Environmental Justice

Scientists have concluded that the exploitation of the Canadian Tar Sands has worsened the pollution levels found in the mud at the bottom of lakes in Canada. It should have, but doesn’t surprise me that scientists for the oil companies did not come up with these findings but these results instead came from an independent study by the Canadian government. The interesting thing is that oil naturally “bubbles” up in these parts of Canada and the extracting of these Tar Sands has been worsened air pollution. This is an important environmental justice issue because the US is getting a large portion of its oil from Canada now and in this way we are supporting this industry. Although few people live near the Tar Sands the impact of drilling there could have huge consequences on the environment and the surrounding areas, especially waterways. How can changes be made to make drilling profitable and protect people and the environment?

A scientist in Sweden did a test on some water near a sewage treatment plant and found antianxiety drugs in the water. He then proceeded to test some fish that lived in the waters near the plant to see if they were affected by the drugs. On some level it does not surprised me that human drugs are making it into our waters and could potentially be affecting the animals that live in them. It bothers me that this has been happening for decades and it seems like people have not really done anything about it. My biggest problem with this whole issue is that people in 3rd world countries, where these drugs are manufactured are the ones that are hardest hit by this drugs. It makes sense because there is "run off" from the factories, but I am sure it is having an affect on the environment and probably the people who live there. These people probably have no power and just have to live with the consequences of the run off from a factory for a drug that they do not have access to. That is what makes this an environmental justice issue. Has anything been done about this? Can people make international laws or regulations to protect people?

For just about 35 years the shipyard was used by the US Navy (ending in 1974). It is now one of about 1,300 Superfund Sites in the United STates that need to be cleaned up. A thing that interested me most about this article is that since the Navy made this mess they are the one's responsible for cleaning it up. They are supposed to be taking responsibility for their actions which is good. Another thing that scared me is that "at many locations throughout the Shipyard, groundwater, bay sediments, and soil are contaminated with petroleum fuels, pesticides, heavy metals (such as lead and zinc), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, vinyl chloride and carbon tetrachloride." These are all dangerous things that can and probably are affecting the people of San Francisco, specifically Bayview / Hunter's Point. I cannot imagine all of the health impacts of these toxins and the BCA tour, I'm sure, barely touched the surface. It seems good that the Navy is making efforts to undo their changes (as much as that is possible, if it is) and they are trying to protect the people in the neighborhood from dust inhalation and drinking contaminated water. I want to continue to learn about the progress of the clean up and potentially learn an estimated finish date.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/Hunters+Point+Naval+Shipyard?OpenDocument

Below is an EPA map of the Superfund Site in San Francisco.

The tour I went on in Bayview / Hunter’s Point inspired me to do a little research on Superfund sites. I originally thought that Superfund sites were the ~10 dirtiest places in the United States that the Federal Government was investing time and money into cleaning up. But then I looked at the EPA website and there are 124 Superfund Sites and 67 Brownfields just in California! Superfund “is EPA's program to identify, investigate and clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites throughout the United States” (http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/superfundsites.html). A Brownfield are “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off greenspaces and working lands” (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/). In San Francisco there is one Brownfield (South Bayshore Area) and one Superfund Site (Hunters Point Naval Shipyard). I now really want to look into these two different sites in San Francisco and learn a little about how they are cleaning them up.

Father José Andrés Tamayo is a Catholic priest from Honduras. He leads the Environmental Movement of Olancho (MAO), "a coalition of subsistence farmers and community and religious leaders who are defending their lands against uncontrolled commercial logging."

 Olancho is home to "500 unique types of birds and numerous endangered plant and animal species, these ecosystems are critical to preventing erosion, protecting the region's water sources and reducing flooding in the region." Illegal logging has already destroyed "half of Olancho's 12 million acres of forest." "Erosion is widespread, water levels are dangerously low and natural springs have dried up completely." 

The movement remains peaceful even as Tamayo has been assaulted and others in the movement have been murdered.

I'm glad Tamayo won the Goldman Prize because if there is "no formal authority in the region" how else will his cause be supported? His movement has to create its own rules to keep the population heathy and with access to water. Even though he appeals to the government for help they don't control the area ("powerful landowners, logging companies, drug traffickers and informal crime bosses" do)  and there is even corruption with in the government itself that Tamayo has worked to eradicate. 

Mictonesia is made up "of islands, threatened by rising sea levels. They say it is not a future risk, but something that is happening now. If it gets to a meter or higher, the islands would get uninhabitable."

"Where will you go?" we asked. "We don't want to go anywhere," Masao Nakayama, Permanent Representative of the Federated States of Micronesia, answered.

Its easy to forget that something as dramatic as losing your country due to climate change is possible when in the United States we have mostly kept the effects to a minimum. 

In 1964 Peabody Energy signed a contract "allowing the company mineral rights and use of an aquifer" which was extremely generous to Peabody.

"Peabody Energy pumped water from the underground Navajo Aquifer in a slurry pipeline operation to transport extracted coal to the Mohave Generating Station inLaughlin, Nevada. The Navajo Aquifer is the main source of potable groundwater for the Navajo and Hopi tribes, who use the water for farming and livestock maintenance as well as drinking and other domestic uses." 

