MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1014 discussions

PetroHub and Ethane Crackers in the Ohio Valley
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 05 Nov '18

05 Nov '18

Dear MonValley Clean Air Coalition, With the Shell Ethane Cracker under construction in Potter Township, Pennsylvania and several other petrochemical facilities proposed along the Ohio River in Ohio and West Virginia, our many decision makers have encouraged the growth of natural gas extraction and plastic production in the region. We need to let our political leaders know that the residents of the Ohio River Valley want clean, environmentally-conscious industries - not industries that threaten our health and the health of our environment. Let the governors of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia and your state legislators know that the residents of the Ohio River Valley want renewable energy sources and clean industry in the region. Sincerely, Dave Smith & Kelly Yagatich Southwest PA Outreach Coordinators

1 0

UN climate report author: ambitious actions needed to slow global warming | Cornell Chronicle
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 02 Nov '18

02 Nov '18

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/10/un-climate-report-author-ambitious-… UN climate report author: ambitious actions needed to slow global warming By David Nutt | October 18, 2018 Robyn Wishna/Provided Natalie Mahowald, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences. In March 2017, Natalie Mahowald, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future’s faculty director for the environment, was selected by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a lead author on the “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius.” The final report made international headlines when it was released Oct. 8. Among its key findings: scientific evidence is clear that human activities have caused 1 C of global warming since the late 1800s, and current trends suggest if the planet keeps warming at the same rate global warming will pass 1.5 C around 2040, with disastrous consequences for humans and ecosystems alike. (In Fahrenheit, a change of 1 C is 1.8 F and 1.5 C is 2.7 F.) In this Q&A, Mahowald discusses her role in the report, its findings and proposed solutions, and the work everyone must do to limit global warming. How would you describe your role in preparing the IPCC report? My title is lead author, and I worked on Chapter One: Framing and Context. I was also asked to be an author on the Summary for Policymakers, which is actually line by line approved by governments. I was in South Korea for that process last week. Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries worked on the report. What does that kind of collaboration look like? There’s 400 pages for the whole report if you look at it in a Word file. We each have our own section that we’re the lead on. We spent a lot of time talking to each other and making sure we’re reaching consistent assessments of the peer-reviewed literature. We included citations of 6,000 articles, so it’s a huge amount of work. This report was unique in the way it was so cross-disciplinary. That means everyone speaks a slightly different language. And yet we have to make sure we speak consistently across the whole report. How does involving that many people shape the findings? In a lot of ways, it’s really a consensus document. This is what we can all agree to. It goes through three rounds of expert reviews, and then the governments review it. That means the results are really in the middle of what the science suggests. They’re not the most alarmist, and they’re not the most skeptical. How do you see countries working together to address issues raised in the report? This report is also unique in that the governments called for its creation. It came out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The governments asked us to look at how we could limit global warming to 1.5 C, as well as a 2 C target (or 3.6 F), and what the differences would be. In previous reports, the scientists decided what the questions would be. But I think policymakers are better at figuring out what’s policy-relevant. Now we’ve passed it off to them to decide what to do with it. Why is 1.5 C significant? The Paris Agreement had looked at the impacts of reaching 2 C, but there are some countries that are very, very sensitive to temperature and at 2 C probably these countries will be under water. So these countries called for limiting warming to 1.5 C, and the rest of the countries backed them up. Even at 1.5 C, many of these countries will be highly threatened. It’s an existential threat. Many of the Pacific Island states, they’re small, they don’t have a lot of hills or high terrain, and they will be heavily impacted by any increase in temperature. But