#Arkema, #Harvey, "the media," kibbitzers and strawmanners

The Arkema explosion, and a "movement skeptic" former Facebook friend's (more on that in a second post) response to media coverage of it led me to say "enough." Kibbitzing about how "the media" is ignorant about chemicals when they report on them all the time in a place like Houston led me to say "more than enough."

(Update, March 12, 2018: Liberty County is now suing Arkema. Alleged are Texas Clean Air Act violations, Texas Water Code violations, Texas Health and Safety Code violations, and common law nuisances as a catch-all. The first three, generally, have an "every single day" penalty on fines. That will surely be sought against Arkema, and part of the court fight will be when the tolling dates should end.

Update, May 28, 2018: The U.S. Chemical Safety Board reports Arkema knew well in advance of Hurricane Harvey about flood risks, according to Texas Vox.)

First, strawmanning the actual individual members of "the media" with the word "chemophobia" is a sure way to have actual individual members of the media treat your pseudoskepticism skeptically, Jeff Wagg, and others like you. (As he posts to "public" on Facebook, no privacy violations on my normal personal terms of talking about Facebook posting.)

Second, I think most people think of "the media" as like "lawyers" — bad guys until one of them is defending YOU or telling YOUR story. The reality is different.

Third, when a friend of yours comes on and starts clit-swinging (can't call it dick-swinging, can I saw that would be more "mansplaining" and more on that in the second post — and since that was the final accusation against me, I have no better way of expressing the sarcasm) about why Texas has chemical records secret AND GETS IT WRONG, you're asking for more trouble yet.

Naomi Baker

Naomi Baker claims this was all due to 9-11. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

It was a year after the West explosion in 2013, where I know first responders who fought that fire or controlled traffic (because my own newspaper was less than an hour away) that then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott ruled Texas chemical plant records should be sealed. And cited the West explosion as why. Then said "drive around" if you want to find out.

And, whether you work, or worked at EPA, or not, if you're too ignorant to know that, and claim "9/11," you should SHUT UP. I rarely, rarely, am that direct, and very rarely use all caps. But, you earned it. And you should definitely not accuse someone of "mansplaining." That's doubly true if you live in Texas, which Naomi Baker's FB indicated was true. And, if stereotypical males are the ones who "always have to win," you seemed to be exhibiting that more than me.

(And now, Arkema and TCEQ are playing footsie with each other on non-release of Arkema's Tier Two chemical inventory. Would this also be "chemophobia" for "the media" to report on it?)

But, she worked WITH the EPA, she didn't work FOR it. Her LinkedIn profile says she's worked TWENTY YEARS in the energy industry. And is in Houston right now for a natural-gas processing company, one that works with dirty sour gas as part of their work, apparently. Before that? Dirty oil pipeline company ENBRIDGE! (And, graduated from Odessa Permian High, right in the heart of Texas' oil-besotted Permian Basin to boot.)

She VERY carefully said on Facebook that she'd never worked in the "chemical industry" or, IIRC, a "refinery." Very nice. Or "nice." But hiding a lot of dirty reality. So, she's not ignorant at all. She's #oilsplaining.

Also, if you worked "with" the EPA in Texas, you'd know that the EPA threatened to pull back its state outsourcing of urban smog regulation and similar things from the Texas Department of Environmental Quality because oversight was that bad. And that environmental organizations asked for that to be done. That's just a sample.

Of course, having discovered her real employment history, I know she knows all of this and more.

Now, to background on the actual explosion and regulatory history against Arkema. A "big" $110,000 in fines, pled down to $90,000, is a slap on the wrist. Especially when that was for not hazardous but "highly hazardous chemicals." And, given that the French parent had a  2015 revenue of more than $8 billion, $90,000, or even $110,000, is a slap on the hand indeed. That's not surprising, as Arkema is a spinoff of French oil giant Total. Its most recent net profit was $400 million.

And you'd know that Texas regulators, even more than the feds, have a habit of wrist-slapping, if you've also worked with the Texas Railroad Commission. Given that I've read about, and written stories about, actual dollar amounts of RRC fines, I actually do know that.

(As shown by High Country News, on remediation of abandoned uranium mines, the EPA in general stiffs the general public while hand-slapping big business.)