Vernon Masayesva, executive director of Black Mesa Trust and former Hopi Chairman says the real story is "the take-over of the government by pro-Peabody legislators with the support of their legal counsel, Scott Canty, and the ensuing corruption and abuse of power."

This is only a continuation of the blatant disrespect and injustice Native Americans have faced in varying forms since colonization. It is important to remember that indigenous communities are still being systematically oppressed. 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/05/a-dirty-new-low-for-peabody-coal/

The organization Literacy for Environmental Justice wants to "foster understanding of the principles of environmental justice and urban sustainability in our young people in order to promote the long-term health of our communities."  They do this by providing internships to youth to work on environmental justice issues like natural ecology and food security.

Which is needed because the area "is predominantly a low-income community of color which has historically served as the dumping ground for San Francisco's most toxic industries."

"More than fifty percent of area households are considered low or very low income. Twenty percent of children have asthma, and the prevalence of chronic illness is four times the state average."

i appreciate that this organization improves the community by empowering its members to make the change, rather than gentrify the area to make it "better."

As quinoa has become increasingly popular in the United States and other developed countries because of its health benefits the price everywhere has tripled since 2006.  The grain "acquired hero product status among affluent foreigners" who are "preoccupied with personal health, animal welfare and reducing their carbon "foodprint".

The effect is that "poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper." 

This is especially disturbing that such a well intentioned craze can have such a quick and powerful negative impact.  This is a reminder that as Americans and Westerners we have simultaneous unintentional power and effect through out the world and the privilege to be completely unaware of our own effect. 

The fire at the Richmond, CA oil refinery plant has raised concerns health concerns because of affected air quality. Although "no hazardous compounds had been detected in the air" "monitoring would continue."

Local residents "came to the emergency room Monday night complaining of shortness of breath, but none was seriously ill." "Julius Bailey said his throat had started burning and his eyes itching. After seeing a doctor, he said, "They told me I'm not going to die, but it sure feels pretty serious.""

The community has battled over the refinery for years. "Chevron has for years wanted to overhaul and upgrade the facility. But many Richmond residents and environmentalists have objected, saying the project would create more air pollution in a community that already has too much. Although Richmond's City Council approved the renovation project in 2008, a judge halted construction work the next year, ruling that Chevron had not answered key questions in the project's environmental impact report."

The main argument in the community is Chevrons impact on the health of the residents and lack transparency and improvement despite efforts by environmentalists.

One resident who has "lived a couple of blocks away since 1987 and said he thinks the refinery doesn't do enough to protect local residents. "The wind never blows that smoke to Marin County, now does it?" he said. "They made sure of that. I think it's intentional that they don't protect us.""

The energy company Enbridge wants to "build two pipelines 1,170 kilometres from the tar sands to the coast at Kitimat, BC." The project is in dispute and is being challenged by many environmental groups and communities. I am focusing on the group Forest Ethics's efforts.

Tar sands are considered one of, or the most, damaging way to extract oil. Tar sands "dig up four tons of earth for every one barrel of tar sands sludge they extract" and "create prodigious quantities of water pollution." The tar sands are "Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming pollution."

http://www.forestethics.org/tar-sands

The total emissions in the US increased in the middle of the last decade, and then decreased. This is really important, and very interesting. What have people done differently that reduced those numbers? They are below levels in 2000. How have people changed? How do they compare to California emissions? The biggest pollutant in the US is CO2 and that makes perfect sense, but I am just really surprised how much less everything else is. When the emissions are split up by sector and source, it really bothers me that there is no agricultural “sector.” American farming is a big producer of CO2 and I believe it deserves its own section, or at least specification of what “sector” it is a part of.

In Beijing, the levels of air pollution are dangerous, “for more than half of the past 60 days, the air pollution has hit levels hazardous to human health” and was at some points "five times higher than the level considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." These high levels of pollution, for long-term exposure, reduce length of people’s lives. The most interesting thing about this article is that, although everyone in Beijing has to breathe this air, there are certain ways to breathe “cleaner air.” People can wear facemasks (that look like the one in the above picture) but this is a luxury that only certain people can purchase. For me, this is a huge problem; everyone should be able to breathe clean air. People should not have to breathe dangerous air. It should be something that the government focuses on fixing, because it costs the government money (in health care) and city beauty and creates more pollution (people want to drive everywhere so they don’t breathe the air, only making it worse). So, is China looking into ways to reduce this air pollution? How does air pollution in China compare with the US and California?

What structures of American society created a situation where low income people are disproportionally effected by low air and water quality?

In 1963 Congress passed the Clean Air Act. This piece of legislation paved the way for all air monitoring the federal, state and local governments do. The EPA monitors air quality for critical pollutants, common pollutants throughout the United States. What really surprised me was how few pollutants are very common and that some pollutants are still common that I though were not used now like lead. The main ones are Carbon Monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter and Sulfur Dioxide. The article did not mention where air quality is better and where it is worse. So, I am interested in learning more about San Francisco’s air quality and major pollutants in the area, now that I better understand how the EPA monitors air quality.