there’s a lot of countries, including the United States, that are going to feel the sea-level rise under 1.5 C. A lot of Florida, for example, is extremely susceptible. And pretty much the whole eastern and western seaboards are going to be heavily impacted. Any country that has a coastline, really, will feel a sea-level rise. I can’t think of a place on the planet that won’t be impacted if we move to 1.5 C or 2 C. When the report was requested, we were at about 0.9 C. We are at 1 C right now. So it is possible to limit warming to 1.5 C, but we have to act extremely aggressively to do so. How drastic are the transitions we need to make? In some ways they’re incremental, and some are complete transformations. One way to think about it is, “Well, how did the world look 50 years ago? What kind of technology did we use, what kind of transportation, how interconnected was the world?” It was totally different. And in another 50 years it will be totally different. As we build new infrastructure, we’ll need to think about low-carbon emissions. Depending on how successful we are, we’ll still have to adapt to climate change, even if we limit warming to 1.5 C. What are the critical areas that need to be addressed immediately? There are a lot of different ways to limit warming to 1.5 C, but we can’t just choose one of these options. It’s much easier to reach a lower temperature target if we change our own behavior, if we conserve energy, if we think about where our food is sourced, if we reduce food waste. In addition, we need to convert to sustainable energy, without a doubt. Luckily there’s all these innovations in wind and solar, and now they’re cheaper than using fossil fuels. A lot of ways we’re going to reduce our impacts actually help us now. For example, if we switch off of fossil fuels like coal or natural gas and move onto something like wind or solar, air quality will improve. What technologies and methods are available to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? There are really easy, inexpensive things that make a ton of sense, like reforesting old forests that were cut down. We can also use agricultural soils to draw down more carbon dioxide, and that makes the land more fertile and enhances biodiversity, too. In addition, there are new technologies being developed here at Cornell, as well as other places, that can potentially sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make plastics or new fuels. Are these technological developments achievable in the given timeline? Climate change is really a long-term problem, so we need to be moving relatively quickly to transition from dirty energy sources to cleaner, cheaper energy sources, like wind or solar, as well as sustainable agriculture, over the next 10 years. Then in 20 or 30 years, we want to have large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies, if we can develop ones that make sense and aren’t environmentally damaging or impact food security. Sooner is better, but we’re not under the gun for all technologies. What do you say to people who are daunted by the massive amount of change that needs to occur to keep global warming to 1.5 C? I understand it is a really big problem. Who’s going to solve it? Well, everybody’s going to have to solve it. What an individual can do, and must do, is make individual changes in energy conservation, changes in diet, and think about reducing your impact. In addition, at the city level, the state level, the government level, within businesses, within nonprofits like Cornell, we all have to be thinking about how to reduce our carbon emissions and act in a way that is consistent with our low-carbon goals. We all have to be working together. Are there any other big takeaways from the report? I think it is important that some of the new studies within the report show a rise of 0.5 C – which doesn’t sound like very much – actually will be felt by humans and by ecosystems. It makes a statistically significant difference in extreme precipitation, in extreme heat events, in drought occurrences. It matters. We’ve already felt climate change, right now at 1 C, and at 1.5 C we’re going to be able to tell the difference. And between 1.5 C, and 2.0 C, we’ll be able to tell the difference. It’s also important for people to understand the impacts from climate change only get worse as the temperature rises. So if somebody says to you, “Well, we’re not going to keep global warming to 1.5 C, so let’s just give up,” that’s not the right attitude. The right attitude is we should get as low a temperature as we possibly can, and that will make it much easier for humans and ecosystems to survive. David Nutt is managing editor of the Atkinson Center. Sent from my iPad

1 0

< MVCAC> Join the Southwest PA Neighbors for Clean Air
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 29 Aug '18