And, if you weren't strawmanning the media as if they were chemtrailers, Jeff Wagg, you might have read "highly hazardous chemicals" somewhere. And, you might have been a little less butthurt when I suggested, but did not outrightly state, that you were coming close to strawmanning. I only made that statement as a definite after I blocked you.

Ms. Baker, you'd also know that, re your ignorance about (or willful lying about) West, Gov. Abbott, etc., above, that Arkema had long refused to release its risk management plan.

Speaking of the EPA there now, and its TCEQ flunkies, or maybe it's the other way around? Per a story from the Houston Chronicle, aka "the media," this:

Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality described the incident at the Arkema Inc. facility in Crosby as a fire, not a chemical release. 

The agencies said airborne sampling shows the smoke did not contain concerning levels of toxic chemicals.

What is a "concerning level" of a chemical? Ms. Baker, since you have a chemical engineering degree, shouldn't EPA have ppm or ppb DATA on how it defines a threshold for "concerning"?

Answer is "yes," of course. 

Ms. Baker then went on to say, well, yes, Republicans are worse on this, but, these things happen everywhere.

Well, Dear Leader weakened the EPA somewhat himself. Guess his community organizing on Chicago's South Side never touched on economic justice. (And, environmental racism is real.) Also, environmental organizations, the biggest, have chemists and chemical engineers who help advise them.

That said, he didn't so weaken the EPA that it didn't propose NEW chemical safety rules. Rules shit-canned by Trump's EPA head. Ms. Baker, since you've worked "with" the EPA, you surely know that. And, per Greg Abbott's weekend driving suggestions, including through West, Texas, you know this is NOT "9/11."

And, Saturday afternoon, the AP reported it had visited a bunch of Houston-area Superfund sites — on the ground or water by the ground, NOT just "visiting" by air — that the EPA claimed were inaccessible.

If only Ms. Baker, in her working "with" the EPA, could tell me what's hindering the EPA, I would be so enlightened! 

If only Mr. Wagg, in his oh-so-diligent concern-trolling the media, would make sure the AP wasn't committing chemophobia, we'd all be so blessed!

Maybe that's why, per friend and Chronicle columnist Chris Tomlinson, Ms. Baker, Arkema's CEO is a leading (but not solo) example of hubris.

Chris begins:

Richard Rennard, the president of Arkema, shrugged his shoulders when asked what more his company could have done to prevent chemicals from burning at his plant in Crosby. 

He rattled off the systems his company employed to chill the organic peroxides: Grid power, back-up generators, nitrogen coolers and ultimately refrigerated trailers. On Thursday the refrigerator systems began shutting down and the peroxides began burning and blowing the lids off their containers. 

After the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, every facility with dangerous materials should know to keep back-up generators above any potential flood line. Yet that precaution escaped Arkema.

Then, to the PROOF, for the chemical engineer and the movement skeptic:

Rennard's fatalism in the face of a natural disaster is disingenuous. Experts identified the plant as high-risk, and Arkema could have designed a more resilient facility. But it didn't, most likely because management considered the risk too low and the costs too high. 

 We know this because the Houston Chronicle identified Arkema as a potentially dangerous plant in an award-winning 2016 investigative series called "Chemical Breakdown." 

That's almost all I can quote honestly under fair use guidelines. Go read Chris.

But, one more sample. The conclusion, in good sermonic style: 

If we learn nothing else from Harvey, let it be the danger of hubris. Despite claims to the contrary, executives will decide that mitigating a risk costs too much, and subsequent events will prove that they made a horrible mistake. 

That's why regulators, journalists and citizen groups have a role to play in demanding accountability and revealing the risks taken. Because when it comes to chemicals, the public shares in the consequences of a bad decision and often pays the highest price. 

Let's be honest, Harvey is not causing accidents. The storm is revealing the risks executives willingly took. No one has the right to shrug their shoulders and say, "C'est la vie."

And just maybe, both Ms. Baker and Mr. Wagg, you'd learn a little less hubris yourself. On regulators, you might admit the truth about Greg Abbott and about how minimal these fines were. 

One more point. Mr. Wagg, if he had just waited a bit, or not protested so much about a David Sirota link I posted, about how Texas AG Ken Paxton et al helped Arkema dodge more federal regulation, could have learned, as a good skeptic, that Arkema was much more worried about explosion dangers in 2014 than it came off as being this week, per that old Wall Street Journal.

