Pesticide use and climate crisis locked in ‘vicious cycle’ backed by polluting industries

February 19, 2023 / activist360

*Tractor spraying on crops. Photo by Ferencz Istvan, Pexels.*

While agrochemical corporations promote “flawed solutions,” said one advocate, “we need deeper, transformative approaches to actually solve the root problems of our broken food system.”

Even though synthetic pesticides—the majority of which are derived from fossil fuels—contribute significantly to planet-heating pollution and increase the vulnerability of food systems, industrial agriculture interests continue to recklessly portray further pesticide use as a sensible response to the climate emergency’s worsening impacts.

That’s according to a recent report published by the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), which details how agrochemical corporations exacerbate the climate crisis by refusing to admit that pesticides are part of the problem and instead promoting “false” solutions that enable them to keep peddling their highly profitable petroleum-based products.

The January report outlines how policymakers can help mitigate the climate crisis and build just and sustainable food systems by setting targets to drastically curb pesticide use, supporting agroecological farming practices, and protecting the rights of low-income individuals, disproportionately people of color, who are most harmed by pesticides, including farmworkers and residents of areas where the toxic substances are produced and applied.

“Governments are investing billions of dollars to address climate change, but these investments will fall woefully short unless they incorporate pesticide use reduction strategies and promotion of agroecological growing practices.”

“Reductions in pesticide use and the adoption of agroecology would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, while also reducing acute poisonings, long-term diseases like cancer, and other health impacts that rural communities face from pesticide exposure,” Nayamin Martinez, executive director of Central California Environmental Justice Network, said in a statement.

As the report explains: “Pesticides contribute to climate change throughout their lifecycle via manufacturing, packaging, transportation, application, and even through environmental degradation and disposal. Importantly, 99% of all synthetic chemicals—including pesticides—are derived from fossil fuels, and several oil and gas companies play major roles in developing pesticide ingredients.”

Pesticides, the offspring of a World War II-era marriage of Big Ag and Big Oil, help drive global warming to a greater extent than many realize, as the authors document:

Other chemical inputs in agriculture, such as nitrogen fertilizer, have rightly received significant attention due to their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. Yet research has shown that the manufacture of one kilogram of pesticide requires, on average, about 10 times more energy than one kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer. Like nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides can also release greenhouse gas emissions after their application, with fumigant pesticides shown to increase nitrous oxide production in soils seven- to eight-fold. Many pesticides also lead to the production of ground-level ozone, a greenhouse gas harmful to both humans and plants. Some pesticides, such as sulfuryl fluoride, are themselves powerful greenhouse gases, having nearly 5,000 times the potency of carbon dioxide.

Despite mounting evidence that pesticides are helping to accelerate planetary heating, “climate change impacts are expected to lead to increases in pesticide use, creating a vicious cycle between chemical dependency and intensifying climate change,” the report notes. “Research shows that declining efficacy of pesticides, coupled with increases in pest pressures associated with a changing climate, will likely increase synthetic pesticide use in conventional agriculture. An increase in pesticide use will lead to greater resistance to herbicides and insecticides in weeds and insect pests, while also harming public health and the environment.”

That agricultural production is a substantial contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is increasingly acknowledged, but the role played by pesticides is “infrequently addressed” and “many proposed solutions would not result in meaningful GHG emission reductions,” says the report.

It continues:

An example of a false solution is precision agriculture, which promises to reduce the use of petroleum-derived pesticides and fertilizers by using computer-aided technologies to more accurately determine need (pest presence) and then more accurately apply pesticides to intended targets. However, precision agriculture maintains a system dependent upon chemical- and energy-intensive technologies and materials, while diverting attention from and investment in more effective climate-friendly strategies in agriculture that have additional social and public health co-benefits, such as agroecology. Precision agriculture also increases the power and control of agrochemical companies, many of which own the precision agriculture platforms and the data inputted by farmers.