29 Aug '18

From: Clean Air Council <kyagatich(a)cleanair.org> > Date: August 29, 2018 > Subject: Join the Southwest PA Neighbors for Clean Air > Reply-To: kyagatich(a)cleanair.org > > > Donate > Dear MonValley Clean Air Coalition, > > For far too long, industry has carelessly polluted the air in southwest Pennsylvania, while the region’s air quality has continually failed to meet federal health standards. We must work together to demand that industry and government protect our health, environment, and quality of life. > > Clean Air Council is organizing a campaign to mobilize and train concerned residents across southwest PA to become local experts on issues related to air pollution in their communities. It is a way for people of all knowledge levels to work together to advocate for cleaner air. > > Clean Air Council is hosting ongoing training sessions for volunteers interested in becoming a Southwest PA Neighbors for Clean Air group leader. New group leaders will be trained in how to facilitate group meetings and advocacy efforts. The Council will provide leaders with educational materials, action steps, facilitator notes, and ongoing support. Leaders are responsible for recruiting about 10 members and scheduling group meetings. > > Please join us at one of the following trainings: > > Thursday, August 30th from 6:00 - 7:30pm at the Porch, 221 Schenley Dr, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > Wednesday September 5th from 6:00 - 7:30pm at Panera Bread, 4172 William Penn Hwy, Monroeville, PA 15146 > Wednesday, September 12th from 4:00 - 5:30pm at Crazy Mocha, 2 E North Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15212 > Friday, September 21st from 1:00 - 2:30pm at Delanie's Coffee, 1737 E Carson St, Pittsburgh, PA 15203 > Thursday, September 26th from 6:00 - 7:30pm at Mt. Lebanon Public Library, 16 Castle Shannon Blvd, Mt Lebanon, PA 15228 > To sign up for a scheduled training, arrange a different training time, or learn more about the campaign, please contact Kelly Yagatich at kyagatich(a)cleanair.org or 412-723-7055. > > Sincerely, > > Dave Smith & Kelly Yagatich > Southwest PA Outreach Coordinators > > Support our work > > When you give to the Clean Air Council, you’re not just providing us with the resources to defend clean air and public health. You’re joining with over 8,000 other members to show government, courts, and polluters whose side the people are on. > > Donate now > CONNECT WITH US > > > Philadelphia office > Suite 300 > 135 S. 19th Street > Philadelphia, PA, 19103 > > Pittsburgh office Suite 200 > 200 First Ave. > Pittsburgh, PA 15222 > Harrisburg office > Suite 113 > 107 N. Front Street > Harrisburg, PA, 17101 > > Wilmington office > Suite 1004 > Box #607 > 100 W. 10th Street > Wilmington, DE, 19801 > View this email in your browser Unsubscribe > > > >

1 0

To kill climate rule, Trump’s EPA wants to redefine danger of soot | Science | AAAS
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 11 Aug '18