But, you chose to say "the media" instead, claiming the media didn't know what it was talking about. Then, Ms. Baker refused to accept the reality about regulatory issues here in Texas, perhaps because she was in CYA mode. Then both of you started sliming with the "mansplaining."

Finally, as a member of "the media," I know the profession is not perfect. I've said that myself, mainly about the corporations that own it, but, sometimes, about the herd mentality, more than anything else, of writers, broadcasters and editors at its larger mainstream outlets. (I've regularly blogged and Tweeted about some of the "Putin did it" nuttery.) But, for a (former) "movement skeptic" to apply "the media" card, first, and then, to basically present media from multiple outlets in one of the nation's largest metropolitan areas (plus local representatives of national media) as ignorant was over the top.

Update to that: One other person, if not a professional movement skeptic, at least a tribalist, talks about me questioning her professional ethics. I'll let what I saw on the Facebook thread, including the parsing of exactly how she spoke, and the actual facts about chemical reporting in Texas speak for themselves. And he got blocked too.

==

Update, noon Sept. 1: Here's a full list of Arkema chemicals at its suburban Houston plant. Please, don't engage in "chemophobia." Please don't strawman that all levels of toxicity are the same. Please don't wonder about the possibility of floodwaters mixing chemicals that are currently separate.

The reality is that you have a variety of chemicals that can form either bases or acids when reacting with water. Their pH causticity would dilute eventually, but, if blown in the air by an explosion, then landing away from the plant, could be more problematic.

And, the alcohols there are of course flammable. So is hexane.

==

Update Sept. 7: First responders are suing Arkema. Here's why:

Houston lawyers Kimberley Spurlock and Misty Hataway-Cone launched a legal battle in Harris County court, accusing Arkema of gross negligence. 

Despite past flooding events and advance notice of the impending destruction of Hurricane Harvey, Arkema "ignored the foreseeable consequences of failing to prepare," the suit claims, leaving trailers of volatile chemicals susceptible to explosion after flooding knocked out the electricity and ability to cool the heat-sensitive compounds. 

The first of nine trailers of organic peroxides exploded early on the morning of Aug. 31, landing a number of first responders in the hospital following exposure to fumes from the chemicals, which ignited and left a 40-foot plume of black smoke that officials later compared to a campfire. 

"Although the explosions had occurred, no one from Arkema alerted the first responders who were manning the perimeter of the arbitrary mandatory evacuation area," lawyers said Thursday in a press release. "Immediately upon being exposed to the fumes from the explosions, and one by one, the police officers and first responders began to fall ill in the middle of the road."

But, this is surely more chemophobia. And Ms. Baker would probably add, if I'm guessing her politics correctly, that this is more of the ebil trial lawyers at work.

==

Update, Sept. 14: More dead horse to flog! Valero now admits, even per the currently toothless EPA, that it "seriously underestimated" (i.e., apparently lied about) how much benzene, a known carcinogen, and other volatile compounds escaped from its Houston refinery.

==

Update, Sept. 19: Superfund site spills under investigation.

==

Update, Sept. 22: The newest and possibly most toxic spill yet.

==

Update, Sept. 25: The AP reports that the EPA says it has removed toxic waste from some Texas sites, but won't say what they are or where they came from.

==

Update, Sept. 26: Chemophobia has hit the Harris County Commissioners Court! Commissioners have voted to sue Arkema on grounds of creating a public nuisance. Update, Nov. 17: Harris County is now filing a larger suilt against Arkema.

==

Update, Oct. 2: #Chemophobia? No, "the media," contra a Houston-area pseudoskeptic and her Chicago Wagg-ish friend, want the public to know about petrochemical hazards that the Houston-area pseudoskeptic, and by implication, her Chicago Wagg-ish friend, unless he repents, want to keep hidden, including with the employer of Ms. Baker surely contributing to the soft money, and maybe even dark money, that works to keep this hidden.

==

Update, Oct. 4: I guess all these respiratory problems are just chemophobia too.

==

Update, Aug. 3, 2018: The EPA is auditing state and federal folks over post-Harvey air quality monitoring and reporting transparency.

AND ... Arkema's CEO has been indicted.

