Living near fracking sites linked to higher risk of early death: Study

January 30, 2022 / activist360 / Leave a comment

Fracking Site in Warren Center, PA, August 23 2013, Source: Fracking Lawyer, Ostroff Law — *Fracking Site in Warren Center, PA, August 23, 2013, Source: Fracking Lawyer, Ostroff Law, (CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons).*

Harvard researchers provide further evidence that, as one environmental advocate has said, “fracking is inherently hazardous to the health and safety of people and communities in proximity to it.”

By Kenny Stancil, Common Dreams (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Elderly individuals who live near or downwind of fracking and other “unconventional” drilling operations are at higher risk of early death compared with seniors who don’t live in close proximity to such sites, according to a new study out Thursday from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Airborne contaminants from more than 2.5 million oil and gas wells across the U.S., researchers wrote in a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Energy, are contributing to increased mortality among people 65 and older residing in neighborhoods close to or downwind from what is called unconventional oil and gas development (UOGD)—extraction methods that include directional (non-vertical) drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

“Although UOGD is a major industrial activity in the U.S., very little is known about its public health impacts,” Petros Koutrakis, professor of environmental sciences and one of the paper’s co-authors, said in a statement. “Our study is the first to link mortality to UOGD-related air pollutant exposures.”

Co-author Francesca Dominici, professor of biostatistics, population, and data science, added that “there is an urgent need to understand the causal link between living near or downwind of UOGD and adverse health effects.”

Earlier research, the Harvard Chan School acknowledged in its press release, has “found connections between UOGD activities and increased human exposure to harmful substances in both air and water, as well as connections between UOGD exposure and adverse prenatal, respiratory, cardiovascular, and carcinogenic health outcomes. But little was known about whether exposure to UOGD was associated with mortality risk in the elderly, or about exactly how exposure to UOGD-related activities may be contributing to such risk.”

To find out more, a team of 10 scholars analyzed a cohort of nearly 15.2 million Medicare beneficiaries living in all of the nation’s major UOGD exploration regions from 2001 to 2015. They also examined data collected from more than 2.5 million oil and gas wells.

For each Medicare recipient’s ZIP code and year in the cohort, researchers calculated what pollutant exposures would be if one lived close to UOGD operations, downwind of them, or both, while adjusting for socioeconomic, environmental, and demographic factors.

The closer people lived to fracked gas and other unconventional wells, the greater their risk of premature mortality, researchers found.

According to the Harvard Chan School’s summary of the study:

Those who lived closest to wells had a statistically significant elevated mortality risk (2.5% higher) compared with those who didn’t live close to wells. The study also found that people who lived near UOGD wells as well as downwind of them were at higher risk of premature death than those living upwind, when both groups were compared with people who were unexposed.

“Our findings suggest the importance of considering the potential health dangers of situating UOGD near or upwind of people’s homes,” said Longxiang Li, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Environmental Health and lead author of the study.

The new study adds to a growing body of literature linking fossil fuels to negative health outcomes. In a recent report, the World Health Organization warned that burning coal, oil, and gas is “causing millions of premature deaths every year through air pollutants, costing the global economy billions of dollars annually, and fueling the climate crisis.”

Another recent study estimated that eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would save 74 million lives this century. Despite mounting evidence of the deadly toll of fossil fuels, President Joe Biden has yet to use his executive authority to cancel nearly two dozen fracked gas export projects that are set to unleash pollution equivalent to roughly 400 new coal-fired power plants.

So-called unconventional drilling practices have grown rapidly over the past decade, becoming the most common form of extraction in the U.S. As of 2015, the Harvard Chan School pointed out, “more than 100,000 UOGD land-based wells were drilled using directional drilling combined with fracking,” and “roughly 17.6 million U.S. residents currently live within one kilometer of at least one active well.”