11 Aug '18

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/kill-climate-rule-trump-s-epa-wants-… To kill climate rule, Trump’s EPA wants to redefine danger of soot By Niina Heikkinen, E&E NewsAug. 6, 2018 , 8:35 AM The Environmental Protection Agency is rethinking how to calculate the costs and benefits of regulations, including those aimed at curbing smog, shown here enshrouding Los Angeles, California. Bob Travis/Flickr () Originally published by E&E News Whether it's in haze-shrouded cities, plumes of car exhaust or even clear skies, fine particle pollution can be found just about everywhere in the United States. These pollutants are so small they can slip inside buildings and penetrate deep into lung tissue. On hot summer days, high concentrations of the pollutant help trigger poor air quality alerts, warning the very young, elderly and sick to stay indoors. Exposure to fine particles is linked to premature death and higher risks of asthma and heart attacks. After decades of increasingly strong assertions that there is no known safe level of fine particle exposure for the American public, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Donald Trump’s administration is now considering taking a new position. The agency is floating the idea of changing its rulemaking process and setting a threshold level of fine particles that it would consider safe. The change would affect how EPA counts the health benefits of reducing fine particles when crafting rules aimed at reducing other pollutants, like greenhouse gases. If the plan moves forward, it could have implications for how well EPA's regulations protect human health. The Trump administration introduced the idea in the fall of 2017, when it publicly released a proposal for repealing the Clean Power Plan, a former President Barack Obama-era rule to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. While the rule wasn't focused on fine particles, it would have reduced them anyway by requiring plant operators to install new technology to cut CO2 emissions. The authors of the rule had counted the health benefits from reducing particles in their justification for why the benefits of regulating greenhouse gases outweighed the costs of implementing it. The health benefits of cutting CO2 become even more evident when paired with the "co-benefits" of cutting fine particles. This process of weighing the economic pluses and minuses of any particular rule is known, in EPA lingo, as a cost-benefit analysis. It's a key factor in determining whether a rule makes sense both in terms of its environmental and health benefits and in the costs it imposes on industry. Critics see EPA's latest proposal on particulates as a way to undermine efforts to establish strict controls on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, by making the benefits of regulating them seem significantly lower. "It would be hard for the Trump administration to say [the Clean Power Plan] is a net bad for the American people; the total benefits were significantly more than the cost," said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University (NYU) in New York City. Revesz noted that Trump's EPA was only able to legally justify rolling back the rule by "mangling" the Clean Power Plan's direct greenhouse gas benefits and its additional co-benefits of cutting pollutants like fine particles. Roughly half of the estimated benefits from reducing greenhouse gases at power plants comes from the accompanying reductions of fine particles. The Obama administration estimated that the Clean Power Plan would have $20 billion in climate benefits and an added $13 billion to $30.3 billion in benefits from reductions in particulates. From coal plants—and cigarettes EPA is considering changes to its cost-benefit analysis, even as researchers studying fine particles warn that federal regulations already fail to fully protect the public from the pollutants' effects on human health. Fine particles, or particulate matter (PM), get their shorthand name, PM 2.5, from their size. Measuring in at a minuscule 2.5 micrometers, these particles are a tiny fraction of the width of a human hair. The Administration, and other regulation opponents, suggest theirs is a logical way to account for effects, arguing that including these benefits artificially inflates the positive effects of regulating. But what they advocate is a dishonest attempt to obscure the actual effects of regulations from the public. Richard Revesz and Kimberly Castle, New York University They can come from sources like power plants and automobiles, and from smaller sources like fireplaces and cigarette smoke. Fine particles can also form from other pollution sources in the atmosphere through a chemical reaction. They're everywhere. Because of their ability to travel deep into the lungs, a number of its effects are linked to the cardiovascular system. The pollutants have been found to enter the bloodstream. Health studies have also drawn connections between fetal exposure and low birth weight, and increased risk of lung cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "The PM 2.5 index is most strongly associated with health effects than any other," said C. Arden Pope, an economics professor at Brigham Young University. He is one of the researchers involved in the landmark studies of the pollutant called the "Harvard Six Cities" and the American Cancer Society study. Both outlined the connections between human health and exposure to fine particles. Pope describes the relationship between fine particle exposure and its harm on people as linear. Like lead or cancer-causing compounds, there is no known safe level of exposure. In other words, PM 2.5 is not a "threshold pollutant," meaning there is no level below which no risk exists. It's this fact that has Pope and other experts concerned about the EPA proposal on particulates buried in the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan. To reset that threshold, the agency turned to another air regulation, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This nationwide standard limits emissions of particle pollutants to within an "adequate margin of safety." Currently, that standard is set at an annual average concentration of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. In its proposal, EPA suggested it would assume there were no health benefits in cutting fine particle pollution