Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Environmental Justice Texas v02
Environmental Justice Texas v02
Environmental Justice Texas v02
Our public policy makers stand in a position of public trust not just for the present but as stewards for those who come along in the future. Rocky Anderson, Justice Party Candidate for President, spoken on February 19, 2010
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently called out Texas and its power companies as the leading emitter in the U.S. of greenhouse gases and other dangerous toxins. The EPA report contains explosive documentation of the level of mercury and arsenic pollution that these coal-fired power plants are emitting into the air and water that sustain life in Texas. These same emissions also adversely affect climate conditions for persons around the world. Information in Tables 1, Table 2, and Table 3, can also be found here along with additional valuable and disturbing information.
Table 1 Top Ten States Ranked by Total Power Plant Emissions of Airborne Mercury Pollution in 2010
Rank State Airborne Mercury Emissions (pounds) 11,127 4,218 3,964 3,835 3,175 3,002 2,495 2,363 2,287 2,253
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Texas Ohio Pennsylvania Missouri Indiana Alabama West Virginia North Dakota Kentucky Michigan
Source: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Table 2 The Top Five Polluting Power Companies in U.S., 2010, Airborne Mercury
Airborne Mercury Emissions (pounds) 6,220 4,585 4,369 3,699 3,025
Rank
Company American Electric Power Luminant 2 Generation Co. 1 3 Southern Co. 4 Ameren Corp. 5 NRG Energy
Source: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). As shown in Table 3, the dirtiest mercury-emitting companies are well entrenched in the dirtiest state with the dirtiest power plants where we happen to live.
Table 3 Texas has Six of the Top 10 Dirtiest Power Plants, 2010
National Rank 1 3 4 5 7 10 Facility Name Big Brown Steam Electric Station & Lignite Mine Martin Lake Steam Electric Station & Lignite Mine Limestone Electric Generating Station American Electric Power H.W. Pirkey Power Plant Monticello Steam Electric Station & Lignite Mine W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station Airborne Mercury Emissions (pounds) State County City Owner Luminant Generation Co. LLC Luminant Generation Co. LLC
NRG Texas Power LLC American Electric Harrison Hallsville Power Mount Luminant Titus Pleasant Generation Co. LLC NRG Texas Power Fort Bend Thompsons LLC Limestone Jewett
Source: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Dangers of Toxins Released by Coal-fired Power Plants to the Rivers and Lakes of Texas and to the Fish and Animals that Live there
Mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants ends up in the air we breathe and the water we drink. This pollution also limits the ability of Texans to safely eat the fish caught in the rivers, lakes, and Gulf Coast fisheries of Texas. Dr. Larry K. Lowry, PhD, with The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler Health, published Implications of Mercury (Hg) in East Texas Lakes, which includes the following list of warnings about particular species of fish that have high levels of mercury in them and that are found in the waters of East Texas and in the waters along the Gulf of Mexico. Read the complete article here.
There is a very clear correlation between the presence of mercury in the water and the fish when the proximity of coal-fired power plants are placed side-by-side Figure 2 contains a map of coal-fired power plants along with the areas where warnings against eating the fish due to high levels of mercury in the fish.
Figure 3 Map of Coal-fired Power Plants and Mercury Advisories Source: Mercury Alert: Texas, published by the Environmental Defense Fund, March 2011
Dangers of Air and Water-borne Mercury Pollution and Other Toxins to the Health of the People of Texas
The focus of this article is to inform readers that coal-fired power plants emit high levels of mercury into the Texas environment. The article assumes readers know that mercury is hazardous to your health. But, there are two references included here that explain in detail the relationship between coal-fired power plants, the release of mercury into the environment, and how mercury damage the environment and the well-beings of all life on the planet. For example, Michael Sorenson, a former Texan who moved to Washington state for health reasons, was diagnosed with MS at age 25. Michael produced this incredible report about the damage to his health caused by pollution produced by the W.A. Washington Plant in Texas in his Web post, Your Local Neighborhood Coal Plant is Killing You. If you follow all the links in Michaels report, you will see that he has done his homework. One could write a similar story about the other power plants in Texas. The Clean Air Task Force has prepared an interactive Texas map on a Website titled, Death and Disease from Power Plants where viewers can click on a coal-fired power plant location on the map and see the economic and health effects on individuals who live near a power plant.