Fracking threatens every person on the planet, directly or indirectly. It should be banned entirely.
—Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch

Oil rig, ~12219-12999 Macon Road, Saline Township, Michigan, June 22, 2012. Source: Dwight Burdette, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. — *Oil rig, ~12219-12999 Macon Road, Saline Township, Michigan, June 22, 2012. Source: Dwight Burdette, (CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons).*

In contrast to conventional oil and gas drilling, methods such as fracking require “larger volumes of water, proppants (sand or other materials used to keep hydraulic fractures open), and chemicals,” the Harvard Chan School noted.

Last summer, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) uncovered internal records revealing that since 2012, fossil fuel corporations have injected potentially carcinogenic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or chemicals that can degrade into PFAS, into the ground while fracking for oil and gas—after former President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency approved their use despite agency scientists’ concerns about toxicity.

At the time, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, called the PSR report “alarming,” and said it “confirms what hundreds of scientific studies and thousands of pages of data have already shown over the last decade: fracking is inherently hazardous to the health and safety of people and communities in proximity to it.”

“This says nothing of the dreadful impact fossil fuel extraction and burning is having on our runaway climate crisis. Fracking threatens every person on the planet, directly or indirectly,” said Hauter. “It should be banned entirely.”

Fight against fossil fuels gains new allies at COP26

November 14, 2021 / activist360 / Leave a comment

Climate change protest photo of sign reading "Don't be a Fossil Fool." Photo by Hello I'm Nik on Unsplash. — *Photo by Hello I’m Nik on Unsplash*

Fossil fuels have barely been mentioned in previous climate talks. COP26 has seen a shift, and new movements are forming.

By Catherine Early, The Ecologist (CC BY-ND 4.0).

A fight for the future of fossil fuels is underway at COP26 in Glasgow. On one side, the fossil fuel industry, whose lobbyists have been found to be more numerous than any single country’s delegates.

On the other, progressive countries vowing to phase out oil and gas, and campaigners urging for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

Draft texts of the final deal at Glasgow unveiled in the past couple of days have been interfered with by the hands of fossil fuel interests, who have “watered it down with weasel words,” said Cat Abreu, founder and executive of Canadian climate advisors Destination Zero.

Oil and gas

The first draft text released on Thursday morning called for governments to “accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels”, but this was amended in the second draft text to “accelerating the phaseout of unabated coal power and of inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels”.

This language has been used before, Abreu said, pointing to the example of the G20 group of nations, who pledged to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in 2009, but still have not done so.

“’Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies’ means nothing, and we’ve seen no progress on eliminating those subsidies since we’ve had that language,” she added.

Abreu noted that UN climate talks had never explicitly focused on fossil fuels up till now. “It’s as if we set up a system to deal with a pandemic and never mentioned what caused the virus!” she said.

However, other developments at COP26 have struck a blow at fossil fuels. On Thursday, Denmark and Costa Rica launched the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance – the first time governments have led a move away from oil and gas production.

Unabated

France, Greenland, Ireland, Sweden, Wales and Quebec have joined the founder countries to commit to an end date for their oil and gas exploration and extraction, and curtail new licensing of oil and gas production. New Zealand and California have also pledged to take steps such as subsidy reform.

Though noticeably lacking large gas producers such as Russia and COP26 host the UK, climate campaigners were jubilant, calling it a gamechanger. “The launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance is a turning point. For far too long, climate negotiations have ignored the basic reality that keeping 1.5°C alive requires an equitable global plan to keep fossil fuels in the ground,” said Romain Ioualalen, global policy campaign manager at Oil Change International.

Coal, oil and gas are this generation’s mass weapons of mass destruction.

Speaking at the launch of BOGA at COP26, Danish climate minister Dan Jørgensen stressed that the launch was just the first step, and that it was urging other countries to join, with new signatories expected in the coming days. He also spoke of the need for a just transition, with retraining to be offered to workers in the sector.

The announcement on oil and gas followed a flurry of announcements at COP26 last week targeted at coal power. These included at least 23 new countries committing to phase out existing coal power, including Vietnam and Poland, who also committed to building no new coal plants.

Some 25 countries have signed up to ending international government funding for unabated fossil fuel energy by the end of 2022. Nearly 30 new countries signed up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, including Chile and Singapore, bringing the total membership to 188 countries, sub-national governments and businesses.