below the levels set in the NAAQS. Such an approach would leave out the very lowest concentrations of fine particle exposure. Debate over small levels of pollution It's still unclear whether the particle proposal will make it into the final replacement for the Clean Power Plan. A draft notice is still under White House review and could become public in the coming weeks. Because the benefits of cutting fine particles, to health and the economy, are included in a variety of federal rules, the implications of altering those values could extend beyond the Clean Power Plan. Pope said it was "absurd" for EPA to make the argument that there was no benefit to reducing fine particles below the current national standard set by NAAQS. "There is no evidence there is anything magical in 12 micrograms," said Pope. Similarly, EPA's proposal to not count fine particles below the "lowest measured level," or LML in epidemiological studies, also raised concerns about not fully accounting for health risk. (The lowest measured level EPA took comment on in its repeal proposal was between 8 or 5.8 micrograms per cubic meter.) Just as EPA is assuming adequate health protections from controls of fine particles set by NAAQS, in this approach it's assuming that any concentration of NAAQS that hasn't been tested in health studies carries no risk. Using LML instead of NAAQS would mean that EPA counts more benefits of cutting fine particles but still suggests that some exposure for the American public is OK. "LML is just a better arbitrary threshold than the NAAQS," said John Bachmann, former associate director for science, policy and new programs in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Bachmann pointed out that recent research using Medicare data found there was an increased risk of premature death from fine particle exposure at less than half the concentrations controlled by NAAQS. That 2017 study relied on data from 60 million Medicare recipients nationwide. The EPA proposal on fine particles is supported by industry representatives like Robert Kappelmann, an energy and environmental consultant working for the Florida Municipal Electric Association. Kappelmann and other critics of the Clean Power Plan argue that EPA is "double-counting" health benefits already accounted for under NAAQS, which requires states to craft their own plans to control particulate pollution. He noted that most places in the country are already compliant with NAAQS standards. Kappelmann pointed to EPA's standard for fine particulate matter, stating EPA had established 12 micrograms to be within a "margin of safety." That means either EPA's value is wrong or particulate levels below that are safe enough for human exposure, he said. "Something is out of whack there. We think that's inappropriate," Kappelmann said of the Clean Power Plan's original co-benefit analysis. Other groups, like the Utility Air Regulatory Group, have raised similar concerns in public comments to EPA. The group noted that EPA's own modeling from 2016 predicted that just 5% of the population would be exposed to particle levels that reach 12 micrograms per cubic meter. Most of the predicted benefits of the Clean Power Plan would come from reducing fine particles below that level, the group said. "Because, as discussed above, NAAQS are set at the level EPA has determined is protective of public health, it is improper to claim benefits below that level," the group wrote. Trump aims for “underpinnings” But former EPA officials noted that when the agency talked about bringing fine particle levels down to within a "margin of safety," officials weren't saying that level of exposure was without risk. "That doesn't mean zero pollution—there's a judgment for the administrator to make each time the NAAQS are reviewed, looking at the newest science, weighing public health protection against the certainty of scientific information," said Janet McCabe, former acting assistant administrator of EPA. She argued that the Trump administration's main target is the "underpinnings" of public health protections. Bachmann, the former EPA official, also rejected the idea that EPA was double-counting benefits. Factoring in the co-benefits of other regulations is a regular part of drafting rulemaking, he said. Besides, he added, the Clean Power Plan was looking at benefits of fine particle reductions below the levels controlled under NAAQS. "Most of the things we regulate, it's hard to quantify the benefits, so we quantify what we can," said Bachmann. In this case, it was cutting particulate pollution. If EPA does go forward with its proposal on particles, it could have ripple effects on other federal rules. In a recent working paper in the Minnesota Law Review, NYU's Revesz and co-author Kimberly Castle said that if the proposed changes are finalized, the ensuing court challenges could have "far-reaching consequences" for climate and other public health rules. That's because the co-benefits of particulate reductions below 12 micrograms are widely used in regulations on emissions from stationary sources. In addition to the Clean Power Plan, the value of reducing fine particles plays a major role in backing up the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The Obama administration estimated that reducing mercury and toxics would save between $4 million and $6 million, while a whopping $37 billion to $90 billion would come from the byproduct of lessening particle pollution. Revesz said it's hard to imagine the courts would accept any attempt by EPA to undo its use of co-benefits. That would deviate from standard practice at the agency. He and Castle slammed the Trump administration's proposed changes. "The Administration, and other regulation opponents, suggest theirs is a logical way to account for effects, arguing that including these benefits artificially inflates the positive effects of regulating. But what they advocate is a dishonest attempt to obscure the actual effects of regulations from the public," they wrote. Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. Copyright 2018. E&E provides essential news for energy and environment professionals at www.eenews.net Niina is a reporter with Climatewire and joined the company in 2015. She covers the shifting world of climate policy at U.S. EPA under the Trump administration, following changes from Capitol Hill to the scientist's workbench. Sent from my iPad

