Which is more important to North America, fresh water or more oil?
Tar Sands. NRDC has pressed discussion and analysis of Tar Sands in multiple policy papers, advocacy briefings, legislative testimony, community meetings, and litigation. And, of course, here on Switchboard; how it is responsible for 3 times more greenhouse gas pollution as conventional crude oil, how it's extraction is destroying vast swaths of Canada and maybe creating mutant fish, how it might adversely affect communities that are already struggling, and how investments in its dirty infrastructure retards the growth of the clean energy economy we so desperately need in this country. But the University of Toronto's report entitled How the Oil Sands got to the Great Lakes Basin: Pipelines, refineries and emissions to air and water sets the scene for a much more urgent discussion.
Is our thirst for oil powerful enough to jeopardize the Great Lakes, which represent 1/5 of the world's fresh water?
In the University of Toronto report, researchers spell out how new transcontinental pipelines stretching from Alberta into the heart of Great Lakes and massive refinery expansions in the U.S. Midwest are creating a "pollution delivery system" that threatens our air and water quality, as well as human health in the region. The report outlines significant and growing damage already underway from refineries and pipelines---and calls for more research on the particular health threats that are likely unique to low grade bitumen products.
We know CO2 and an ugly array of pollutants will be raining down into the lakes as the expansions move forward, we know because the refineries have asked for permission to do this in the form of air and water pollution permits.
I am still making my way through the University of Toronto's report, and while it is gratifying to see NRDC's battle for stricter air permits for BP's Whiting, IN refinery and our recent settlement with ConocoPhillips cited as lone bright spots in the story, the narrative itself is otherwise fairly scary. It tells the same tale as NRDC's Midwest program has since its inception: the use of tar sands speeds climate change, destroys one of the most precious ecosystems on Earth, and forces disproportionate costs on the communities impacted by tar sands in the form of public health and environmental degradation.
That means that if you live near one of the massive refineries that are being retooled to deal with this stuff, you are going to be seeing more asthma and respiratory problems in your community. And we can't forget that if we let nasty pollutants go up into the air all around the Great Lakes---well, what goes up, must come down---and it will come down, into the drinking water source for ore than 30 million Americans (and plenty of Canadians too). If you live in the Midwest, you should be paying attention.
Last week there was much rejoicing when the Great Lakes Compact was signed. But the protections that were put in place are likely moot if we are going to allow our waters to be fouled by aggressively supporting the infrastructure for, what the report calls, a "pollution delivery system."
There is good news. In Canada, there is a growing awakening to the dangers present within their borders. I have talked to Canadian journalists trying to understand how the tar sands affect their nation's image internationally. And the opinion pages of Canadian newspapers reflect an ever-more conflicted public trying to weigh the undeniable environmental impacts against the economic windfall of oil.
In the U.S., the media is starting to pick up on the inherent problems of trying to fighting climate change while the oil companies and many in our government are advocating for the dirtiest fuel sources they can find. Reports like this one support and reinforce the arguments that NRDC is making in Indiana, Illinois, and DC.
We recently filed suit against the State Department over the proposed Keystone pipeline, which would move dirty tar sands oil from Alberta to Illinois for refining. When signing the treaties, the State Department treated the pipeline as though it was a benign tube, with limited environmental impacts. We will be arguing that activities past the ends of the tube need to be considered, so stay tuned!
]]>
The article shines a light on EPA pollution data that has gotten short shrift.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency spent millions of dollars to assess the dangers that air pollution poses but has failed to fulfill promises to make the research more accessible to the public. So the Tribune is posting the information on its Web site, where users can easily find nearby polluters and the chemicals going into their air.
While Hawthorne's articles have traditionally focused on Midwestern pollution issues, he and researcher/co-author Darnell Little, have done a huge favor for anyone concerned about air pollution in the U.S. Where the EPA has dragged their feet, the Trib has excelled by making the entire database available on their Web site.
Interested in air quality near you? Get a list of the worst polluters in any county in the U.S.
But as exciting as the newly accessible information is...the news is not good for us here in Chicago. Cook County has the worst numbers in the country.
"This raises very important questions about public health in our communities," said Dr. Peter Orris, chief of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center. "If the government's own data shows we have a problem, they should be doing more about it."
One wry commenter noted that the only recent high profile case that the EPA has brought in Chicago was against the Blommer Chocolate factory that sits near the Loop and gives downtown its iconic and often mouth-watering aroma. According to the numbers exposed by Hawthorne and Little, EPA needs to be less focused on that "death by chocolate" threat posed by the 7,498th riskiest facility in the nation when the 5th most dangerous facility is only a few miles away (and 7 of the nation's 100 worst air pollution threats to the public health sit in Cook County)...
]]>
BP could learn a lot from the late, great, Godfather of Soul.
Last week was a very good one for the British oil giant. Tuesday, BP announced that they had brought in a jaw-dropping $6.59 BILLION profit in the last three months (that is more than many countries’ annual GDP).
And Thursday, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) surprised everyone by awarding BP an air pollution permit for expansion of its refinery in Whiting, IN. The fact that the permit was awarded was not the surprise---how could an agency charged with improving Hoosier’s household income stand in the way of a big project, no matter how dangerous or dirty? Instead, the move was shocking due to the speed of turning around the woefully inadequate permit, as well as IDEM’s willingness to completely ignore the significant concerns expressed by NRDC and a veritable cornucopia of other environmental and community groups. Ann Alexander, the lead attorney on the challenge likened it to “drive by permitting.”
The air permit gives BP the green light to move forward on an expansion project to make the already dirty refinery into the nation’s biggest tar sands oil processor. That’s right; one of the dirtiest facilities in the country has gotten permission to get dirtier. And they are spending billions of dollars to process the dirtiest oil around, spewing all the climate changing and disease-causing pollutants that come with it. More arsenic, lead, sulfur, and CO2 for everyone in densely packed northwest Indiana (and just 20 miles from Chicago).
What does that have to do with the “Hardest Working Man in Show Business?” Brown and his backing bands crisscrossed America putting on the same legendary high-energy live shows everywhere they stopped. He was always at the center of the show, but Soul Brother #1 knew that he needed to take care of his supporting cast, the audience, and everyone who made it all happen. Everyone in the band needed a little time in the spotlight…even the drummer, who always seems to be ignored and overlooked.
BP should follow that lead---take care of everyone impacted by the refinery. You’d think that being flush with cash would allow BP to invest in the best possible facilities to protect the folks living closest to the expanded refinery. “Can’t the drummer have some?”
But the Whiting Refinery still falls short of existing Clean Air Act regulations. The 100+ year old facility is behind similar facilities in the Bay area of California where simple structural improvements and best practices are being employed to minimize the impact on the surrounding populations and environment. Why do the people of San Francisco deserve stronger protections than the folks in Gary, Indiana?
In NRDC’s challenge to BP’s air permit a number of simple changes were suggested to prevent flaring---the use of those big torches that burn off excess gases and kick out massive volumes of pollution in the process. Looking out for the communities around the refinery is largely an issue of using good engineering design and practices to avoid unnecessary flaring. Adequate compressor capacity and backup compressors are essential to minimize flaring, and not very expensive to add. But BP chooses not to make the investment. Same goes for recycling some of the gases produced in the refinery, rather than simply sending them out the smokestack. No interest from BP. In fact, NRDC suggested an assortment of processes, work practices, and analyses that seem natural for an efficient business...but when you make a boatload of cash, I guess that sort of thing seems less important...
Instead of using those billions of dollars to protect communities like Chesterton, Hobart, Hammond, and Chicago’s south side, BP pushes for permit requirements that the cash-starved state government all too willingly applies. That leaves some of America’s hardest-working families paying for those profits with their health. As JB would say, the deal is “Super Bad.”
]]>