Another year of Texas #drought is looking likely

Fortunately, Texas got spared from the recent spate of tornadoes that hit Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. Unfortunately, the state in general got almost no rain from the recent front. And, there's no likely change of rain in the 10-day forecast, even as we're supposed to be in the heart of Texas' rainy season. Meanwhile, per the nice National Weather Service 90-day temperature map, it's likely going to be hot; a 103 today at Edinburg confirms a likely long, hot summer. (Other than the fringe possibility of a slightly-likely bigger than normal Southwestern monsoon spilling into West Texas, forecast for the state for summer precipitation is normal, no better than that, with at least as likely of odds of below normal precipitation along most of the Gulf Coast.)

Earlier this month, in part due to worries about another year likely to be drought-stricken, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality appointed an official water master for the lower Brazos. Further south, the Lower Colorado River Authority has already restricted for this year water releases below Lake Buchanan and Lake Travis, the water storage and supply lakes for greater Austin, as the current storage levels of the two lakes is down to 36 percent of maximum. And, under even mild-to-moderate drought, levels by the end of summer will be below what they were a year ago, and likely below 2012 levels. That's even with LCRA municipal customers pushing water conservation on residents. 

Out in West Texas, where the Brazos, the Texas Colorado, and other rivers start, it’s not just “shaping up” dry, it’s already gotten there. Almost all of the state west of I-35 is in at least moderate drought, using official classification categories, and the majority is in severe drought or worse. If you want the not-so-pretty picture (though it does look better than California), just head to the United States Drought Monitor.

Sometimes, Texas can depend on hurricanes to break, or at least lessen, droughts, setting aside the problems of hurricane damage. Unfortunately, it looks like this won't be one of those years, either. As the story notes, blame El Niño, in part. Climate change scientists are, too. They've connected the swoop and plunge in this year's jet stream, the effect that has made California bone dry while pummeling the upper Midwest and Northeast with snow and low temperatures, to El Niño development connected with anthropogenic climate change.

And, there’s no guarantee this will end anytime immediately. We’re pretty much in the 1950s Texas drought records now, only with several times as many people in the state. Indeed, per that second LCRA graphic, and other things, by the end of this year, we may be beyond being in the 1950s. 

Related to that? There may have been worse droughts in the past than this one or the 1950s. On the other side of the Rocky Mountains, we know that’s the case. Witness the "demise" of the Anasazi, connected in part to severe drought by most anthropologists. Or, later, the Hohokam fleeing the Valley of the Sun due to drought. (Take notice, modern Phoenicians.)

That's another reason for smart, non-climate change denying Texans to not put too much stock in the State Water Implementation Fund, approved last year with the passage of Proposition 6 on the constitutional amendments election.

Several caveats apply. First, this fund is limited to helping projects listed in the State Water Plan. And, with $50 billion or so of projects listed in the SWP, without additional funding beyond a small amount from the Rainy Day Fund, which is loan-based, and not direct state funding, the SWIF will be of modest help. Per that loan-based part, a lot of smaller communities, especially in West Texas and doubly especially in areas near the water-draining work of oil fracking, simply can't afford major water supply upgrades. And, some water experts think the SWP, even, doesn't cover nearly all of the state's long-term water needs.

Related to that is the fact that we don’t know how much more water further development in oil and gas fracking will want. Or, as part of any good neighborliness, how much or how little oil and gas companies will offer to help small towns with their water needs.

Second,  the Texas Water Development Board is required to do its best to spend 10 percent of the funds for rural political subdivisions and agricultural water conservation, also of good news to this area. It also says the TWDB should spend 20 percent for water conservation and reuse. But, as many people noted before last November's vote, these are all "shoulds." None of them is a "shall." In short, Texas' small towns have no guarantees of special help. In fact, as the NYT points out, during last year's "priority call" on Brazos water, farmers lost out to cities even if they held older rights.

Third, we don’t know exactly how much our climate is likely to heat up in the future. Or dry up. That said, per the "swoop and plunge" of this year's jet stream, a tentative consensus of climate change scientists says that West Texas will likely get even drier in the future while Central Texas is probably neutral. And, per my comments above about long-term changes, outside of global warming, based on what we can tell about climate before modern Western record keeping, this should be a big caveat.