1 0

'Unprecedented' Heat Wave Fueling Arctic Fires Made More Than Twice as Likely by Climate Change: Analysis
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 27 Jul '18

27 Jul '18

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/27/unprecedented-heat-wave-fuelin… 'Unprecedented' Heat Wave Fueling Arctic Fires Made More Than Twice as Likely by Climate Change: Analysis From an Article by Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams, July 27, 2018 With wildfires raging the world over, a new preliminary analysis conducted by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) and reported by the Guardian found that the global climate crisis notably increased the likeliness of last year's Hurricane Harvey and "Lucifer" heat wave, as well as the current heat wave sweeping across Northern Europe and fueling fires in the Arctic Circle. "This is something that society can and should prepare for. But equally there is no doubt that we can and should constrain the increasing likelihood of all kinds of extreme weather events by restricting greenhouse gas emissions as sharply as possible." — Friederike Otto, University of Oxford "We found that for the weather station in the far north, in the Arctic Circle, the current heat wave is just extraordinary—unprecedented in the historical record," said Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and WWA. The researchers found that climate change made the heat wave in Northern Europe more than twice as likely, Hurricane Harvey three times more likely, and the Lucifer heat wave 10 times more likely. "By comparing extreme weather with historical measurements and with computer models of a climate unaltered by carbon emissions, researchers can find how much global warming is increasing the risk of dangerous weather," the Guardian explained. This analysis differs from a full study that would require "many climate models to be run on high-powered computers, which takes months." Summarizing their conclusion, Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford and WWA told the newspaper, "The logic that climate change will do this is inescapable—the world is becoming warmer, and so heat waves like this are becoming more common." While "most heat wave studies have been done on large scale averages, so European-wide temperatures," Otto noted that "in this study, we have looked at individual locations, where people live, to represent the heat wave people are actually experiencing." The heat wave that has fueled more than 50 fires in Sweden in recent weeks has also caused excessive heat throughout the U.K. and Europe—including in Greece, where a fire killed dozens earlier this week. Pointing to recent comments from British politicians who are demanding concrete action to prevent such events from becoming the "new normal" and endangering thousands or even millions of lives, 350.org echoed their call and highlighted worldwide rallies planned for September 8th to demand a future free of fossil fuels. So true. The intense heat so many people are experiencing just goes to show – climate change is here, now. It will get worse – so we have to do better. Let's all take action and #RiseForClimate on September 8th. See also: http://350.org/rise — 350 dot org (@350) 9:28 AM - July 27, 2018 "What was once regarded as unusually warm weather will become commonplace, and in some cases, it already has," Otto concluded. "So this is something that society can and should prepare for. But equally there is no doubt that we can and should constrain the increasing likelihood of all kinds of extreme weather events by restricting greenhouse gas emissions as sharply as possible."

1 0

Clean Air Council, Workshops in SW Penna.
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 22 Jun '18

22 Jun '18

Donate Dear MonValley Clean Air Coalition, This summer Clean Air Council will host a series of workshops across the Southwest PA region to train community members on how to write letters to the editor regarding environmental issues. We encourage you to come out to a workshop near you and learn how to effectively voice your opinions through the media. This week's workshop will be held in Fox Chapel on Wednesday, June 27th from 6:30 - 8:00pm at Christ Church (630 Squaw Run Rd E, Pittsburgh PA 15238). If you are unable to attend this week's workshop, the times and locations of the remaining summer workshops are as follows: Wednesday, July 11th from 6:00 - 7:30pm at First Presbyterian Church, 252 College Ave, Beaver, PA 15009 Tuesday, July 17th from 6:00 - 7:30pm at the Citizens Library Central Library, 55 S College St, Washington, PA 15301 Wednesday, July 25th from 3:00 - 4:30pm at St. Andrew Lutheran Church, 987 Beaver Grade Rd, Coraopolis, PA 15108 Monday July 30th from 6:00 - 7:30pm at Mount Lebanon Public Library Central Library, 16 Castle Shannon Blvd, Pittsburgh, PA 15228 To attend this week's workshop or a future workshop, please call or email Dave Smith at 412-954-8494 or dsmith(a)cleanair.org. Sincerely, B. David Smith Southwest PA Outreach Coordinator Clean Air Council

1 0

Pennsylvania, for first time, sets methane requirements on natural gas wells | StateImpact Pennsylvania
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 19 Jun '18