We need to wait until we are absolutely certain that Climate Change is real, before we act. The same proof fallacy appears here again. But, if one looks at this objection closely, it is clear that the emphasis in this argument is more about what policy toward Climate Change is prudent. For example, the late dare devil, Evel Knievel, had a much laxer standard of what is risky than some who teaches defensive driving for a living. Regarding Climate Change, the Scientific American points out in Top 10 Places Already Affected by Climate Change that small island nations and countries such as Bangladesh with many areas at or below sea-level are more likely to take the possibility of Climate Change more seriously than if you happen to live in a higher elevation area of the world. Worst case scenario thinkers prefer to err on the side of safety. George W. Bush, for example, was not a worse case scenario thinker, was warned when became President about the possible dangers to New Orleans of a major hurricane. As President he cut funding for expanding wetlands, which act as buffer against hurricanes, near New Orleans. He also did not order the Army Corps of Engineers to raise the height of levies around New Orleans. There plenty of other blame to go around for the disaster that happened to New Orleans after Hurricane. My view is that if you cant live with the consequences of a worst case scenario that can be prevented, then it is prudent to act to prevent the worst case from happening. With Climate Change neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans are acting prudently to keep what many climate scientists are warning is on the path to happen in our lifetimes. Scientists do not agree that Climate Change is real. There have been dueling lists of scientists and supposed scientists such as uncredentialed TV weather persons put forward by environmental groups and Climate Change skeptics. The record is clean the preponderance of credentialed climate scientists believe that Climate Change is real. NASA scientists, such as James Hansen with NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have access to the most sophisticated climate-monitoring satellites in the world have been in the forefront of warning about the dangers of Climate Change. Federal government is skewing the results reported by climate scientists through the power of the government to reward and punish study results by giving or funding climate research. This statement was given credence due to what was called climate-gate when email systems used by climate scientists in Great Britain were hacked. Persons who believe that climate scientific research is rigged latched onto story as the smoking gun that Climate Change was made up governments seeking to put in stricter controls on the use of greenhouse gases produced by factories such as coal-fired power plants that could reinforce climate change processes at work. In fact, during the Bush and Obama administrations climate scientists warning about Climate Change were more often fired or muzzled, rather than rewarded. Also since the climategate scandal broke, there has been another scandal that has gripped the British government, and that is the stories he exposing the existence of a giant hacking effort led by Rupert Murdochs News Corporation ((News Corp) whose reporters spied on a variety of persons to create stories, that were short on truth, but long on sensation . The News of the World, Murdochs British tabloid had to be closed because of its hacking practices. Rupert Murdoch was also one of the leading Climate Change deniers who over time has made debunking Climate Change his top priority. Murdoch publications, such as Fox News in the U.S. have specialized in portraying opinion as news. There is opposition to solutions proposed by governments and business elites for combating Climate Change. For example Cap-and-Trade systems, which allow polluters to trade pollution credits, allow for selective enforcement, one for polluters and one for everyone else. Carbon taxes are opposed as a hidden method of raising taxes that will ultimately be paid by consumers
through higher energy rates. I happen to oppose both Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes and agree with both of these arguments, It should be pointed out these are proposed solutions that are separate and apart from the questions, Is Climate Change real? Doesnt Climate Change pose a real threat to world?, and Should the U.S. and Texas governments be taking steps to combat Climate Change. I think the answer to all these questions is an emphatic Yes. Solutions to the problem of Climate Change are and will be the subject of vigorous debate during the upcoming 2012 Presidential and Congressional and State legislative elections. After the election and for the coming decade, the debate will continue in future elections and during federal and state legislative hearings and around EPA rules that address this subject. Too much time has been spent of debating whether Climate Change exists. In a functioning democracy, rational debate on finding solutions is the best way to determine how to deal with Climate Change. But, it is time to act with a sense of urgency, not going down rabbit holes which polluting industries have constructed to divert voters from the looming dangers of Climate Change on people in the U.S., Texas, and the world.
Implications for Individuals and Families who Fish and Eat the Fish they Catch
If you want to go fishing in Texas, instead of hiring a fishing guide, you may need the advice of a chemist, specializing in testing waters for toxic chemicals or wildlife biologists who knows how to measure fish for toxic residues. I have included fish advisories and bans in this article taken from the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, who most Texans would agree is an authoritative source of information about the safety of eating the fish caught in public waters in Texas. Check the list of advisories and bans at the Parks and Wildlifes advisory page. The Parks and Wildlife department, which has a motto, Life is better outside also publishes Special Notices containing food safety warnings in its 2011-2012 Texas Commercial Fishing Guide (Effective SEPT. 1, 2011, Expires Aug. 31, 2012) See full text here. Most casual fishing enthusiasts would not think about reading the Commercial Fishing Guide to find if the fish in the river or lake in which they were planning to fish was safe or not. And, many would assume that Texas waters would be safe for fishing and not go to the Parks and Wildlifes Bans and Advisories Webpage. Also, I have been to several of the lakes mentioned in the notices below and did not find any posted warning about the categories of fish that were not safe to eat or about any dangers of Mercury or PCBs or other toxins mentioned in the Texas Parks and Wildlifes advisories and bans on fish consumption. This practice is counter to the normal practice where warnings appear routinely on everything that is remotely dangerous and always appear on products that are always dangerous such as High Voltage lines. Mercury is always dangerous. In rural areas, it is not unusual to let school children fish unsupervised and is often considered to one of the Pluses in living the rural lifestyle where children can learn about nature and the outdoors directly and not from books.
10