Ph.D

Nearly 60 years ago, a chemical company found that skin exposure to very high doses of its weedkiller paraquat caused “weakness and incoordination” in rabbits. Large amounts of the herbicide, which is used on corn, cotton, and vineyards, caused some mice and rats in its labs to develop a stiff gait or tremors. A decade later, an autopsy of a farm worker exposed to paraquat showed “degenerative change” in the “cells of the substantia nigra,” a pathological hallmark of Parkinson’s disease.

Rather than remove this dangerous chemical from the market or develop a safer alternative, the company doubled down on its “blockbuster” product and sought to expand its use. Along the way, the company appeared to use techniques to underestimate the toxic effects of the chemical, hide the results of its own research from regulatory authorities, and discredit the research of an academic investigator and prevent her from serving on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advisory panel.

The company’s alleged efforts seem to have worked brilliantly. Despite numerous animal and epidemiological studies linking the environmental toxicant to Parkinson’s disease, paraquat’s use in the United States from 2013 to 2018 more than doubled. As pesticides can contaminate drinking water and pollute the air their harmful effects are not limited to farmers but extend (at least) to other rural residents who also have a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Because of its health risks, over 30 countries—including China—have banned paraquat. Yet in 2021 the EPA reauthorized its use even though its own website says, “One Sip Can Kill.”

February 23, 2023

Postcard from California: Governor targets oil companies over high gas prices

By Bill Walker

Last June, a Chevron station in downtown Los Angeles charged $8.05 for a gallon of regular gas. At another Chevron station In the coastal village of Mendocino, the price that month hit $9.60.

In a summer when US gas prices spiked to their highest level ever, those were extreme outliers, and they soon came down. But as they have for years, Californians continue to pay higher gas prices than in any other state except Hawaii.

This week, the statewide average was $4.75 a gallon, compared to the nationwide average of $3.39. At one point in October, even as global oil prices dropped, California’s average gas price surged to $2.60 more than the nation’s.

Some of the difference stems from the fact that state gas taxes are the highest in the US, and some from state rules for California’s special blend cleaner-burning fuel, which is more expensive to refine. But that leaves what University of California, Berkeley energy economist Severin Borenstein calls a “mystery gasoline surcharge” that can’t be fully explained by taxes and environmental regulations. He estimates that since 2015 the surcharge has cost California drivers $40 billion.

On Wednesday, lawmakers in Sacramento took up a proposal from Gov. Gavin Newsom that would make California the first state to fine oil companies for what he terms gas price gouging, and to return their excess profits to consumers.

In a video release promoting his plan, the Democratic governor declared: “Big Oil is ripping you off AND lying to you!”

“Big Oil’s been out there pushing the same old lies and myths to protect their record profits,” Newsom said. “Big Oil won’t say why they suddenly started charging Californians more than people in other states, but we know that resulted in record profits.”

February 17, 2023

Guest column: Protecting industrial workers from toxic chemicals

February started with news that’s all too familiar in the United States: An incident involving highly toxic industrial chemicals sparked a large fire, threatening an explosion, forcing evacuations, and putting workers and community members directly in harm’s way. In this case, the danger came from a derailed train in Ohio that was hauling cancer-causing vinyl chloride, used to make certain types of plastic; toxic phosgene, an industrial chemical that was also used as a chemical weapon in World War I; and other substances.

This chemical disaster posed a threat to rail workers, first responders, and community members, and after a controlled burn to prevent an explosion, reported fish kills, and the discovery of additional toxic chemicals in some of the train cars, lingering questions remain about the long-term hazards facing community residents. It’s one of many high-profile fires, spills, leaks, explosions, and other industrial incidents to have made the news over the years. But extreme, acute threats like the Ohio derailment aren’t the only toxic chemical dangers facing workers and surrounding communities.

Many chronic, lower-level exposures happen in workplaces every day, posing significant but far more hidden risks to workers, their families, and their communities. Toxic exposures in industrial facilities and other settings can cause a range of health problems. These include nervous system effects like headaches, dizziness, confusion, and memory loss; cancer; breathing problems including coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, and asthma attacks; skin irritation and rashes; and reproductive and developmental effects such as infertility, birth defects, and other health problems.

