Frances Beinecke's Blog: Curbing Pollution

Why Endocrine Disruptors Should Be a Household Word

2008-04-25T20:27:11Z

In the past week, there have been a lot of news reports and blog chatter about BPA, also known as bisphenol-A. Finally, government agencies, consumers, and manufacturers are starting to take this toxin seriously. But BPA is only one member of a very nasty family--one we should all come to know more about.

Despite my many years of working to protect the environment and public health, I still have trouble understanding the alphabet soup of toxicology--knowing my perfluorooctanic acid (in nonstick cookware and stain resistant fabric) from my polybrinuibated diphenylethers (in flame retardant bedding and furniture).

Still, most of us are familiar with a short list of common, really nasty pollutants: lead, mercury, PCBs, even the old standard, DDT. Now there is a new family of toxins worthy of being awarded this household-name recognition: endocrine disruptors.

Why, among all the pollutants to choose from, should endocrine disruptors become a part of our daily lexicon? For three main reasons.

They are pervasive. They are present in everyday products ranging from lotion, shampoo, and air fresheners to baby bottles, plastic food containers, and soft plastic toys.
They interfere with one of the most sensitive systems in our bodies: hormones. My colleague, Dr. Gina Solomon, told me that this is what worries her most about endocrine disruptors. A chemical that damages an organ like the liver is unfortunate, but less troubling because the liver is tough and can regenerate. Hormones are different. They act in tiny doses. With just the smallest amount, hormones regulate the function of sexual and reproductive organs, neurological development, and even the rate of metabolism.

In such a delicate environment, even a modest exposure to an endocrine disruptor gets registered by the body. Over time, it can interfere with the fundamental programming of our bodies and send us off on an unhealthy track of development. For instance, exposure to phthalates--an endocrine disruptor found in shampoo, lotion and many items carrying a fragrance--has been shown to lower sperm counts in men. Worse, endocrine disruptors can lead to cancer.
Endocrine disruptors pose the most danger to the most vulnerable among us: developing babies and small children. A baby girl is extra sensitive to exposures of bisphenol-A--an endocrine disruptor found in most plastic baby bottles and cans of baby formula--because her breast buds are just developing. The endocrine disruptor has the potential to alter her breast cells, making her more likely to develop breast cancer later in life.

These are some of the things we know about endocrine disruptors. But frankly, we need to learn a lot more. We need more comprehensive scientific studies to examine the interplay between this family of toxins and human health.

Hopefully, regulation will follow more data. Right now there is no law regulating endocrine disruptors. No standard for exposure has been set; no rule has been passed to require manufacturers to list them on their ingredient labels.

NRDC is fighting to change that. We are trying to get companies to join with us in the call for much needed science and regulation. Because if endocrine disruptors are going to join the list of well-known pollutants, they should get the benefit that goes along with that status: binding regulation. Lead, mercury, PCBs, arsenic, all of those have been regulated. The laws are not perfect for those toxins, but at least we have started to reduce our exposure to them. NRDC wants to do the same with endocrine disruptors.

In the meantime, educate yourself, find out what products contain endocrine disruptors, and demand your stores offer you safer products.

The Twilight of Dirty Coal

2008-02-11T14:07:08Z

Many of the issues we work on take decades to get the results we want. But at other times, things begin to fall into place with surprising speed. That’s happening now with dirty coal.

Over the past year, one after another coal-fired power plant has been blocked by the environmental community across the country, and many more are still disputed. And just this last week, the Wall Street Journal announced that three of our largest financial institutions adopted new lending principles that take into account the growing risks of investing in conventional coal plants. See the New York Times Sunday editorial.

Why does this matter? Because Wall Street is sending a potent signal to the energy sector that it views dirty coal plants as shaky financial prospects and that the smart money is heading toward cleaner, more sustainable energy options.

Governor Dave Freundenthal of Wyoming--the biggest coal producing state in the nation--said of the announcement: “It’s probably, frankly, a signal more powerful than one from the federal government.”

You see, when an electric utility builds a new power plant, it has to attract capital from investment banks to cover the enormous costs of construction. It takes a good 20 to 30 years to recoup that money.

America will certainly enact new carbon regulations well before the banks will get their money back. Because coal plants have the highest carbon pollution per unit, they will take the biggest financial hit when limits are set. Banks that invested in coal plants will have to wait even longer to get a return on their investment. Or worse, they will be left with bad debt when the plants have to spend lots of money to buy pollution allowances.

On top of that, the market for conventional coal power will likely shrink. Already, California utilities are prohibited by law from making long-term investments in power generation that has high greenhouse gas emissions. In other words: dirty coal.

All of this adds up to a lot of uncertainty, and the financial community hates uncertainty. That’s why three of the biggest lenders-- Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley--decided to attach new terms to the hundreds of millions of dollars they typically loan to utilities. These heavy hitters will now focus on energy-efficiency and renewable energy before backing coal plants.

We have seen before the power of the financial community to impact energy decisions. As my NRDC colleague Ralph Cavanaugh--a man who has tracked the utility sector for more than 30 years--has said, “There are 150 plants in on the books today, many of them still looking for investors. Back in the 1980s, more than 100 nuclear plants were cancelled because the financial community lost confidence in them. My prediction is the same will happen with conventional coal.”

Looks like Ralph’s prediction is coming true.

The Bipartisan Air You Breathe

2007-11-15T16:30:44Z

I am in Washington today for meetings. The weather is alright--it’s raining, but warm, probably in the mid-fifties. The air is harder to read, however. As I walked along the sidewalk, I couldn’t tell if I was breathing Republican air or Democratic air.

There is no difference of course, but that is not always clear in an election cycle. Yesterday's New York Times had an article that divvied up some of the hot-button campaign issues: restricting immigration for the Republicans, avoiding war in Iran for the Democrats. The environment got tallied on the Democratic side--the fourth issue on the list.

But the truth is many (if not most) Republicans also care about the realities hidden behind the word “environment” --clean air, safe drinking water, parks to enjoy with their children. You don’t need to be a card carrying member of a certain party to be concerned about the pollutants that trigger your child’s asthma attacks.

The biggest overlap between Democrats and Republicans is their shared concern about the economy and jobs. Well, the 21st century is presenting us with an unprecedented opportunity to restore the environment and create new jobs at the same time: the green tech boom.

Tom Friedman of the New York Times has been very eloquent about this topic. He recently spoke at NRDC’s Board Retreat in Santa Fe, and he brought a refreshing sense of optimism and possibility. He believes that reducing global warming pollution will unleash massive business opportunities and generate thousands of jobs. Whether it is training people from the inner city to build solar panels or hiring software analysts to do energy audits--work that Friedman reminds us is being outsourced to India now--America has the chance to jumpstart large-scale economic growth.

Entrepreneurs interested in the environment get this--groups like the Apollo Alliance, Powershift, and NRDC’s sister organization, E2. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger gets this. He calls green tech California’s next gold rush. And the venture capitalists who supported his global warming law get this too.

The question is do our representatives in Washington get it. Do the presidential candidates--from both parties--get it? Do they realize that good jobs--and clean air--don’t follow party lines? If our leaders don't understand this, we need to remind them.