19 Jun '18

Pennsylvania, for first time, sets methane requirements on natural gas wells | StateImpact Pennsylvania https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/06/07/pennsylvania-for-first-…

1 0

Fwd: [App. Gas Working Grp.] Sign-On Against Petrochem Hub - Another Push
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 14 Jun '18

14 Jun '18

It is proposed that the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition sign on to the Letter protesting the Appalachian Storage Hub, the financing of which is not public information. Duane Nichols Please reply with questions or comments. P.S. This project was described a few days ago here: www.FrackCheckWV.net > From: <lara(a)appvoices.org> > Date: June 14, 2018 > To: Stop The Pipelines WVVANC > Subject: Fwd: [App. Gas Working Grp.] Sign-On Against Petrochem Hub - Another Push > Hi everyone. > Some of you may have seen this already but some of you may not. We would like to do another push to get sign-on to our letter of support against the Appalachian Petrochemical Hub. We would like to have folks sign-on no later than June 16th so the letter can be presented at an action in Pittsburgh on the 18th. We currently have 39 organizations/groups and almost 100 individuals. And please share in your networks and with anyone you might think is interested. > > Organizational sign-on form is here: https://goo.gl/forms/sGRpDbKpERGChRj92 > > If individuals would like to sign, that link is here: https://goo.gl/forms/P3KtSXBH6itrc5Zn1 > > Here is a blog about the call for sign-ons: https://ohvec.org/sign-on-ash/ > > Thanks everyone.

1 0

WVU researcher receives NIH grant to explore effects of fracking on cardiovascular health | WVU Today | West Virginia University
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 05 Jun '18

05 Jun '18

https://wvutoday.wvu.edu/stories/2018/06/05/wvu-researcher-receives-nih-gra… WVU researcher receives NIH grant to explore effects of fracking on cardiovascular health Press Release, WVU Today, June 05, 2018 Photo: Travis Knuckles, assistant professor in the WVU School of Public Health, works with undergraduate research assistants (L to R) Allison Tolbert, a public-health major, and Haley Twilley, a recent graduate of the public-health program. Knuckles is studying the effects of fracking emissions on cardiovascular function. One goal of his NIH-funded project is “to involve students—especially undergraduates—in research where they wouldn’t typically be included,” he said. Building and operating a hydraulic fracturing well site can emit airborne particles in multiple ways. But scientists still don’t fully understand how these particles impact human health. Travis Knuckles, assistant professor in the West Virginia University School of Public Health, has received $450,000 from the National Institutes of Health to investigate these questions. Hydraulic fracturing is a process in which oil and gas are extracted from rock by injecting mixtures of water, sand and chemicals underground. Over three years, Knuckles will explore how particulate matter in the air from fracking sites can make it harder for the body to control how much blood enters the capillaries, the narrowest blood vessels, and turn oxygen into ATP, a chemical that is a primary energy source for cells. The particulate matter at the center of Knuckles’ study is especially fine. Each particle has a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. That’s smaller than a particle of talcum powder—even smaller than a red blood cell. Particles that small have been shown to cause cardiovascular disease, worsen its symptoms and make it more deadly. “We have a pretty good idea of what particulate matter does in general,” said Knuckles, who is part of WVU’s Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences and the WVU Health Sciences Center Toxicology Working Group. “The issue is that we have not looked at particulate matter from these gas wells as a toxicant unto itself. How is that emission different from a typical emission near a roadway? Is it more toxic than ambient particles in a broad sense?” He and his research team will compare how airborne-particulate samples collected from the Marcellus Shale Energy and Environment Laboratory near Morgantown and from downtown Morgantown influence microvascular tissue. Using pre-clinical models, they will examine whether the very fine particles that fracking releases are more toxic than the particles normally found in urban air. They will also study how the fracking-related particles’ toxicity decreases as the wind blows them away from the well site. The team will pay special attention to whether the microvascular system can constrict or dilate properly when it’s exposed to very fine fracking-related particles. Knuckles predicts the particles will weaken dilation, cause inappropriately strong constrictions or both. “The other thing that could be happening is that whatever exposure is taking place creates a condition where the mitochondria of the heart have decreased functionality. They’re just not as good at converting oxygen into ATP,” he said. “This grant has offered us a great opportunity to look at the intersection of particle-exposure cardiac contractile function and bioenergetics,” said John Hollander, a member of the research team and exercise physiology professor in the WVU School of Medicine. Hollander’s lab will focus on the molecular-level changes that fracking-related emissions trigger, whereas the WVU lab led by Timothy Nurkiewicz, another team member, will concern itself with vascular-level toxicology. “This is a diverse team-science approach,” said Nurkiewicz, an associate chair of research and professor of physiology, pharmacology and neuroscience in the WVU School of Medicine. “Dr. Knuckles is taking a very important environmental challenge and using resources across the Health Sciences Center to assess what the health risks may be.” The data that the project generates could be fodder for a larger epidemiological study in the future—which, in turn, could guide legislation that deals with where and how fracking occurs. “What is the effect on physiology, and is that fact correlated pretty well in human data that come from these areas?” Knuckles asked. “I think we need science to inform policy in this case.” Research discussed in this publication is supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, divisions of the National Institutes of Health, under Award Number 1R15ES028005. -WVU-