Related to that? A hotter Texas, if it is overall drier, means more evaporation from water storage lakes. Somehow, I doubt that the TWDB has even incorporated that into its thinking and planning. It's fine at suing New Mexico over Pecos River water, or raising issues with Mexico, but, as for doing things like regulating pump-until-its-dry overuse of the Ogallala Aquifer? Fuhgeddaboutit. And, for all we know, Texas rules on groundwater pumping are siphoning out water that eventually might percolate to the Pecos in New Mexico before it crosses the state line.

Hence the importance of today's Supreme Court ruling saying the EPA has powers to regulate interstate coal-fired electric plant pollution. While this decision just affected its powers on "traditional" pollutants like the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that cause acid rain, nonetheless, as the New York Times reports, it will likely form the basis of the EPA's plans later this year to officially start regulating CO2 emissions as a pollutant. (That said, expect those rules, along with a Keystone XL ruling, to be delayed until after midterm elections.)

Maybe, just maybe, all of this, if Democrats can hold the Senate, will actually get businessmen to start talking about a carbon tax.

All of these things will put more demand on water, and water dollars.

This isn’t meant to be alarmist.It is meant to inject a note of realism. At some point, to riff on the old saying, water may be worth fighting over even more than whiskey. It might even become worth as much of a fight as that newly-fracked Texas tea.

Abbott sued Obama, went home, and lost 2 out of 3

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has said he perceives his job as attorney general thusly:

During his tenure as Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott has developed a bit of a routine: "I go into the office," he told a GOP audience in San Angelo in Februrary, "I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home." It's a line he uses in virtually every speech he gives and it has the benefit of being basically true.

Doesn't like to talk about all the times he LOSES those suits.

Why? Because it happens a lot.

As in, it's happened again.

The Supreme Court has rejected hearing two of three lawsuits Texas, and other states, had filed against the Environmental Protection Agency over greenhouse gas emissions regulation:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Texas' challenge of federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like power plants and factories, the court announced Tuesday. But it declined to hear the state's appeals of two other decisions, effectively upholding rules that limit such emissions from vehicles and maintaining the Environmental Protection Agency's assertion that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Team Abbott and polluting deep pockets are trying to spin this as a "win." Even though it's clearly not:

David Spence, a professor of law and business at the University of Texas at Austin, said it wasn't likely that the Supreme Court would forbid the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources altogether. But the justices could say it must do so based on different standards, threatening the years of work that have gone into proposing the current rules for limiting emissions from power plants and other facilities.

"The worst that could happen is they make EPA go back and do things again," Spence said.

That said, this isn't new from our state's money-waster in chief (and Ted Cruz spawner).

Abbott lost some of this at appellete level back in July. This is his suit over the EPA taking over TCEQ's pollution permitting because the state simply refused to do any real regulating. This was lost at the D.C. Court of Appeals, and there's no chance SCOTUS will even want to hear it, let alone reverse. And yet, Texas' Head.Legal.Moron is talking about appealing.

Here's comment showing that Abbott isn't alone, or even close to it, in today's Texas GOP.:

Bryan Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, who has fiercely opposed the EPA’s rules, said it was ”remarkable” that the courts have repeatedly denied the state’s appeals. 

In response to the latest Circuit Court decision, Shaw issued a statement that claimed that ”the EPA has effectively re-written the Clean Air Act to impose its new standards, imposed severely restrictive timelines on the states to implement its new requirements, and then twisted the act to immediately impose its agenda on Texas.” 

No, what's "remarkable" is that you're dumb enough to believe this was winnable. And, the only re-writing has been done by your agency. What's more remarkable is that you and Suer-in-Chief aren't just dumb, you're childishly stubborn enough to hold y our breath and refuse to get this.

Once the appellate court slapped you down, you refused to take "no" for an answer. This is the same attitude that Cruz took to Washington.

And, this is an opening for Wendy Davis. Lets her come off as a fiscal conservative, someone who won't waste state money.

So, when will she start talking about it? I mean, we have to be talking about several million dollars.

Update, June 24, 2014: He's now lost to the EPA on greenhouse gas regulations, too.

#EPA: Draft sulfur rules vs. reality

First question is, will the EPA's new draft rules to cut sulfur in gasoline by 60 percent and nitrogen oxides by 80 percent see the light of day?

It's a legitimate question. Everything it's proposed during Team Obama years, with the exception of fuel economy requirements (and that's loaded with loopholes, including for E85 vehicles) has been proposed, then, as it came close to being reality, been "modified," been "delayed," been "put on hold," been "called back for rewriting" or whatever.

So, pun of sorts intended, don't hold your breath over this one for a while.

Of course, Big Oil is, as it does with every other environmental issue related to hydrocarbons, inflating the cost. It might be more than a penny a gallon, but it's highly unlikely to cost 6 cents and almost certainly not 9 cents.

And, since this would make California standards national, as the story notes, vehicle makers could build one set of cars for the full United States. That, in turn, could mean lower vehicle costs.

But, given that most of those "held" proposals have involved pushback from the likes of either Big Oil or Big Coal, let's just wait and see before touting this too much.

I mean, I too love the idea, especially because it also has a particulant pollutant standard. But the idea ain't yet reality.

What's next for EPA with Jackson leaving?

Lisa Jackson/via New York Times

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's announced resignation isn't really surprising. It is the start of a new term, but, there's more than that.

As the story indicates, Dear Leader undercut the EPA, especially after midterm elections, and for the political goal of his own re-election this year. That's why, over the past two years, we've seen a variety of EPA standards postponed, rewritten or otherwise softened.

Well, Obama got his re-election win. So, will he take a tougher line again?

Not too likely.

The bottom line is that he is, indeed, a neoliberal, and further environmental work by his second-term administration will be business-friendly. (That's except for any stimulus money that gets in a fiscal cliff bill; there will be no solar industry money, you can count on that.)

The bottom line No. 2 is that Obama just isn't that environmentally minded of a person. He's done bupkis on National Monument creation, for example. The National Park Service's centennial will occur during his administration, and so far, we have heard bupkis from Dear Leader and Interior Secretary Kenny Boy Salazar (who, notably, has said nothing about leaving his job) about celebration plans, let alone a special funding push similar to the NPS' "Mission 66" leading into its 50-year anniversary.

So, don't hold your breath, environmentalists. And, staunch environmentalists, don't believe anything you hear from Gang Green groups, either.

Like dirtier urban air? You've LOVE Obama

That's the latest olive branch semi-conservative President Barack Obama is extending to Big Oil and its ilk.

In the name of being more "business friendly" (but less lungs friendly) and eliminate allegedly "too burdensome" regulations, Team Obama wants to eliminate urban gas station vapor-trapping regulations.

Yep, those bellows on fuel nozzles at big city gas stations, already in place for a decade or more in larger urban areas, could be gone.

Here's the nugget:

The Environmental Protection Agency will eliminate requirements in some states for vapor recovery systems at gas stations, which are "redundant" because of improved air pollution controls in vehicles, saving $67 million annually.

Last time I checked, fuel pumps don't drive anywhere. Last time I checked, we'd added millions of new drivers to the road since the first vapor-control devices were required. Last time I checked, putting any additional petrochemical vapors in the air would not just be an air pollution problem but might add to global warming particulates, at least indirectly.

More proof that Obama's not even a neoliberal? Where his not-at-all liberal "tipping point" guru is presenting this:

Cass Sunstein, the White House regulatory chief, planned to describe the changes later Thursday morning in remarks to the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Meanwhile, the intensely political Obama is clearly trying to have his neolib cake with conservative frosting, and eat it politically, too:
Most proposals announced Thursday are not final and will be updated to reflect public comment, the White House said. That process is expected to last into the summer, said lobbyists who had been told about the plan.
So, he'll see how loud environmentalists scream versus how much pre-informed lobbyists contribute to his campaign. Got it?

Now, you people who say "Ooohhhh, we could get a Republican president if all good liberals don't vote for Obama"? What do we have right now?

Perry panders to Medina voters with EPA attack

So, Texas is now officially the first state to, in essence, try state nullification of federal laws by legal entanglement with its challenge of the EPA's greenhouse gases endangerment finding from last year.

It's by no means the last, as Virginia has immediately followed suit.

Her in the Lone Star Numb Nuts GOP state, Gov. Perry is clearly pandering to Debra Medina backers on the nullification issue, as she has staked out a firm ground on this issue.