Consumption

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) published on Friday found that pledges made at and in the run-up to COP26 have had an “unprecedentedly large and direct” impact on coal-fired power generation. This includes 370 more coal plants generating 290GW given a close-by date, the likely cancellation of 90 new coal power projects (totalling 88GW); and a further 130 new projects totally 165GW called into question.

Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at CREA pointed out that 95% of the world’s coal power plants are now covered by carbon neutrality targets, which cannot be met without closing essentially all of the coal fired power plants.

However, Abreu pointed out that some governments had signed these initiatives while continuing to pour millions of dollars into coal power in their own countries. A report published November 13, 2021 by a group of NGOs including Stand.earth and Greenpeace pointed out that the UK, US, Canada, Norway and Australia are all planning to approve and subsidise new fossil fuel projects, undermining their recent claims of leadership in addressing the climate crisis.

Despite their net zero targets and climate pledges these five nations alone have provided over $150 billion in public support for the fossil fuel production and consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, the report found. This level of support to fossil fuel production is more than the entire G7 put towards clean energy as part of the pandemic recovery ($147 billion).

Protagonists

During COP26, the European Commission proposed plans to subsidise new fossil gas pipelines, terminals and storage facilities which could import gas that would emit more carbon than Austria and Denmark combined, according to analysis by Global Witness.

Meanwhile, youth activists Fridays for the Future have called for governments to sign a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, joining a movement that now includes more than 120 nationally-elected parliamentarians from 25 countries including Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan, more than 2000 scientists, over 700 civil society organisations and indigenous peoples.

Fossil fuel production must decline by roughly 50% by 2030 to keep average global temperature rise within 1.5C from pre-industrial times, according to a report by the UN Environment Programme, while the International Energy Agency has said that expansion of fossil fuels is incompatible with the target.

The campaign is based on other global campaigns including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the Anti-personnel Landmine Convention and the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances, all of which provide a model towards a treaty to abandon fossil fuels, its protagonists believe.

Burning

The treaty proposed by campaigners would bring about an immediate end to the expansion of all new coal, oil and gas production; a fair phase out of existing fossil fuel production and a just transition for workers and communities dependent on jobs in the industry so that they can diversify their economies.

A letter signed by young people from 20 countries in support of the treaty complained that their participation in climate conferences had been tokenised, while that of fossil fuel interests had been supported.

Speaking at a press conference with Fridays for the Future at COP26, Brenna Two Bears said: “Coal, oil and gas are this generation’s mass weapons of mass destruction.

“We are doing this because of the wilful ignorance of our leaders, and their predominant fixation on profit and economic growth. Young people are not just inheriting a burning, flooding, melting planet, we are already living in it,” she said.

Catherine Early is chief reporter for The Ecologist and a freelance environmental journalist. She tweets at @Cat_Early76.

Climate change is a justice issue – these 6 charts show why

November 7, 2021 / activist360 / Leave a comment

By, Sonja Klinsky, The Conversation (CC BY-ND 4.0).

Climate change has hit home around the world in 2021 with record heat waves, droughts, wildfires and extreme storms. Often, the people suffering most from the effects of climate change are those who have done the least to cause it.

To reduce climate change and protect those who are most vulnerable, it’s important to understand where emissions come from, who climate change is harming and how both of these patterns intersect with other forms of injustice.

I study the justice dilemmas presented by climate change and climate policies, and have been involved in international climate negotiations as an observer since 2009. Here are six charts that help explain the challenges.

Where emissions come from

One common way to think about a country’s responsibility for climate change is to look at its greenhouse gas emissions per capita, or per person.

For example, China is currently the single largest greenhouse gas emitter by country. However, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the U.S., Australia and Canada all have more than twice the per capita emissions of China. And they each have more than 100 times the per capita emissions of several countries in Africa.

Annual carbon dioxide emissions produced per capita

These differences are very important from a justice perspective.

The majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels to power industries, stores, homes and schools and produce goods and services, including food, transportation and infrastructure, to name just a few.