1 0

Tri State Letter on Fossil Fuels
by Duane Nichols via MVCAC 01 Jun '18

01 Jun '18

A Cleaner, Better Vision for the Tri-State Region Dear Governors Justice, Kasich & Wolf, On March 20, 2018, you made the unfortunate decision to continue a 2015 Agreement to Enhance Regional Cooperation and Job Growth Through the Continuing Development of Shale Gas in the Appalachian Basin (the “Gas Agreement”) through 2021. In three years, the Gas Agreement has done little to boost regional or local economies, and our states have already experienced multiple petrochemical “accidents” that have threatened public health and damaged public resources. For example, on March 16, just 4 days before you extended the Gas Agreement, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued its 40th Notice of Violation to the owners and operators of the Sunoco Mariner pipeline for releasing drilling fluids into a stream. We, the undersigned organizations, represent tens of thousands of residents in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia who call upon you, our Governors to rescind this Agreement and uphold your sworn duties to safeguard the people, our health, and our environment. The revitalization of our region is not beholden to the fading fossils of yesteryear; it depends on a continued pivot to 21st century industries such as clean energy and sustainable agriculture. The Gas Agreement is focused on promoting the development and use of shale gas and fracked gas liquids in the Tri-State Region. However, the development and use of gas and other nonrenewable resources have very real, negative impacts on our air, our water, and human life/the health of our people. It is impossible to develop fracked gas and fracked gas liquids in an environmentally sound manner. And shale gas is not the answer to our economic challenges. The production of Appalachian shale gas and fracked gas liquids will not offer significant economic opportunities for the people of the Tri-States, nor will it provide domestic security for the United States. We should keep it in the ground. We need a new agreement that looks to capitalize on the growing green economy. Our coalition has resolved to work with the states to develop a regional strategy for sustainable economic development and job creation in the region. Our states can cooperate to support a sustainable economy by (1) Sharing information; (2) Organizing seminars, workshops, and training; (3) Collaborating on policies to promote environmental health and economic growth; and (4) Promoting clean energy and energy efficiency, ecotourism and outdoor recreation, recycling and other sustainability practices. Let’s work together for the betterment of all. The Gas Agreement is a bad deal for the people of Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Please do the right thing, rescind this dirty compact, and give our region a chance to build the clean and thriving future that we deserve. Thank you for listening to your constituents. We look forward to a productive conversation. Sincerely, Center for Coalfield Justice Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Sierra Club Ohio Chapter Sierra Club West Virginia Chapter Cheryl Johncox Beyond Dirty Fuels Organizer Sierra Club (740)-360-0420 Pledge to Bank Fossil Free: Sc.org/Divest Represented by the Progressive Workers' Union There is no environmental justice without social justice.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC