Environment Archives - Page 76 of 107

World’s Oldest Animal Nearly as Old as Columbus Landing

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

In a major scientific faux pas, scientists have discovered that they not only killed the world’s oldest creature, they also incorrectly dated it.

In 2006, when it was discovered in North Wales and opened by scientists, Ming the Mollusk was thought to have been 405 years old. Further study has revealed it to have actually been 507 years old at the time of its demise.

The discovery made it into the Guinness Book of World Records.

“We got it wrong the first time and maybe we were a bit hastingly publishing our findings back then. But we are absolutely certain that we’ve got the right age now,” ocean scientist Paul Butler, who researches into the Arctica islandica bivalve mollusk at Bangor University in Wales, told ScienceNordic.

That puts Ming’s date of birth sometime in 1499—just seven years after Christopher Columbus landed in the New World.

The British researchers who opened the creature up for scientific study were not aware of its impressive age at the time. Ming was so named after its death after the Chinese Mind dynasty, which was in power when the animal was born. The name is still relevant too, as the Ming dynasty lasted from 1368-1644.

Are the scientists sure they are right about Ming’s age this time around? ScienceNordic reports a general consensus that they are.

“The age has been confirmed with a variety of methods, including geochemical methods such as the carbon-14 method. So I am very confident that they have now determined the right age. If there is any error, it can only be one or two years,” marine biologist Rob Witbaard of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, who has researched into the A. islandica for more than 30 years, told ScienceNordic.

Ocean quahogs can be dated by their growth rings—for each year of life, a new ring appears. During years when the animal consumes a lot of food, the ring is wider, as opposed to being narrower like in years when less food is consumed.

Those rings will also provide insight into climate changes during Ming’s lifetime, reports ScienceNordic.

“The fact alone that we got our hands on an animal that’s 507 years old is incredibly fascinating, but the really exciting thing is of course everything we can learn from studying the mollusc,” the head of the AMS 14C Dating Centre at Aarhus University, Denmark, Associate Professor Jan Heinemeier, who helped with the new dating of Ming, told ScienceNordic.

Scientists can determine the sea temperature by examining the various oxygen isotopes in Ming’s growth rings.

“The A. islandica provides us with a year-by-year timeline of the ocean temperature. I find that incredibly fascinating,” Butler told ScienceNordic.

Global carbon emissions set to reach record 36 billion tonnes in 2013

University of East Anglia, Source: Climate Connections

Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are set to rise again in 2013, reaching a record high of 36 billion tonnes – according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

The 2.1 per cent rise projected for 2013 means global emissions from burning fossil fuel are 61 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol.

Prof Corinne Le Quéré of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia led the Global Carbon Budget report. She said: “Governments meeting in Warsaw this week need to agree on how to reverse this trend. Emissions must fall substantially and rapidly if we are to limit global climate change to below two degrees. Additional emissions every year cause further warming and climate change.”

Alongside the latest Carbon Budget is the launch of the Carbon Atlas – a new online platform showing the world’s biggest carbon emitters more clearly than ever before. The Carbon Atlas reveals the biggest carbon emitters of 2012, what is driving the growth in China’s emissions, and where the UK is outsourcing its emissions. Users can also compare EU emissions and see which countries are providing the largest environmental services to the rest of the world by removing carbon from the atmosphere.

“We are communicating new science,” said Prof Le Quéré. “Everyone can explore their own emissions, and compare them with their neighbouring countries – past, present, and future.”

The Global Carbon Budget reveals that the biggest contributors to fossil fuel emissions in 2012 were China (27 per cent), the United States (14 per cent), the European Union (10 per cent), and India (6 per cent). The projected rise for 2013 comes after a similar rise of 2.2 per cent in 2012.

The rise in fossil fuel emissions in 2012 and 2013 was slower compared to the average 2.7 per cent of the past 10 years. Growth rates in CO2 for major emitting countries in 2012 were China (5.9 per cent) and India (7.7 per cent). Meanwhile the United States’ emissions declined by 3.7 per cent and Europe declined by 1.8 per cent.

Emissions per person in China matched figures in the EU at 7 tonnes in 2012. The United States is still among the highest emitter per person at 16 tonnes. By comparison people in India produce a carbon footprint of only 1.8 tonnes.

Most emissions are from coal (43 per cent), then oil (33 per cent), gas (18 per cent), cement (5.3 per cent) and gas flaring (0.6 per cent). The growth in coal in 2012 accounted for 54 per cent of the growth in fossil fuel emissions.

CO2 emissions from deforestation and other land-use change added 8 per cent to the emissions from burning fossil fuels. Cumulative emissions of CO2 since 1870 are set to reach 2015 billion tonnes in 2013 – with 70 per cent caused by burning fossil fuels and 30 per cent from deforestation and other land-use changes.