As a country’s emissions get higher, they are less tied to essentials for human well-being. Measures of human well-being increase very rapidly with relatively small increases in emissions, but then level off. That means high-emitting countries could reduce their emissions significantly without reducing the well-being of their populations, while lower-income, lower-emitting countries cannot.

How rising emissions intersect with human development

Low-income countries have been arguing for years that, in a context in which global emissions must be dramatically reduced in the next half-century, it would be unjust to require them to cut essential investments in areas that richer countries already have invested in, such as access to electricity, education and basic health care, while those in richer countries continue to enjoy lifestyles with high consumption of energy and consumer goods.

Responsibility for decades of emissions

Looking at current emissions alone misses another important aspect of climate injustice: Greenhouse gas emissions accumulate over time.

Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, and this accumulation drives climate change. Carbon dioxide traps heat, warming the planet. Some countries and regions bear vastly more responsibility for cumulative emissions than others.

For instance, the United States has emitted over a quarter of all greenhouse gases since the 1750s, while the entire continent of Africa has emitted only about 3%.

Who has contributed most to global CO2 emissions? — *Cumulative emissions, 1751-2017, by country. Hannah Ritchie/Our World in Data, CC by the author Hannah Ritchie.*

People today continue to benefit from wealth and infrastructure that was generated with energy linked to these emissions decades ago.

Emissions differences within countries

The benefits of fossil fuels have been uneven within countries, as well.

From this perspective, thinking about climate justice requires attention to patterns of wealth. A study by the Stockholm Environment Institute and Oxfam found that 5% of the world’s population was responsible for 36% of the greenhouse gases from 1990-2015. The poorest half of the population was responsible for less than 6%.

Who bears responsibility for carbon emissions growth? — *Share of emissions growth by wealth rank. Stockholm Environment Institute and Oxfam, CC BY-ND.*

These patterns are directly connected to the lack of access to energy by the poorest half of the world’s population and the high consumption of the wealthiest through things like luxury air travel, second homes and personal transportation. They also show how actions by a few high emitters could reduce a region’s climate impact.

Similarly, over one-third of global carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement over the past half-century can be directly traced to 20 companies, primarily producers of oil and gas. This draws attention to the need to develop policies capable of holding large corporations accountable for their role in climate change.

20 companies account for one-third of emissions

Who will be harmed by climate change?

Understanding where emissions come from is only part of the climate justice dilemma. Poor countries and regions often also face greater risks from climate change.

Some small island countries, such as Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands, face threats to their very survival as sea levels rise. Parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the Arctic and mountain regions face much more rapid climate change than other parts of the world. In parts of Africa, changes in temperature and precipitation are contributing to food security concerns.

Many of these countries and communities bear little responsibility for the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. At the same time, they have the fewest resources available to protect themselves.

The countries most vulnerable amid climate change

Climate impacts – such as droughts, floods or storms – affect people differently depending on their wealth and access to resources and on their involvement in decision making. Processes that marginalize people, such as racial injustice and colonialism, mean that some people in a country or community are more likely than others to be able to protect themselves from climate harms.

Strategies for a just climate agreement

All of these justice issues are central to negotiations at the United Nations’ Glasgow climate conference and beyond.

Many discussions will focus on who should reduce emissions and how poor countries’ reductions should be supported. Investing in renewable energy, for example, can avoid future emissions, but low-income countries need financial help.

Wealthy countries have been slow to meet their commitment to provide US$100 billion a year to help developing countries adapt to the changing climate, and the costs of adaptation continue to rise.

Some leaders are also asking hard questions about what to do in the face of losses that cannot be undone. How should the global community support people losing their homelands and ways of life?

Some of the most important issues from a justice perspective must be dealt with locally and within countries. Systemic racism cannot be dealt with at the international level. Creating local and national plans for protecting the most vulnerable people, and laws and other tools to hold corporations accountable, will also need to happen within countries.

These discussions will continue long after the Glasgow conference ends.

Sonja Klinsky, Associate Professor and Senior Global Futures Scientist, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage of COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.

Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. Read more of The Conversation’s U.S. and global coverage.