People Before Profit blog

New report says oil trains endanger 25 million

Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:33:00 +0000

On the heels of two recent oil train derailments in Ontario and West Virginia, the Center for Biological Diversity released a report on Feb. 19 offering new details and insights into the immense risks posed by unregulated and expanding oil-by-rail transport. The report, Runaway Risks: Oil Trains and the Government's Failure to Protect People, Wildlife, and the Environment, notes that with the increasing use of oil trains comes the chance of an uptick in derailments and explosions - and that it's innocent U.S. citizens who are going to feel the burn.

According to the report, an estimated 25 million Americans live within the one-mile evacuation zone recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation in the event of an oil train derailment. And animals are at risk as well: oil trains pass within a quarter mile of protected critical habitat for at least 57 threatened or endangered species, including the California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, piping plover, and bull trout. Oil trains also pass through 34 national wildlife refuges, as well as important lakes, reservoirs, and other bodies of water.

"These oil trains pose a massive danger to people, wildlife, and our environment, whether it's trains passing through heavily populated areas or some of our most pristine landscapes," said Jared Margolis, attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity who focuses on the impact of energy development on endangered species. "The federal government has failed to provide adequate protection from these bomb trains. We clearly need a moratorium on crude-by-rail until the safety of our communities and the environment can be ensured."

Noting the lack of safety regulations and oversight, he added, "People, wildlife, rivers, and lakes will pay a huge cost for the government's failure to act. Regulators know it's only a matter of time before the next explosive oil train accident. They need to act now to protect Americans and our environment."

The report went on to make several recommendations to remedy some of the ongoing issues, including doing away with the outdated DOT-111 tank cars involved in many fiery derailments, and to issue a moratorium on this form of oil transport until new tank car standards can be issued that call for rupture-proof cars and thermal protection to withstand any and all accidents. The report also declared the need for a more comprehensive response plan in the event of such a disaster, and the establishment of speed limit zones in all population centers.

Mollie Matteson, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, discussed the need for significant safety reforms, remarking, "Back-to-back fiery derailments involving crude oil trains should be an unmistakable wake-up call to our political leaders: stop these dangerous oil trains and stop them now. People's lives are at stake, clean drinking water is at stake, and the wellbeing of towns and wildlife along thousands of miles of rail line are directly in harm's way of this unchecked, reckless increase in oil transport by rail."

"The potential harm from oil train derailments cannot be easily ignored," the report stated. "The amount of crude oil being transported by rail throughout North America has increased dramatically in recent years. In 2008, only 9,500 rail cars of oil were transported on America's Class I railways. In 2013, more than 400,000 rail cars of oil traveled the nation's railways, representing a more than 40-fold increase. Recent reports indicate that [it's] continuing its dramatic escalation."

And with pipelines having nearly as notorious a reputation as trains, the Center is quick to add that there is no truly 'safe alternative' to the rail car method of oil transport. Margolis concluded, "The reality is there's no way to safely transport the highly volatile crude. Instead these extreme fossil fuels should be left in the ground for our safety and to avoid the impending climate catastrophe."

Photo: Luann Hunt/AP

Like a bad neighbor, Chevron is there

Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:12:00 +0000

The federal agency that investigates refinery catastrophes released its final report late last month on the massive fire, volatile vapor release and toxic smoke plume at Chevron's Richmond, Calif., refinery in 2012 that imperiled 19 workers and sickened 15,000 residents of surrounding communities.

The report says Chevron knew the pipe that ruptured was made of material likely to corrode, that pipes of the same material at Chevron plants previously failed and caused fires, that Chevron repeatedly rebuffed experts' recommendations to replace the pipe, and that when the pipe did begin to breach, Chevron disastrously attempted to patch it instead of shutting down the high-pressure, high-temperature hydrocarbon process unit to which it was attached.

For neighborhoods around the refinery, the upshot of all of those decisions by Chevron was a nearly six-hour order for residents to remain indoors as their homes were engulfed in smoke and soot. Approximately 15,000 received medical treatment for breathing difficulty, chest pain, headaches and eye irritation. Twenty were admitted to hospitals. Incredibly, 19 workers caught in a highly flammable vapor cloud all survived with only minor injuries.

Because of oil companies' bad-faith bargaining and other serious unfair labor practices, more than 5,000 refinery workers who are members of the United Steelworkers (USW) are conducting unfair labor practice strikes across America.

Those at Richmond are among 25,000 USW-represented refinery workers still working, but they strongly support the demand for safety and they're strongly supported by Richmond residents who know they're endangered when workers are. They all want refineries to become good neighbors.

