Wisconsin now has an Office of Environmental Justice. This office is charged with ensuring fairness and equity as the state moves forward with its new clean-energy strategy.
The Environmental Protection Agency reports heaviest impactsThe majority of the impacts of climate change fall on communities that are not well served and are “least equipped to prepare for and respond to heat waves, poor quality air, flooding and other effects,” which is the problem the new office will tackle.
Gov. Tony Evers, Governor of Indiana, stated Friday at a press conference that his office will work with all state agencies to ensure a fair response to climate changes.
Evers stated that “the cost of doing nothing” is too high. “We can’t ignore what is happening in our state,” Evers stated.
A report from the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts was found Extreme storms and floodingExtreme weather is most common in Wisconsin. Frequent or extreme flooding can lead to waterborne diseases and contamination of drinking water.
According to the governor’s office, the new state’s constitution Clean Energy PlanBy 2030, the state could have more than 40,000 new jobs.
Pamela Ritger de la Rosa (Milwaukee program director) and Clean Wisconsin staff attorney said that it is vital that those jobs are also available for workers from disadvantaged and lower-income communities. This is a goal she believes the new Office of Environmental Justice can help to achieve.
Ritger de Rosa stated that “Investing in these improvements could really help solve the economic crises many individuals in our underserved community are living with every single day.” These are jobs that cannot be outsourced or automated.
Evers proposed previously the Office of Environmental Justice in his 2021-2023 State Budget, but it was rejected by Republicans in the Legislature. The governor used an alternative method to bypass the Legislature this time. Executive OrderTo establish the office. The governor said that the office will be headed by a yet to be named director of environmental justice, and a chief resilience officer.
You can get more stories like this via Email
More than a decade of American Cancer Society research has been published. 139,000 TexansIn 2022, some form or another of cancer will be diagnosed. Port Arthur, where residents voice their concerns about industrial air pollution, is one of the “hotspots”.
Three large oil refineries and other industrial plants are located in Southeast Texas. These businesses are regarded as the source of jobs with living wages.
John Beard Jr., founder & CEO of the Port Arthur Community Action Network(PACAN) claimed that the pollution they emit can prove fatal for residents of the predominantly Black community. He calls it a “sacrifice zone.”
Beard explained that they challenge any expansion of the industry, whether it is by pipeline or new facilities for petrochemicals or LNG. They also challenge their air permits. “We also challenge them with regard to their federal permits on the environmental level, on the environmental justice and the community impact.”
PACAN You filed a complaintLast August, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a complaint against the Oxbow Carbon plant. This plant releases up to 22 million pounds of sulfur dioxide into the Jefferson County air. The matter has not been resolved.
Recent ProPublica analysisPort Arthur is listed as one of the more than 1,000 hot spots for industrial pollution that causes cancer.
ProPublica research revealed that pollution levels in each facility may be “acceptable”, but that the combined output of multiple facilities could cause more harm than good. Increases cancer risk.
Beard wants the state and county not to downplay these risks.
Beard noted that the U.S. EPA had declared Port Arthur a cancer cluster’ in 2010. “Port Arthur was then declared a showcase environment city. We were told that Port Arthur had twice the national and state averages of cancer, heart disease, lung disease, and kidney disease.
The Jefferson County’s Black residents have a cancer mortality rate of about 5%. 40% higherAccording to the Environmental Integrity Project, this is more than the average Texan.
You can get more stories like this via Email
A group of small-town activists who challengedA power company that planned to use fossil-fuel generators for capacity expansion won this week. Arizona Corporation Commission voted 4-1 Tuesday against the Salt River Project’s plan for 16 gas-turbine generators at the Coolidge Generating Station, Pinal County.
Randolph, a historically Black community, told regulators that a gas power plant nearby causes dangerously high levels of air pollution and that adding gas turbines could only make matters worse.
Sandy Bahr, Director of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, stated the coalition of residents as well as environmental groups that influenced the otherwise utility-friendly panel.
She said, “They heard it was a significant environment injustice.” “They saw that SRP hadn’t looked at cheaper, cleaner alternatives to this gas station, and they voted against it.”
Randolph was created after World War II to house Native American and Black workers in cotton. SRP stated that it would continue “evaluating what generation and market options” were possible to meet Arizona’s growing demand for electricity.
Bahr stated that it was not sensible to add more gas generators to the grid when the cost of renewable energy is steadily falling.
She stated that no one should be building large gas plants. “We shouldn’t be adding more carbon to the atmosphere, or more methane to the atmosphere. This must be reversed.
Bahr stated that she hopes that other energy producers will be interested in the ruling.
She stated, “It is a very strong message.” We must stop burning coal. We must stop burning gas. We must move as quickly as possible to solar and/or wind energy, and energy efficiency.
You can get more stories like this via Email
CLARIFICATION – This story has been updated so that HDD fluid is now considered a pollutant and not toxic.
Enbridge’s plan for relocating a portion of its workforce Line 5 pipeline The drilling method used in northern Wisconsin could be used even though the company admits that it will likely release drilling fluid into the waters around it.
Horizontal Directional Drilling, also known as HDD, is a common method of building pipelines beneath bodies of water. Sometimes it can lead to “frac outs,” or drilling fluid leaks.
Bobbi Rongstad, a northern Wisconsin resident, expressed serious concerns about the plans for Line 5 to use HDD. The issue is very personal for her as the oil pipeline would run under two streams that run through her property.
Rongstad stated that he used to work in the utility sector. “It’s a great way to shove a gas line under a sidewalk and not mess up anybody’s lawn,” he said. But when they’re using 30-inch pipe and going 60ft under the river’s bottom, which is what’s being proposed, things can go wrong.
In an email to a Minnesota state senator about Enbridge’s similar, Line 3 project, the company acknowledged frac-outs are “a generally known and common risk,” but argued HDD is still the least environmentally-destructive method for laying new pipeline under bodies of water.
Rongstad is generally in agreement, but she said the line shouldn’t be installed in the area around Lake Superior where leaks could have devastating consequences.
Minnesota officials have reported that more than half of the 21 HDD crossings at Line 3 were in Minnesota. Polluted with drilling fluid.
Rongstad stated Wisconsin does not have any significant HDD regulations. However the Department of Natural Resources is accepting comments. Technical standards in draftThank you for your cooperation.
Rongstad stated that if the DNR could put more regulation on it, it would make me feel much better. “But they’re going to not be able to do it midstream, you know?” They have the application, and Enbridge will put pressure on them.”
Shannon Holsey is the president of the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians. He spoke last month in a State of the Tribes address. Line 5’s Draft Environmental Impact StatementIt fails to consider many potential environmental impacts.
Holsey stated, “Safeguarding these coastal wetlands and tributaries are critical to maintaining the deeply-rooted connection to nature and emotional well being in our cultural traditions.”
After Enbridge was sued by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa for rerouting, Enbridge agreed to it. Take out the pipelineTheir tribal lands.
Although the 40-mile route is not within the reservation, tribal advocates said it will still have an impact on the tribe’s watershed. The DNR will accept comments on Line 5’s Draft Environment Impact Statement until March 18, as well as comments on HDD technical standards, until March 28.
You can get more stories like this via Email