February 9, 2023

Biden misses the point on cancer fight

In President Biden’s state of the union address Tuesday night, he pledged his devotion to a fierce “fight against cancer,” invoking a heart-tugging story of baby “Ava,” who began battling kidney cancer at the age of 1.

Biden spoke of a reignited “Cancer Moonshot” search for a cure for cancers that are impacting far too many lives, and of measures to cut healthcare costs to make treating cancer more affordable. He outlined an ambitious goal to cut cancer death rates by at least 50% in the next 25 years, and to “turn more cancers from death sentences to treatable diseases, provide more support for patients and their families.”

But nowhere in his lengthy prime-time address did Biden speak of working to rein in the vast, virtually unchecked, flood of environmental chemical contaminants that scientists say cause cancer.

A new book scheduled for release in May written by journalist Kristina Marusic lays out in stark terms how already-staggeringly highly rates of cancer are sure to continue to climb if we don’t slash our exposure to the chemicals known to cause cancer.

The harsh statistics are detailed by Phil Landrigan, director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College, in the introduction to Marusic’s A New War on Cancer: The Unlikely Heroes Revolutionizing Prevention.

Landrigan writes: “From 1975 to to 2019, the number of new cancer cases per 100,000 Americans—the incidence rate—increased for multiple cancers. Incidence of multiple myeloma rose by 46%, incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 76%, and incidence of testicular cancer by 70%. In the same years, incidence of childhood leukemia increased by 35% and incidence of childhood brain cancer by 33%. These increases are far too rapid to be of genetic origin. They cannot be explained by better diagnosis.”

February 1, 2023

Postcard from California: The Mojave Desert should not be a solar sacrifice zone

The Mojave Desert is a national treasure: a crucial habitat for thousands of indicator species, including the bighorn sheep and desert tortoises that are supposed to be protected under federal law, and the fantastical Joshua tree, found almost nowhere else on earth. In Southern California, the Mojave encompasses two iconic national parks and the country’s largest national preserve.

In recent years, newcomers fleeing Los Angeles have disrupted the Mojave, crowding the parks and special places, trampling fragile landscapes, fueling exurban sprawl, and displacing longtime residents. And now some who cherish the desert fear it is being sacrificed to the urgency of the climate crisis.

Throughout the Mojave, which reaches into Nevada, Arizona and Utah, construction of “utility-scale” solar power plants is booming.

These solar “farms,” as their developers call them, are arrays of photovoltaic panels that can cover thousands of acres and generate enough electricity to power hundreds of thousands of homes. Most of the power is sold to big utilities.

In the California part of the Mojave alone, at least 50 solar plants have been built, approved or proposed. Some are on private, state or tribal lands; others are on or near federal lands earmarked to preserve biodiversity, open space or cultural heritage.

RSInglewood_Oil_Field_Gary_Kavanagh_FPWC-scr.max-800x800 (1)

January 4, 2023

Postcard from California: Big Oil’s campaign to kill drilling ban near homes and schools

By Bill Walker

In September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill banning new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet – about two-thirds of a mile – of homes, schools, day care centers, healthcare facilities, parks, and businesses open to the public. The measure also banned “reworking” old, unproductive wells lying within the buffer zones.

It was a huge win for environmental justice advocates, capping a decade-long campaign to protect Californians from the well-documented health risks of living near drill rigs, including premature births, heart disease and asthma. More than 7 million Californians – disproportionately lower-income people of color – live within a mile of active oil or gas wells.

Newsom signed the bill, SB 1137, on a Friday. The ink had hardly dried when, the following Monday, the oil and gas industry launched a petition drive to throw out the new law.

Under California’s referendum and initiative process, if enough registered and verified voters sign a petition to overturn a law, it goes on the ballot in the next general election. But even before voters get a chance to decide, the law is suspended until the election. Once hailed as a progressive tool of grassroots democracy, the initiative process is increasingly used by special interests to kill laws they don’t like.

Two weeks before Christmas, the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) announced it had gathered almost a million signatures on a petition to block the law, which was supposed to take effect this month. If roughly two-thirds are certified by county and state election officials, the buffer zones provided for by SB 1137 can’t take effect until after November 2024.

food-waste-greenhouse-gases-climate-change-blog-012422

December 9, 2022

Postcard from California: Food waste law fights hunger and climate change

By Bill Walker

California produces far more food than any other US state, but we throw a lot of it away. Meanwhile, more than one in five Californians don’t always know where their next meal is coming from. Food insecurity is higher among Black and Latino households, and inflation is making the problem worse.