The Aug. 6, 2012 fire at Chevron was the latest in a long list of failures that spewed toxins into the community. In a lawsuit against Chevron for the 2012 smoke deluge, Richmond cited 14 incidents over the past 25 years. That's very nearly one every other year. They include major explosions and fires in the plant and smoke overwhelming the community in 1999 and 1989. In those two, a total of 11 workers were injured, three critically.

More recently, in 2007, a failure caused by sulfidation corrosion resulted in a huge fire. In that blaze and smoke plume, a worker was injured and community members ordered to stay indoors for five hours. Richmond-area residents suffering breathing problems packed emergency rooms. That exact type of corrosion led to the 2012 fire as well.

The refinery industry has known about the dangers of sulfidation corrosion for 40 years. That specific corrosion has caused repeated problems at refineries and, as a result, in surrounding communities.

For example, a sulfidation corrosion breach occurred in 2009 at the Silver Eagle refinery in Woods Cross, Utah. The Chemical Safety Board (CSB), the federal agency that investigates refinery disasters, reported the corrosion led to a 10-inch pipe failing catastrophically, releasing hydrogen, which exploded, triggering a massive fireball. The blast damaged hundreds of homes in the surrounding community, knocking cupboards off walls, blowing out windows and doors, cracking curbs and foundations.

From up-close-and-personal experience, Chevron knew for a decade what the corrosion could do. In 2002 at its Salt Lake City refinery, sulfidation corrosion caused a pipe failure and fire.

After that, Chevron inspected the Richmond facility for similar weakness and experts recommended the refinery replace the pipe that ruptured in 2012. Chevron didn't do it. The CSB found that specialists advised replacement four more times. Chevron never did it. That's not a good neighbor.

A year after the disaster, Richmond sued Chevron, alleging it willfully disregarded public safety. Gayle McLaughlin, then the mayor, said, "This is not about money, although there are certainly costs attached to the impact of this fire. This is about a change in Chevron's corporate culture, to place safety of the community as a top priority."

State and federal agencies' investigative reports support the allegations in the city's lawsuit. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health issued 25 citations against Chevron for the 2012 fire and charged it the highest penalty in the agency's history, nearly $1 million. And Chevron pleaded no contest to six criminal charges arising from the 2012 fire and agreed to pay $2 million in fines and restitution.

Still, Chevron belittled Richmond for the lawsuit. Its spokesperson, Melissa Ritchie, said: "We believe the decision to pursue such a suit is a waste of the city's resources and yet another example of its failed leadership."

Then, Chevron spent $3 million to buy itself the mayor's office and three council seats in the town of 107,000. It failed. It won not one race against opponents who spent less than $160,000. Richmond residents don't care how rich a neighbor Chevron is. They want a good neighbor.

After the fire, Richmond residents, environmentalists and USW members began working together in a coalition called the Refinery Action Collaborative to protect the safety and health of refinery workers and citizens living near the Richmond refinery and five others located within a 25 mile radius in the San Francisco Bay area.

Michael Smith, who has worked at the Chevron refinery in Richmond for 13 years, serves on the collaborative as a representative of his local union. Previous coalitions have not typically included workers, but this one understands their role, Smith said. "The workers are the front line of the community. If we are safe, then the community around the refinery is safe."

In the past, Smith said, Chevron deployed a successful divide-and-conquer strategy, telling workers that the community and environmentalists were trying to shut the refinery and kill jobs. Now, however, the three groups understand their shared interest, which is maintaining a clean-operating, tax-paying, job-sustaining facility. "We want them to run it safely, to be a good neighbor, not shut it down," Smith said.

Tom Butt, Richmond's new mayor, is among the candidates who defeated the Chevron

slate. Before the 2012 fire, Butt said, Chevron had always insisted safety was its highest priority. However, every investigative report on Chevron's behavior proved that wasn't true, the mayor said.

"They are certainly a rich neighbor. But I can't say that has made the neighborhood improve," said Butt, who has lived in Richmond for 42 years.

Mike Parker, who worked to support Butt and the progressive slate of candidates that won, lives less than a mile from the refinery. He said after the fire, black particles and soot settled on everything - cars, homes, vegetables in gardens. "It was clear that people were breathing a lot of this stuff," he said. And they didn't know what was in it.

Later, when residents read the investigative reports, he said they were angry. "This wasn't an accident or an act of God. This was a result of conscious policy of a company to cut corners," Parker adds.

Parker hopes Chevron will be changed by the many forces now working together for safety because at this point, "Chevron is a very arrogant neighbor, one who seems to totally run on the basis of it has the money and therefore it can get its way."

Steelworkers President Leo Gerard heads one of the nation's most politically active and largest industrial unions.