Second, Virginia jumping in shows that, as with the public healthcare issue of a month, that this is a coordinated offensive. It's getting energy from the recent minor to minor-moderate errors by the IPCC and the Daily Mail's (UK) hack job on the East Anglia climate center's director.

Good news for Texas air

Al Armendariz, the Southern Methodist University engineering professor who has been highly critical of the Texas Commmission on Environmental Quality's battles against smog in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, Midlothian cement kiln pollution and other things, is the new Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 administrator. Merry Christmas, Rick Perry!

BushCo smoking gun on CO2 revealed

We all knew the Environmental Protection Agency, below the level of Administrator Stephen Johnson, had good reason to support California’s car CO2 regulations and waiver request two years ago, and that the Bush White House stiffed it. Well, we now have the proof.

Not-so-clean coal = dirty water

The smokestack scrubbers on coal-fired electric power plants use a water spray as part of the process. Guess what happens to that water?

Hint: Coal-fired power plants are now the No. 1 source of toxic waste. With that water.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency remains asleep at the switch, and its parallel state agencies are often toothless.

Read the full story to see what might be getting dumped into your water. And, how your state regulators may not only be toothless, but may want to remain toothless.

Obama to let former Big Oil lobbyist run EPA region?

Having moved to Lancaster, suburban Dallas, not too long after the brouhaha over Hall’s Waste Management work, also mentioned in the story, I agree that he’s a poor choice for Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 administrator.

I don’t know if he has an inside track over Al Armendariz (a better choice), or anybody else, or not, but I don’t want him.

EPA gets earful about Midlothian cement plants

The Environmental Protection Agency held the first of a scheduled set of public hearings on its proposed new cement kiln air pollution rules here in Dallas-Fort Worth, and got plenty of comment, especially from southside residents who live closer to Midlothian’s wet-process cement kilns.

At the same time, representatives from national and Texas-level cement-makers groups said concerned residents were undercutting President Obama!

“Simply put, the prospects of implementing the rule as proposed directs capital away from cement production in the United States, constrains supply, and will work at cross-purposes to the president's explicit stimulus plan,” Andy O’Hare, vice president for regulatory affairs of the Portland Cement Association, said.

He and others claimed US cement makers simply couldn’t meet the new rules and would have to move all their business to China.

Right.

If you DID move, because cement is so heavy, you’d move to Mexico, not China, so we know you’re lying right there.

As far as costs, let’s try this instead:

The EPA said complying with the rule in 2013 would cost cement industry between $222 million and $684 million per year. At the same time, the agency said, it would save between $4.4 billion and $11 billion a year in health costs and other related expenses, including the avoidance of an estimated 620 to 1,900 premature, pollution-related deaths a year.

Also, I found it interesting that nobody from TXI, or any other individual cement plant in Midlo, bothered to speak. The chickens hid behind trade-group skirts, I guess.

Also, in addition to cost-saving efforts in general, makes you wonder if this is part of why TXI has cut back on its suburban newspaper educational support advertising. They recognize PR is not going to hold back this wave, perhaps

Obama’s full plate of oily issues

First, Canada wants a waiver on carbon dioxide emissions from its oil sands mining, if that’s the best word. (It ain’t being drilled, unlike conventional oil.)

The sands are in a huge slump with oil prices in general right now. But, those prices are already creeping up, and, IMO, could be back at $60/bbl by summer’s end. So, more oil from sands will be produced.

I don’t think Obama has either guts or inclination to deny the request. It would force him to be a real environmentalist, would put pressure on Congress to resist Big Oil and Big Coal and pass a real climate change bill, and would force him to take more leadership on the issue.

So, Ottawa, one free waiver is in the mail.

Second, Obama plans to accelerate the timeframe for automakers to get their CAFEs up to 35 mpg. Other than that, there’s not much new about the bill, except…

It would appear to deny two-track CAFE regulation by the back door, by incorporating California’s tougher-than-national carbon-dioxide emissions standards, rejected by the BushCo EPA, until the big picture, and by EPA greenhouse-gas emission regulation powers into the mix.

Der Ahhnold is already on board with the first half.

But, can he unilaterally agree to that deal, without his state’s air quality board, or the Assembly, or somebody, signing off with him?