Prof Pierre Friedlingstein from the University of Exeter said: “We have exhausted about 70 per cent of the cumulative emissions that keep global climate change likely below two degrees. In terms of CO2 emissions, we are following the highest climate change scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September.”

Grays Harbor Crude Oil Terminals Blocked

Board holds projects need full evaluation of “oil spill risks, increase in rail and vessel traffic, and location of expanded facilities in areas of known natural resource and cultural sensitivity.”

Source: Earth Justice, November 13, 2013

Olympia, WA — The Washington Shorelines Hearings Board reversed permits for two crude oil shipping terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington for failure to address significant public safety and environmental issues. The projects cannot go forward until full and detailed environmental reviews assess all individual and cumulative impacts, according to the final decision released late yesterday.

The Quinault Indian Nation and conservation groups argued that regulatory agencies failed to adequately evaluate the risks of oil spills from trains or marine vessels that would expose tribal fishing rights, commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing, and the economy and environment of Grays Harbor to major harm.

The Board agreed with petitioners Quinault Indian Nation, Friends of Grays Harbor, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Grays Harbor Audubon, and Citizens for a Clean Harbor that moving hundreds of oil-laden trains and ships through Washington demands full and public environmental review.

Quote from Fawn Sharp, President, Quinault Indian Nation:

“We applaud the decision by the Shoreline Hearings Board to reverse the permit for the crude oil shipping terminals.

“Those permits should have never been issued in the first place. The shipping terminals would be a clear violation of public safety as well as treaty-protected rights. The public trust should not be jeopardized in this manner. Neither should the water nor other environmental resources upon which we all depend. Far more jobs would be lost when the inevitable spills occur than would be gained from the development of the proposed oil terminals. It is the responsibility of the Shoreline Hearings Board and all public entities to take a strong stand against these terminals and all such projects that would diminish the quality of life in our region.

“Good public policy demands that decision makers assess ultimate and cumulative impacts of their decisions and mitigate any potential harm to the public or tribal interest before they commit to an irreversible course of action.

“The history of oil spills provides ample, devastating evidence that there are no reasonable conditions under which these proposed terminal projects should proceed.”

Westway Terminal Company and Imperium Terminal Services had each proposed projects that would ship tens of millions of barrels of crude oil through Grays Harbor each year. Daily trains more than a mile long would bring crude oil from North Dakota or tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada along the Chehalis River and into the port, where it would be stored in huge shoreline tanks. The crude would then be pumped onto oil tankers and barges, increasing at least four-fold the large vessel traffic in and out of the harbor.

“There should be a statewide moratorium on crude-by-rail projects,” said Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the Quinault Indian Nation. “A frantic dash to permit is immoral when we’re talking millions of gallons of combustible oil, risks of devastating crude oil spills in rivers and the ocean, harm to traditional fishing economies, and irreplaceable natural resources.”

The Board first determined that there was undisputed evidence of a third proposed crude oil terminal in Grays Harbor that must be considered in the permitting decisions. This unexamined third project, proposed by U.S. Development, would add 18 million more barrels of crude oil transit per year to Grays Harbor.
The Board also found that Ecology and Hoquiam violated the state environmental review law (SEPA) by waiting until after permitting to analyze the proposed additional rail and vessel transits. “To wait until after the SEPA threshold determination is made, and the [permit] is issued, to obtain information that identifies whether potential impacts from vessel and train increases will be significant and whether mitigation is necessary, does not comply” with the law.” Order at 28.
The Board expressed concern at the absence of information supporting the permits. “While the Co-leads may have reached the conclusion that there was not likely to be more than a moderate environmental impact from 520 additional vessel transits per year in Grays Harbor, and 973 unit trains per year to the Port of Grays Harbor, they did not share the basis for that conclusion in any of the SEPA documents.” Order at 31.
The Board also stated that the agencies could not simply rely without on other laws to mitigate risks and damages. “[T]he Board encourages the Co-leads to identify potential impacts and then analyze how existing laws will mitigate for those impacts.” Order at 36.
Although the Board did not decide other issues raised in the case, the Board went out of its way to identify “troubling questions of the adequacy of the analysis done regarding the potential for individual and cumulative impacts from oil spills, seismic events, greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts to cultural resources.” Order at 33. Of particular concern to the Quinault, the Board discussed the failure the ensure that the projects would not harm historic or cultural resources. The Board also stressed the importance of assessing the types of crude oil that would be at risk of being spilled. “[C]ertainly an impact with the potential to ‘wipe out generation(s) of a livelihood of work they [the shellfish folks or agricultural families, or tribes and local communities] have enjoyed and are skilled to do’ should be explicitly addressed.” Order at 34-35.