Photo: Smoke billows from a Chevron plant in Richmond, Calif. Noah Berger/AP

California poised to lead nation on climate policy

Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:23:00 +0000

With the United Nations Climate Change Conference on the horizon this December in Paris, California could be poised to lead the nation on climate policy.

Leaders of the California state senate last week introduced a package of four bills to sharply cut the use of fossil fuel in the state while boosting the use of renewable energy and requiring more energy efficient buildings.

California Senate Pro-Tem Kevin de Leon announced the introduction of the bills at a press conference Tuesday at the state capitol, flanked by Democratic colleagues, renewable energy entrepreneurs, environmental leaders, consumer advocates, labor representatives, and workers in hard hats employed in the renewable energy sector.

One of the bills De Leon authored, SB 350, calls for a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in cars and trucks, a 50 percent increase in energy efficiency in buildings, and a 50 percent jump in the use of renewable energy by state utilities, all by 2030.

Predictably, the Western States Petroleum Association declared it is "strongly opposed" to SB 350.

If approved by both houses of the state legislature where Democrats make up majorities, it is likely California Gov. Jerry Brown would sign the bill into law given that he called for goals similar to SB 350 in his January inaugural address.

This would be a considerable improvement over current California law that requires utilities receive 33 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2050.

In a slap at Republicans who deny climate change and argue transitioning from fossil fuel to clean energy would result in major job losses, De Leon said, "Choosing between climate change policies and policies that build economic growth is a false choice... An economy built on fossil fuels is an economy built on shifting sand."

He added, "The bottom line is: common-sense, sensible climate change policy is economic growth policy for the state of California."

By pitching the bills as major job-creating initiatives, De Leon aims to solidify the support of moderate Democrats as well as blunt the opposition of Republicans, the fossil fuel industry and investor-owned utilities.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti -whose city's Department of Water and Power is the largest publicly owned and operated municipal utility in the nation - declared, "Reducing carbon pollution is a top priority for Los Angeles, and I look forward to working with the Senator (De Leon) to advance the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals."

Also, strongly supporting De Leon's bill is Los Angeles-based IBEW Local 11 Business Manager Marvin Kroepe.

Similarly, Daniel M. Curtin, the director of the California Conference of Carpenters, said, "We look forward to providing the skilled workforce that will build our renewable energy future providing jobs for our members and energy to fuel our 21^st Century economy."

In a bid to spur private investment in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, De Leon emphasized, "Clean technology companies in California are creating more jobs and investing more money than competitors in any other state, and these policies will keep this momentum going and expand its reach."

The other three bills would also improve on current California law.

SB 32, introduced by Democratic Senator Fran Pavley, sets an all-embracing climate pollution reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

A third bill, SB 189, would create the Committee on Maximizing Jobs and Economic Growth, a seven-person body that would advise the state on how best to spend funds to transition to clean energy.

The final bill, SB 185, would give a boost to the national and international movements to divest from fossil fuel.

The bill would require the massive state portfolios in the Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teacher's Retirement System to divest their holdings from coal companies.

Meanwhile, California stands to help the nation meet the goals set for the U.S. by President Barack Obama last year in the milestone agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping to cut greenhouse emissions in preparations for the UN Climate Change Conference.

Photo: http://sd24.senate.ca.gov/

Geneva: On the road to Paris

Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:25:00 +0000

The first UN negotiating session preparing for a climate deal this fall just wrapped up in Geneva. The draft is the next step in a long process of negotiation and bargaining on the way to a treaty to finally replace the expired Kyoto Accords.

The negotiations were given a boost last fall by A U.S.-China deal on limiting carbon pollution. This set the stage for more serious negotiations involving all parties, with many issues still outstanding.

For the first time, the treaty is expected to include targets for both developed and developing countries. Historically, the developed countries have emitted the most carbon pollution, and so have contributed the most to the build-up of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This cumulative build-up is the cause of the global warming the world is already experiencing. However, currently, several developing countries are emitting the most carbon pollution, led by China and India.

The Kyoto Accords included only the developed countries, and they expired in 2012. For several years before that expiration, and ever since, efforts to create a binding climate treaty have floundered.

The U.S.-China deal raised hopes of finding new ways to include all countries in the process, and marked a major step in China's negotiating posture, and also marked a major step in the US posture, calling for major steps by both countries to limit carbon pollution.

This UN process also takes place against rising demonstrations calling for climate action, most importantly the People's Climate March in NYC in September, 400,000 strong. Solidarity actions that weekend around the world added another 200,000 to the count. Many other kinds of ongoing organizing are taking place, building a multi-faceted movement.