Now the state is aiming to relieve hunger by reducing food waste – and at the same time, help to address climate change.

A state law that was passed in 2016 but took effect this year, requires businesses and facilities that sell or serve food to donate edible food they would otherwise throw out to local food banks. Grocery stores, wholesalers and distributors had to start donating earlier this year. Restaurants, hotels, schools, hospitals, state office cafeterias and event venues must comply by January 2024.

According to the state agency CalRecycle, Californians send more than 11 billion pounds of food to landfills every year. Nationally, about 80 billion pounds of wasted food goes to the dump yearly, making food the single largest constituent of municipal landfills.

Food rescue
While not all discarded food is fit to eat, the newly implemented law – SB 1383 – requires that by 2025 California will recover 20% of wasted food to feed people in need. Washington State has the same goal, but by mandating fines for non-compliance, California’s is the strongest “food rescue” measure in the country.

Rescuing edible food is only one front in the war on food waste.

November 18, 2022

Postcard from California: Regulators bowing to scheme to cripple rooftop solar

Once again, California is poised to sabotage its own climate goals.

After almost a year of heated public debate, the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has unveiled its latest proposal for changes to the state’s rooftop solar program. The so-called reforms could cripple what is by far the most successful solar initiative in the U.S.

More than 1.5 million California households, schools and small businesses have installed solar panels. For 2019, the latest estimate available, the state said rooftop solar kept 6 million metric tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere – equal to taking 1.3 million cars off the road. That’s a big boost to the state’s goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045.

But California’s “Big Three” utilities – Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. – hate rooftop solar.

Under a program known as net metering, solar customers are freed from having to buy electricity from the utilities, whose rates are some of the highest in the country. Instead, solar panel owners generate much of their own power. If they generate more than they draw from the utility-owned grid, the excess flows back into the system, and the utilities must pay them for it.

Last year the Big Three pushed the PUC to deeply slash the rebates to solar customers and tack on a steep monthly surcharge just for connecting to the grid. In February, the PUC bowed to the lobbying and issued a proposal that could have slowed rooftop solar growth by half or more.

Public outcry forced the PUC to pull the first proposal back for revision. A new proposal in May still amounted to what outraged consumers, solar companies and environmental advocates called “a tax on the sun,” so the commission pulled it back again.

But round three, released Nov. 10, remains a severe blow to the future of rooftop solar. It scraps the connection surcharge, but still cuts the rebate for energy returned to the grid by about 75%, decimating one of the strongest incentives for consumers to go solar.

November 16, 2022

Guest column: EPA has lost its way

By Tim Whitehouse

It has been more than 20 years since I worked as a senior attorney at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), using my legal training to help enforce the Clean Water Act, and advise agency managers on a range of hazardous waste issues.

When I joined the regulatory agency in 1992, I felt my work would matter; that I would play a small role in protecting public and environmental health. And during the ten years I worked there, I always felt I was making a positive difference and my managers were usually able to apply the law in ways that balanced the interests of various stakeholders.

Over the years, however, it has become more apparent that this is often no longer the case, and that powerful corporate interests have taken too much control over EPA’s decision-making processes. Nowhere is this more apparent than in EPA’s chemicals and pesticides programs.

The last 30 years have brought countless examples of EPA’s appalling incompetence and willful corruption as the agency routinely capitulates to the interests of the chemical industry and ignores or minimizes human health and environmental risks.

Newly unearthed documents regarding one such chemical – the weed killer paraquat – provide just the latest example of how inept the agency has become in protecting public health.

At the organization I work for now – Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility – we are currently representing EPA scientists who have bravely put their careers on the line to speak out publicly about the wrongdoing they’ve witnessed with the agency.

Through a series of disclosures to EPA’s Inspector General and Congress these scientists have provided extensive evidence of a system that operates in a black box where threats to human health from chemicals are routinely deleted from risks assessments, where agency managers routinely bow to industry wishes, where key managers move back and forth between jobs at the EPA and the chemical industry with scant scrutiny, and where managers ignore risk indicators and intimidate staff into signing off on assessments with insufficient data to reach a conclusion.