Another flawed solution, carbon markets, allows agribusinesses or farmers to sell carbon credits to corporations to “offset” continued greenhouse gas emissions—perpetuating reliance on fossil fuels. Carbon markets have a poor track record in terms of long-term climate mitigation, and have been shown to worsen economic and racial disparities.

Co-author Asha Sharma, organizing co-director at PANNA, said that “our new report reveals how oil and gas companies and pesticide manufacturers have followed a similar playbook—strategically promoting flawed solutions to the climate crisis, like carbon capture and storage and new digital agriculture tools, which in reality offer minimal climate benefits.”

“Corporations tout these novel technologies to protect their reputation, while they continue to profit from fossil fuels,” said Sharma. “We need deeper, transformative approaches to actually solve the root problems of our broken food system.”

The report makes the case for agroecology, which it defines as “a way of farming rooted in social justice that focuses on working with nature rather than against it.”

Agroecology “relies on ecological principles for pest management, minimizing the use of synthetic pesticides, while prioritizing the decision-making power of farmers and agricultural workers,” the report notes, adding that such an approach improves “the resilience of our agricultural systems to better withstand climate change impacts.”

The report makes three key recommendations for policymakers:

Establish measurable goals in climate policies to reduce synthetic pesticide use in agriculture;
Promote the transition to biodiverse, agroecological food and farming systems, such as by establishing and funding programs that provide increased technical assistance and incentives to farmers to adopt or continue these farming practices; and
In line with international law, adopt regulations that uphold and promote the rights of groups most impacted by synthetic pesticide use.

“Transitioning our agricultural systems to those that uplift ecological and social justice principles will not only help mitigate climate change, but also reduce the negative health impacts of industrial agriculture,” says the report. “While the work toward future policy and practice change continues, we can collectively support the advocacy work of impacted communities and organizations fighting for more equitable and sustainable food and farming systems right now.”

Co-author Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist at PANNA, argued that “governments are investing billions of dollars to address climate change, but these investments will fall woefully short unless they incorporate pesticide use reduction strategies and promotion of agroecological growing practices.”

‘Turn off the tap on plastic,’ UN Chief declares amid debate over new global treaty

December 4, 2022 / activist360

*Photo by Naja Bertolt Jensen on Unsplash*

“Plastics are fossil fuels in another form,” said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, “and pose a serious threat to human rights, the climate, and biodiversity.”

By Kenny Stancil, Common Dreams

Hours before the first round of negotiations to advance a global plastics treaty concluded Friday in Punta Del Este, Uruguay, the leader of the United Nations implored countries “to look beyond waste and turn off the tap on plastic.”

“Plastics are fossil fuels in another form,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres tweeted, “and pose a serious threat to human rights, the climate, and biodiversity.”

Guterres’ comments elevated the demands of civil society organizations, scientists, and other advocates fighting for robust, legally binding rules to confront the full lifecycle impacts of the plastic pollution crisis. A coalition of more than 100 groups has called for limiting the ever-growing production and consumption of plastic and holding corporations accountable for the ecological and public health harms caused by manufacturing an endless stream of toxic single-use items.

Petrochemical industry representatives who attended the first intergovernmental negotiating committee meeting (INC-1) for a global plastics treaty, by contrast, attempted to bolster fossil fuel-friendly governments’ efforts to slow the pace of talks—convened by the U.N. Environment Program and set to continue off-and-on through 2024—and weaken proposals for action.

In the wake of this week’s opening round of debate, the Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) alliance launched a petition outlining what it calls the “essential elements” of a multilateral environmental agreement capable of “reversing the tide of plastic pollution and contributing to the end of the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.”

According to experts associated with BFFP, an effective global plastics treaty must include the following:

Significant, progressive, and mandatory targets to cap and dramatically reduce virgin plastic production;
Legally binding, time-bound, and ambitious targets to implement and scale up reuse, refill, and alternative product delivery systems;
A just transition to safer and more sustainable livelihoods for workers and communities across the plastics supply chain; and
Provisions that hold polluting corporations and plastic-producing countries accountable.