Last weekend, 350.org and many other groups staged Global Divestment Days, calling on universities, pension funds, and public funds to be divested from fossil fuel companies. Norway became the first country to pledge divestment from its wealth fund, dumping billions in investments in fossil fuel companies, though it still has billions more to go.

Republicans and some Democrats in Congress have pushed through a bill trying to force Obama to okay the Keystone pipeline project, a bill he had promised to veto. Other battles are being waged over EPA rules for new and existing power plants.

In addition to the growing climate action movement, these negotiations take place against the backdrop of increasingly dire predictions about the results of climate change. 2014 was the hottest year on record. NASA scientists predict that large parts of the U.S. will experience multi-decades-long massive droughts later this century.

The UN negotiations are scheduled to wrap up at a major conference in Paris in November and December of 2015. While a major international treaty would be an important step forward in the fight against catastrophic climate change, the treaty will certainly not be enough by itself. Enough carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere to guarantee increasing impacts, on top of the ones already seen: increased forest fires, rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, extreme flooding and droughts, changes in weather patterns impacting agriculture, wildlife, and disease zones, glacial and ice sheet melting, and increased species extinction, to mention some.

Photo: As climate change continues, worsening conditions including rising sea levels due t0 glacial melting come with it. | John McConnico/AP

Hell on rails: West Virginia burning after crude oil train derailment

Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:21:00 +0000

MOUNT CARBON, W.Va. - The fires from Monday's derailment of a train carrying crude oil in Fayette County continued to burn Tuesday morning, and emergency shelters for hundreds of people who had to evacuate after the derailment remain open.

"A CSX train, hauling 107 tank car loads of Bakken Shale crude oil from North Dakota to a transportation terminal in Yorktown, Virginia, derailed in Adena Village near Mount Carbon and Deepwater West Virginia about 1:30 p.m. Monday," according to the Charleston Gazette and Staff writer Ken Ward Jr.

At least one house was set ablaze and numerous tank cars either burned or exploded. West Virginia Rivers Executive Director Angela Rosser reported:

"Witnesses saw a gigantic fireball raise to the snow-filled heavens. This is the second terrible trauma in as many years to his the Kanawha River valley. Last January a chemical spill from coal industry connected Freedom Industries storage tanks endangered the water of 300,000 people for weeks. It's time to ask you town or county or state -- what is on the rail cars travelling through our community??"

Bakken crude has shown to be a volatile form of crude requiring highly flammable chemicals in its transport from North Dakota and other shale gas and oil fields. According to Lynn Cook in the Wall Street Journal, this risk is well known to oil and transport companies.

"Data released by a lobbying group for oil refiners confirmed that crude from the Bakken shale in North Dakota is very volatile and contains high levels of combustible gases..."

Now, who is surprised at this reaction from that group?

"The crude," which has been linked to no less than four fiery rail accidents in a year, "is no more dangerous to ship than oil from other shale regions and is being correctly loaded and transported under existing federal rules. New rules aren't warranted," the group, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, said Wednesday.

Federal Railroad Administration workers were only able to get within 50 yards of the derailed cars late Tuesday morning, according to the agency. Some of the rail cars were still on fire, and local emergency responders were still in charge of the scene.

Flames also burned power lines in the area, knocking out electricity to about 900 customers in the midst of frigid sub-freezing temperatures. According Appalachian Power spokeswoman Jeri Matheney, reported in the Gazette, "electricity has not yet been restored because repair crews are having trouble accessing the extent of the damage. About 2,400 people were evacuated or displaced by the train derailment, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency."

Investigators the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration are also already at the scene, and more staff are on the way.

Because of the unknown quantities of spill from the exploded or burnt cars, or tank cars in the river, Officials in Montgomery, downriver from the accident, were told to shut down their water intake as a precaution. Reduced water intakes from the Kanawha river have forces water conservation restrictions. One person was treated for smoke inhalation, officials said, but, miraculously, no other injuries have been reported.

Kelley Gillenwater, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said that the fires were keeping DEP officials from being able to fully examine the site of the derailment to determine what sort of containment and cleanup is going to be needed.

Full details of water sampling being done by the state were not immediately available, but Gillenwater said that so far the results had come back "non-detect."

Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin declared a state of emergency in Fayette and Kanawha counties after the derailment. Tomblin scheduled a news conference with federal and state officials at 2 p.m. Tuesday at the Montgomery Fire Department.

In April 2014, a train carrying crude oil on the same North Dakota-Virginia route derailed in Lynchburg, Virginia. In July 2013, a 74-car train carrying Bakken Shale crude oil derailed in Quebec, Canada, setting off fires and explosions that killed 47 people.