So what if California can theoretically follow a separate regulatory track again after 2016. What if federal permission for that is not granted?

Third, this in turn means that renewed calls for EPA to actually regulate CO2 itself, as far as determining emissions standards, rather than punting to Congressional bill writers, is dead as a doorknob.

So, a mix of indirect sellouts, and refusals to take proactive stances. Surprised?

That’s why I don’t get Paul Krugman’s naivete on this issue.

How fast will Obama walk with EPA power on global warming?

Philip Radford worries he’ll pretend to walk fast while demanding Congress do the dirty work, which could wind up being very slow.

New Mexicans can breathe easier

The Environmental Protection Agency has pulled the plug on the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired electric plant.

The EPS found Desert Rock’s would-be operators had rushed the process and didn’t include integrated gasification combined cycle generation as part of a review of best policies.

Flip side is that the Navajo Nation is upset at Anglos, feeling it didn’t get a square deal. And, rightly so, on one level. But, on the other hand, where was “hozho” and the “We Walk in Beauty” from the tribe from the get-go? (Said as someone who grew up in Gallup.)

EPA – CO2 a ‘health risk’

The Environmental Protection Agency ruling that carbon dioxide emissions pose a significant health risk sets the stage for government regulation of the greenhouse gas.

But, this is the Obama Administration. And the devil is in the details. How strict will the regulation be, if any?

In this story, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the administration prefers Congressional action on some sort of cap-and-trade program. What if Congress passes something toothless? Or, what if Congress, as is rumored, punts many of the enforcement details, and standards, back to the EPA?

EPA releases ‘Most Wanted List’

Similar to the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list, this Environmental Protection Agency list aims to nail top individual polluters.

With this type of crime, we have a chance for the shame factor to work, too.

Time for Detroit and Big Three to face reality

The Environmental Protection Agency has officially declared greenhouse gases are pollutants.

It will probably also make some sort of carbon cap program easier to pass in Congress, though probably not until this fall, I might guess, unless a watered-down plan gets passed, with the stipulation it’s just a starter bill.

Side benefit?

Since methane is another greenhouse gas, it means EPA can do what USDA hasn’t, and start regulating concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Rodney Ellis wants to clean up Texas highways

We’re not talking about litter, but about air pollution. Should California have its request for a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant granted, the Houston state senator wants Texas to join 13 other states and adopt California standards.

Ellis said adopting the tougher standards would cost drivers about $7 a month more for a five-year new car purchase, but could save as much as $18 a month on fuel costs.

Predictably, carmakers, for the most part, and advocacy groups, are strongly opposed.

Being not just the nation’s No. 2 car market, but its No. 1 truck market, means this is a big deal.

Besides, California and the other 13 states in question have more than half the nation’s population, and under an Obama EPA rehearing, it’s likely the waiver will be granted.

Of course, I’m not holding my breath over the likelihood of Ellis getting a bill passed here in Texas, but, it’s definitely worth a shot.

When even the BushCo EPA slams your lack of action …

That must mean you’re Barack Obama’s choice to head the EPA!

Former New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Chairwoman Lisa Jackson is drawing criticism from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and others for her failure to do more about New Jersey’s toxic waste dumps.

“If the EPA is saying that New Jersey's enforcement is bad, you know there is a serious problem,” says Robert Spiegel, executive director of the Edison Wetlands Association, a New Jersey based non-profit that closely monitors several Superfund sites throughout the state. Spiegel says he had urged Jackson to take more immediate action on some sites, and that Jackson’s field staff had done the same, but their pleas had been ignored.

Jackson also has a fair degree of the classic neoliberal problem — wanting to outsource government functions (in this case, some of the toxic waste cleanup) to private industry.

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club, doing its share of Gang Green lifing on behalf of Democrats, is trying to shift more blame to Jackson’s predecessor.

And, Jackson’s personal supporters blame Gov. Jon Corzine for having rhetoric but little action on environmental issues. Why, then, would Jackson quite her department to become his chief of staff? Oops.

There’s a number of good stories and comments linked from the main story; read some of them, too, for yourself.

I wouldn’t grade Jackson at an F, but I would, based on what I read, put her at the upper 70s or so.

Is that Change We Can Believe In? Probably not, but we’re being presented this as Change We Should Accept.