BFFP member Graham Forbes, head of the Global Plastic Project at Greenpeace USA, said in a statement that “we cannot let oil-producing countries, at the behest of Big Oil and petrochemical companies, dominate and slow down the treaty discussions and weaken its ambition.”

“If the plastics industry has its way, plastic production could double within the next 10-15 years, and triple by 2050—with catastrophic impacts on our planet and its people,” said Forbes. “The High Ambition Coalition must show leadership by pushing the negotiations forward and calling for more ambitious measures which protect our health, our climate, and our communities from the plastics crisis.”

A global plastics treaty, Forbes added, represents “a major opportunity to finally end the age of plastic, and governments should not let this go to waste. We demand that world leaders deliver a strong and ambitious treaty that will dramatically reduce plastic production and use, open inclusive and justice-centered discussions, and ensure that the next INCs are free from industry interference.”

Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) senior attorney Giulia Carlini pointed out that profit-maximizing corporations “have deliberately manufactured doubt about the health impacts” of their products in previous treaties that address health issues, such as the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

“There is strong scientific consensus that plastics-associated chemicals cause diseases,” Carlini continued. “If the treaty is to succeed in meeting its health objectives, it will be essential to set strict conflict-of-interest policies going forward.”

After more than 145 governments expressed support this week for developing a pact with specific and shared international standards—which could include a ban on single-use items and requirements to ensure reuse and circularity—Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead at the World Wildlife Fund, said that “the momentum demonstrated at these negotiations is a promising sign that we will get a truly ambitious treaty with effective global measures to stop plastic pollution” by 2024.

“It has been a very important week in the history of protecting the environment and people,” said Lindebjerg. “This week we saw an encouraging level of agreement, both in formal and informal spaces, on the urgency of seeking a joint solution to this major threat to nature and communities, and to do so in a comprehensive, effective, inclusive, and science-based manner.”

However, he warned, “this is just the first step towards a legally binding global treaty that can help us stop plastic pollution.”

“The next stage of negotiations will be more challenging, as countries must agree on the technical measures and rules,” said Lindebjerg. “Although in the minority, there are also some powerful opponents of global rules and standards, which risk potentially weakening obligations on countries to take action. The push for an ambitious global plastics treaty has only just begun.”

“Millions of people around the world, whose livelihoods and environments are affected by plastic, have their eyes on these negotiations,” he added. “Now negotiators must harness this momentum to push for specific rules to be negotiated as part of the treaty.”

Lindebjerg’s assessment was shared by other summit delegates.

“Negotiations at INC-1 this week demonstrated that the majority of countries are ready to take urgent action to confront the plastics crisis, including by addressing the plastic production that drives that crisis,” said CIEL president Carroll Muffett. “Sadly, it also proved that plastic producers and their allies are equally committed to slowing progress and weakening ambition—from the U.S. insistence that the plastic treaty replicate the weaknesses of the Paris agreement, to last-minute maneuvers by other fossil fuel and petrochemical states to block countries’ ability to vote on difficult issues.”

“Despite these maneuvers, the world made real progress in Punta Del Este,” said Muffett. Robust “global commitments and binding targets remain both necessary and achievable,” she added, but securing them will require “the U.S. and other countries join the rest of the world in pairing claims of high ambition with the policies that high ambition demands.”

While this week marked the first time that governments have met to hash out global-scale regulations to restrict plastic production, the United States and the United Kingdom—the world’s biggest per-capita plastic polluters—have so far refused to join an international treaty to curb the amount of plastic waste destined for landfills and habitats, though both countries are reportedly now open to the idea.

“Over this week, we have seen multiple interventions raising whether the future treaty will be based on national action plans, or global, mandatory targets,” said CIEL senior attorney Andrés Del Castillo. “We know that this will be top of the agenda at INC-2. The failure of countries to fulfill their emissions reduction plans under the Paris agreement shows that we cannot afford another treaty that centers on the whims of its leaders.”

The next session of the conference aimed at creating a global plastics treaty is set to take place in Paris in May 2023.

Kids born near fracking sites 2-3 times more likely to develop leukemia: Study

August 21, 2022 / activist360

Exposure to fracking and its effects is “a major public health concern,” said a study co-author.