On Saturday, at least seven rail cars carrying crude oil caught fire in Northern Ontario after a train traveling from Alberta to eastern Canada derailed, according to media reports.

What's riding through your town ready to send you to hell?

Photo: Explosion following the train derailment in West Virginia. | AP

Even amidst climate change, geoengineering is not the answer

Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:10:00 +0000

When a recent report suggested that injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere as a means of artificially cooling the Earth, many environmentalists and scientists reacted strongly against the idea. The method, a form of geoengineering, is meant to combat the dilemma of climate change, but those who oppose the idea say it is not worth the risk.

The two-volume report, released Feb. 10 by the National Academy of Sciences, posed sulfuric injection as a way to potentially reflect the sun's heat away from the planet, though they stopped short of citing it as an immediate solution. However, they did call for scientists to study and test the idea as soon as possible. It's important to note that geoengineering, or altering the weather conditions of the world, was once considered a fringe idea, but in these climatically desperate times, portions of the scientific community seem to be arguing for desperate - though not necessarily beneficial - measures.

The suggested effort would mimic the effects of a volcanic eruption and have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, supporters argue, yet experts worry about the unknown, potentially dangerous side effects that could emerge from such an undertaking. In a way, many scientists recognize it as playing with fire, or at the very least, regard it as a last resort.

"Carrying out a geoengineering effort to modify the life support system all life on Earth depends upon - the climate - is an extremely risky undertaking that is more likely to do harm than good," said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground. "Still, at the rate we're going, Team Earth may be down multiple touchdowns late in the game later this century, leading us to try this desperate 'Hail Mary' pass."

Marcia McNutt, committee chair and former director of the U.S. Geological Survey, remarked, "That scientists are even considering technological interventions should be a wake-up call that we need to do more now to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions, which is the most effective, least risky way to combat climate change."

Ben Schreiber, climate and energy program director of Friends of the Earth, added, "While we agree that the current level of greenhouse gas emissions leaves us vulnerable to climate chaos, geoengineering will take us in the wrong direction. It serves as a dangerous distraction from the crucial discussions and actions that need to take place to mitigate and adapt to climate disruption.

"Geoengineering presumes that we can apply a dramatic technological fix, instead of facing the reality that we need to reduce our emissions, lower our consumption levels, and rapidly transition to renewable energy. Some hope to simply reengineer the climate, the land, and the oceans to theoretically slow down and reverse climate [change].

"The side effects of geoengineering interventions are unknown and untested. In order to have any noticeable impact on global temperatures, [such] projects would have to be deployed on a massive scale. These 'experiments' would not only take action in the absence of scientific consensus, hence violating the precautionary principle, but could also easily have unintended consequences due to mechanical failure, human error, inadequate understanding of ecosystems, unforeseen natural phenomena, irreversibility, or funding interruptions."

Social activist Naomi Klein, author of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, said that the authors of the geoengineering report "boldly call for these tests to go ahead even in the absence of any regulatory system governing them. They explicitly state that 'governance and experimentation must co-evolve,' which is a high-minded way of saying, 'let's roll the dice and see what happens.' "

Photo: Geoengineering Watch

Trial and justice delayed for Blankenship, the coal criminal

Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:03:00 +0000

About now this reporter expected to be "down home" in southern West Virginia covering the trial of Don Blankenship, former CEO of Massey Energy. Massey Energy was the company that owned the Upper Big Branch [UBB] mine in Raleigh County where 29 coal miners were killed on April 5, 2010 in an underground explosion.

That tragedy occurred under Blankenship's watch as Massey's CEO. The government contends that the explosion was, in whole or in part, a result of Blankenship's conspiracy to violate federally-mandated safety and health standards, as well as conspiring to impede federal mine safety officials. In addition to those violations, he stands charged with making false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] and with securities fraud.

In the world of capitalism, King Coal, and the law, things don't always go as the people might expect. Instead of the trial where those dead miners' families might at last see some modicum of justice the court delayed the start of Blankenship's anticipated trial until Apr. 20, with a hearing on pre-trial motions set for Mar. 3.

While the people of southern West Virginia and the miners' families are cooling their heels waiting for the wheels of justice to start turning again, other events involving yet another coal company have been taking place.

Another bunch of ex-coal company big shots are under indictment for perpetrating crimes against the people of West Virginia. There was a spill of 4-Methylcylohexanemethanol [MCHM] into Elk River on Jan. 9, 2013. MCHM is used to clean coal.

The National Toxicology Program [NIP] has found that MCHM, an "eye and skin irritant," could "result in effects on the development of offspring."

This toxic substance not only polluted Elk River but flowed into the Kanawha River, which after the Ohio River, is West Virginia's main river. The spill contaminated the entire drinking water supply for the state capitol of Charleston and that of, not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of people in surrounding communities.

It was estimated at one point that a third of West Virginia's residents were affected by this spill- resulting in water brigades, among them the famous Wheeling Water Warriors, hauling bottled water down to Charleston from as far away as the state's northern panhandle.

Anyway, four former Freedom Industries executives (Gary Southern, Charles E. Herzing, Dennis Farrell, and Wm. Tis), who are under federal indictment, appeared in court on Jan. 12 and were released on bond pending trial starting on Mar. 10 before U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston. They were indicted in December, 2014 by a federal grand jury following an extensive investigation by the federal government. Herzing, Farrell, and Tis face misdemeanor counts of criminal violations of: the Clean Water Act that allegedly resulted in Freedom's Jan. 9, 2014 spill of MCHM & other chemicals. Herzing, et al could face three years in prison if convicted.

Gary Southern, former Freedom Industries President, is free on a $100,000 unsecured bond (as opposed to the $10,000 bond for the other defendants). Southern not only faces similar charges as his co-defendants but was also indicted on ten felony counts based on the allegation that he lied about his role at Freedom in order to protect his personal wealth from Freedom's bankruptcy proceeding. If convicted, Southern, 53, would face a statutory maximum of sixty-eight years in prison.

As if all of this were not enough, it appears that lobbyists, among them the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, are gearing up for a big push in the new Republican-dominated state legislature. They seek to weaken the new chemical tank safety bill, undo protections of West Virginia's drinking water, and eliminate the state's policy that protects all West Virginia rivers and streams as potential drinking water sources. Such anticipated maneuverings by King Coal and friends have not gone unnoticed, however, and they are not going unchallenged. A group of citizens and some government officials, called the West Virginia Safe Water Roundtable, met in Charleston on the first anniversary of the Elk River spill. They hope to rally citizens to oppose relaxation of the state's water rules.

Photo: Residents of coal towns in West Virginia await justice in the cases of some major coal company criminals. | John Milam/PW

GOP drafting bill to let asbestos manufacturers off the hook

Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:02:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - Taking advantage of the new Republican rule over Congress,, the remaining firms that manufactured items containing asbestos - the cancer-causing substance that sickened thousands of shipyard workers, factory workers, construction workers, among others, and that still kills 10,000 people yearly - are pushing legislation to limit if not remove their remaining legal liability to pay workers or their heirs for their illnesses and suffering.

Their bill, HR526, in a GOP-run House Judiciary subcommittee, drew opposition from the AFL-CIO and victims' advocates, and protests from one pro-victim attorney who testified on Feb. 4. As might be expected, business representatives denied that avoiding payment was their aim. They also brought in a law school professor who claimed the victims' attorneys inflate damage claims. No workers or workers representatives were invited to testify.

The so-called Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency act would allegedly prevent fraud and direct more of the remaining money to asbestos victims, say its sponsors, Reps. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte, R-Va. The legislation would do exactly the opposite, AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel counters.

"This legislation would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by posting personal exposure and medical information online and create new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos diseases," he wrote to lawmakers prior to the hearing.

"Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have suffered or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and the toll continues," Samuel said. Even the pro-business law school professor from Yeshiva University in New York admitted workers could die from past asbestos exposure could continue through at least 2047.

"Asbestos victims faced huge barriers and obstacles to receiving compensation for their diseases. Major asbestos producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability," Samuel explained.

A 1994 law set up asbestos bankruptcy trusts to pay the victims while reorganizing the asbestos-manufacturing firms to stay in business. Though the trusts have $30 billion-$37 billion, they lack enough money to fully pay claims, with the average victim or heirs receiving only one-fourth of the claim's value for medical suffering and treatment costs.

"The AFL-CIO is well aware the system for compensating asbestos disease victims has had its share of problems, with victims facing delays and inadequate compensation and too much money being spent on defendant and plaintiff lawyers," Samuel admitted. The fed has "spent years of effort" trying to solve the problem, he added. Though he did not say so, business opposition sank those prior efforts.

"HR526 does nothing to improve compensation for asbestos victims and would in fact make the situation even worse," Samuel adds.

"The bill is simply an effort by asbestos manufacturers who still are subject to lawsuits to avoid liability for diseases caused by exposure to their products," he said. And it opens individual asbestos victims to "personally identifiable exposure histories" and disease and payment information.