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

Adding further evidence of the negative public health impacts associated with planet-heating fossil fuel pollution, new research published Wednesday found that children living in close proximity to fracking and other so-called “unconventional” drilling operations at birth face significantly higher chances of developing childhood leukemia than those not residing near such activity.

Existing setback distances, which may be as little as 150 feet, are insufficiently protective of children’s health.
—Cassandra Clark, Postdoctoral Associate, Yale Cancer Center

The peer-reviewed study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, examined the relationship between residential proximity to unconventional oil and gas development (UOGD) and risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the most common form of childhood leukemia.

Researchers compared 405 children ages 2 to 7 who were diagnosed with ALL in Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2017 to a control group of 2,080 children without leukemia matched on birth year. They measured the connection between in utero exposure to unconventional oil and gas activity and childhood leukemia diagnoses in two exposure windows: a “primary window” of three months pre-conception to one year prior to diagnosis and a “perinatal window” of pre-conception to birth.

Children with at least one fracking well within 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) of their birth residence during the primary window had 1.98 times the odds of developing ALL compared with those whose neighborhoods were free from such fossil fuel infrastructure, they found. Children who lived within 2 kilometers of at least one fracking well during the perinatal window were 2.8 times more likely to develop ALL compared with their unexposed counterparts.

Accounting for maternal race and socio-economic status reduced the strength of these relationships, but only slightly, with the adjusted odds of developing childhood leukemia 1.74 and 2.35 times higher for those exposed to UOGD during the primary and perinatal windows, respectively.

“Unconventional oil and gas development can both use and release chemicals that have been linked to cancer,” study co-author Nicole Deziel, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

Last summer, Physicians for Social Responsibility 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.

The possibility that children living in close proximity to such sites are “exposed to these chemical carcinogens is a major public health concern,” said Deziel.

Roughly 17.3 million people in the United States, including nearly four million children, live within a half-mile radius of active oil and gas production, according to the Oil & Gas Threat Map, a geospatial analysis released in May.

Not only do those people have a greater risk of suffering severe health problems from toxic air pollution, but as the research published Wednesday notes, fracking also contaminates drinking water—creating another pathway of exposure to cancer-linked chemicals.

The new study adds to a growing body of literature documenting the deleterious health and environmental consequences of fracking and other forms of fossil fuel extraction.

Research published earlier this year found that residential proximity to UOGD is correlated with a higher risk of dying early. More broadly, the World Health Organization warned last year 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.”

Other recent studies have estimated that slashing energy-related air pollution would prevent more than 50,000 premature deaths and save $608 billion per year in the U.S. alone, while eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would save 74 million lives around the globe this century—demonstrating that the “mortality cost of carbon” is astronomical.

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

Despite this obvious case for rapid decarbonization, 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.

The researchers behind the paper published Wednesday hope that their findings will be used to improve public policy, including better regulation of “setback distances”—the required minimum distance between a private residence or other sensitive location and fracking wells.

Setback distances are currently being debated across the U.S., with some communities calling for setback distances to be lengthened to more than 305 meters (1,000 feet) or as far as 1,000 meters (3,281 feet), the authors wrote.

In Pennsylvania, where the study was based, the current setback distance is 152 meters (499 feet), up from 61 meters (200 feet) in 2012. Researchers, meanwhile, observed elevated risks of childhood leukemia from fracking activity within a 2,000 meter (6,562 feet) radius.

“Existing setback distances, which may be as little as 150 feet, are insufficiently protective of children’s health,” lead author Cassandra Clark, a postdoctoral associate at the Yale Cancer Center, said in a statement. “We hope that studies like ours are taken into account in the ongoing policy discussion around UOG setback distances.”

Other critics of fracking have demanded far more extensive federal action, including prohibiting the practice entirely.

As “hundreds of scientific studies and thousands of pages of data have already shown over the last decade,” Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said last year, “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,” she added. “Fracking threatens every person on the planet, directly or indirectly. It should be banned entirely.”