"This public posting is an extreme invasion of privacy. It would give unfettered access to employers, insurance companies, workers compensation carriers and others who could use this information for any purpose including blacklisting workers from employment and fightin compensation claims." Not only that, the asbestos trusts would have to give the asbestos makers any claim and payment information the makers demand, Samuel added.

"The only party that stands to benefit from this insulting bill is the asbestos industry, who will be able to delay and deny justice for the American families devastated by their deadly products," said Linda Lipsen of the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers' group. "Meanwhile, victims of asbestos exposure and their loved ones will be forced to shoulder the burdens of this unnecessary legislation through delayed compensation and a loss of privacy.

"Do not let the name fool you - the so-called Fact Act is nothing more than a hand-out to the asbestos corporations that, for decades, knowingly poisoned and killed thousands of Americans," she warned.

Elihu Inselbuch, a Caplin & Drysdale attorney who's represented victims and their heirs and worked with the trusts, sounded the same themes, but even more strongly.

"HR526 is the latest, but not the first, attempt by asbestos defendants to minimize and ultimately extinguish their liability," he testified. "These defendants - the only beneficiaries of this bill - are the same asbestos companies who for decades have been determined liable for recklessly and willfully exposing unknowing workers and their families to the companies' deadly products.

"Had these companies shared the information they knew about the dangers of asbestos, or at the very least, provided adequate safety gear, countless lives would have been saved, and you would not be sitting here today" discussing "the longest-running public health epidemic in our history."

Samuel summed up the workers' and the AFL-CIO's position: "Congress should be helping the hundreds of thousands of individuals who are suffering from disabling and deadly asbestos diseases, not further victimizing them by invading their privacy and subjecting them to potential blacklisting and discrimination. The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to oppose HR526," he told lawmakers.

Photo: Take Justice Back Facebook page

Top scientists: Test use of poison to re-engineer climate

Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:43:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) - It's time to study and maybe even test the idea of cooling the Earth by injecting sulfur pollution high in the air to reflect the sun's heat, a first-of-its-kind federal science report said Tuesday.

The idea was once considered fringe - to purposely re-engineer the planet's climate as a last ditch effort to battle global warming with an artificial cloud. No longer.

In a nuanced, two-volume report, the National Academy of Sciences said that the concept should not be acted upon immediately because it is too risky, but it should be studied and perhaps tested outdoors in small projects. It could be a relatively cheap, effective, and quick way to cool the planet by mimicking the natural effects on climate of large volcanic eruptions, but scientists concede there could be dramatic and dangerous side effects that they don't know about.

Because warming has worsened and some countries might act unilaterally, scientists said research is needed to calculate the consequences.

Panel chairwoman Marcia McNutt, editor of the journal Science and former director of the U.S. Geological Survey, said in an interview that the public should read this report "and say, 'This is downright scary.' And they should say, 'If this is our Hail Mary, what a scary, scary place we are in.' "

This is the first time a government-associated science panel talked about the controlled small scale outdoor tests of the artificial cloud concept, called solar radiation management or SRM. But even then panelists downplayed the idea and said it would require some kind of government or other oversight before it is done.

"Yes, small scale outdoor tests might be allowed, but it wouldn't just be in the hands of scientists to decide what's allowable and what's not allowable," McNutt said. "Civil society needs to engage in these discussions where the line is to be drawn."

Some scientists worry that research itself it will make this type of planet hacking more likely to occur.

"This creates a bit of what we call a moral hazard," said Waleed Abdalati, a University of Colorado ice scientist and former NASA chief scientist who co-authored the report. "There will likely come a time we're going to want to know the ramifications of that kind of action. ... You're talking about potentially changing weather and climate. You don't want to do that without as good an understanding as you can possibly have."

And the committee scientists said once you start this type of tinkering, it would be difficult to stop because warming would come back with such a force. So a decision to spray particles into the air would have to continue for more than 1,000 years.

The report was requested by U.S. intelligence agencies, academy president Ralph J. Ciccerone said. Because the world is not reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, scientists have been forced "to at least consider what is known as geoengineering," he said.

The panel did favor technology to suck carbon dioxide from the air and bury it underground. But unlike the artificial cloud concept, it would be costly and take decades to cool the planet. The panel wrote a separate volume on this method with the idea of distancing the concept from the idea of the artificial cloud, which McNutt described as a political hot potato.

Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of the burning of coal, oil, and gas. Removing it from the air treats the cause of man-made global warming, while deflecting the sun with an artificial cloud only treats the symptoms and does nothing about ocean acidification, the report said.

A leading climate engineering scientist, David Keith of Harvard, hailed the report, but said it could have gone further. With backing from billionaire Bill Gates, Keith has proposed an experiment involving putting about two pounds (1 kilogram) of a sulfur solution in the air to see what happens.

Rutgers University scientist Alan Robock said it would be interesting to spray a small sulfur dioxide into a cloud, and use a blimp or drone to measure what happens. But that should only be done with proper oversight, he said.

Other climate scientists are adamantly against injecting sulphates into the air, even as a last ditch effort.

Such an idea "could do far more harm than good" and scientists should treat the Earth like doctors do their patients, abiding by the rule "first, do no harm," said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. But he favors increased study of the issue "if only for one purpose: to expose just how dangerous many of these schemes might be."

While the artificial cloud idea is a much worse option that carbon dioxide removal, it is more attractive to some people because "we could probably do it right now," said Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor Andrew Dessler. "There's really very little that's technologically standing in our way."

Photo: thesciencenews.info

Obama defends wildlife refuge, leaves other areas vulnerable to oil drilling

Tue, 03 Feb 2015 10:20:00 +0000

Last week left a bittersweet taste in the mouths of environmentalists. On Jan. 25 the Obama administration proposed new protections for large portions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which, if approved, would be a huge win. Two days later, however, the administration released its new five-year offshore drilling plan, which opened up more of the Atlantic coast and the Arctic Ocean to dirty fossil fuel development - and potential disaster.

The new protections for the refuge, at least, would mark a historical achievement. According to the U.S. Department of Interior, which is recommending the protections, the measures could become one of the largest conservation efforts "since Congress passed the visionary Wilderness Act over 50 years ago." The Department's recommendation is that millions more acres of the refuge, including the Coastal Plain, be declared "wilderness." What that means is it will enjoy the highest level of protection possible for public lands. Mining, drilling, road development, and the construction of permanent structures - all of these things will be prohibited, effectively preserving the area and its ecosystem.

The issue, however, is that only Congress has the power to make a "wilderness" designation, and given the fact that the Senate just approved the Keystone XL pipeline on Jan. 29, sending it to President Obama's desk for a likely veto, the likelihood of their cooperation on this matter is doubtful.

The President, however, challenged Congress to move on the issue. "I'm going to be calling on Congress to take it a step further," he said from Air Force One during a trip to India. "Designating ANWR as a 'wilderness' so that we can make sure that this amazing wonder is preserved for future generations."

"Designating vast areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness reflects the significance this landscape holds for America and its wildlife," said Interior secretary Sally Jewell. "Just like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, the ANWR is one of our nation's crown jewels, and we have an obligation to preserve this spectacular place for generations to come."

Republicans seized the chance to attack the development, with Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, saying he and others will "defeat their lawless attempt to designate ANWR as a wilderness, as well as their ultimate goal of making Alaska one big national park." He claimed it was an example of Obama "thumbing his nose at the citizens and [putting] Alaska and America's energy security in serious jeopardy."

But the pro-corporate need not have worried; on Jan. 27, the Obama administration catered to them with the release of its proposed 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The draft plan includes 14 potential lease sales, 10 of which are in the Gulf of Mexico, which is still nursing wounds left by the remnants of the infamous 2010 BP Oil Spill. Three areas off the coast of Alaska (the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and the Cook Inlet) would also be sold for oil exploration, after Shell's numerous efforts to infiltrate the area in the face of impassioned opposition from environmental groups. The final area to be sold would include parts of the Atlantic including coastal parts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

This plan is "risky wherever we do it," said Bob Deans, spokesperson for the National Resources Defense Council. "Oil travels a long way. It doesn't respect boundaries."

In a press release issued by the council, executive director Peter Lehner added, "This takes us in exactly the wrong direction. It will expose the Eastern Seaboard, much of the Atlantic, and most of the Arctic to the hazards of offshore drilling. It ignores the lessons of the disastrous BP blowout, the growing dangers of climate change, and the promise of a clean energy future." This plan "would put our beaches, wetlands, and all they support at grave and needless risk, imperil coastal communities and economies, and anchor our future to the diry fossil fuels of the past."

So the glimmer of hope offered by the proposal for ANWR protections was rather tempered, most activists feel, by the dark news that came two days afterward. For many, this surely feels like a classic case of 'two steps forward and three steps back.'

Noting that the plan puts the Alaskan areas in particular at serious risk, Tim Donaghy, a senior research specialist with Greenpeace USA, concluded, "Alaska native communities depend on the ocean for their livelihood, not to mention the whales, walruses, seals, birds, and fish that make up one of the few remaining pristine ecosystems on the planet. Crude oil is something that simply can't be put back in the bottle once it has been spilled. The only way to win is not to drill."

Photo: A polar bear takes a stroll in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. | Subhankar Banerjee/AP