The Board’s decision comes as the risks of crude-by-rail oil shipments has come into public focus. In July, a crude-by-rail train exploded and leveled a portion of a small Quebec town, tragically killing almost 50 people. That horrific scene replayed last week, as a similar crude oil train derailed and exploded in Alabama, with fortunately no loss of life. The Grays Harbor projects are the first of almost ten projects slated for Washington’s coast that have been challenged; the enormous Tesoro-Savage proposal on the Columbia River is currently undergoing permitting review.

A copy of the Board’s decision is at http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/crude-by-rail-final-decision.

Fears Confirmed: Offshore Fracking A Toxic Mess

Center for Biological Diversity analysis reveals list of toxic chemicals in offshore fracking often dumped with wastewater into ocean.

Offshore oil drilling platform ‘Gail’ operated by Venoco, Inc. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)

By Jacob Chamberlain, Mint Press News

Offshore hydraulic fracturing operations off the coast of California use highly toxic chemicals that are often released directly into water along the state’s coast, the Center for Biological Diversity revealed today, calling on the state’s Coastal Commission to halt fracking for oil and gas in state waters.

In an analysis sent by letter to the Commission ahead of a meeting this week in Newport Beach, The Center for Biological diversity pulls from data disclosed by oil companies and obtained from government documents that highlights seven risky chemicals used in “hundreds of recently revealed frack jobs in state waters” that directly violate the Coastal Act.

Multiple oil platforms, according to the research, are discharging wastewater directly into the Santa Barbara Channel, according to a government document, and other areas along the California Coast.

The letter states:

In the offshore context, fracking fluid is either discharged into the ocean or transported for onshore underground injection. When disposed of at sea, these chemicals enter the marine ecosystem. The Coastal Commission acknowledges that approximately half of the platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel discharge all or a portion of their wastewater directly to the ocean. This produced wastewater contains all of the chemicals injected originally into the fracked wells, with the addition of toxins gathered from the subsurface environment. These discharges of toxic chemicals directly contravene the requirements of the Coastal Act, which charges the Coastal Commission with the “protection against the spillage of . . . hazardous substances.”

“The Coastal Commission has the right and the responsibility to step in when oil companies use dangerous chemicals to frack California’s ocean waters,” said Emily Jeffers, a Center attorney. “Our beaches, our wildlife and our entire coastal ecosystem are at risk until the state reins in this dangerous practice.”

The research shows that at least one-third of chemicals used in offshore fracking operations “are suspected ecological hazards” and are suspected of “affecting the human developmental and nervous systems.”

The chemicals include X-Cide, which is “classified as a hazardous substance by the federal agency that manages cleanup at Superfund sites.”

“Because the risk of many of the harms from fracking cannot be eliminated, a complete prohibition on fracking is the best way to protect human health and the environment,” the letter states.

A recent report by the Associated Press showed that California coastal regulators were unaware until recently that offshore fracking was even occurring.

This article originally appeared in CommonDreams.

Ethanol: Clean Energy Or The Source Of New Environmental Concerns?

The agricultural industry has reaped the rewards of laws requiring ethanol cultivation, but now the environmental ramifications are causing second thoughts.

By Trisha Marczak Mint Press News

The impacts of ethanol on the nation’s wetlands and conservation sites are becoming more apparent, as farmers take over once-protected land to cultivate corn for the ever-growing ethanol industry — one initially intended to help the environment.

A report released by the Associated Press paints an entirely different picture.

Ethanol, which is derived from corn, is added in the nation’s gas supply in order to create a blend that offers renewable energy sources and a lighter impact on pollutant emissions. Yet the Associated Press report indicates that the cultivation of farmland needed to meet the nation’s ethanol requirements is contributing more to carbon emissions than previously thought — all the while affecting the environment through the use of fertilizers and wetland destruction.

According to the report, more than 5 million acres of land that had been designated for conservation purposes have been restructured for the production of ethanol. Throughout that process, natural habitats have been destroyed and fertilizers have been released, creating a new environmental issue of its own.

The 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard, signed into law by George W. Bush, required 18.15 billion gallons of ethanol production per year — it also required refineries purchase and blend ethanol into the nation’s gasoline supplies.

While Bush signed the standard into law, the Obama administration carried on with the pledge. Now, the Environmental Protection Agency is calling for a reduction to the standard’s production mandate — down to 13 billion gallons a year.

That’s at least a step in the right direction for those who are concerned about the impact the industry is having on area waterways, wetlands and conservation sites. Iowa, which is a hotbed for the ethanol industry, has seen the adverse effects on water systems, particularly related to nitrate contamination.

Utility Company Des Moines Water Works told the Associated Press that nitrate levels in area rivers have steadily increased, particularly in the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, which serve as the source of drinking water for nearly 500,000 Iowans.

“This year, unfortunately the nitrate levels in both rivers were so high that it created an impossibility for us,” General Manager Bill Stowe told the Associated Press.

Yet for the agricultural industry, which has benefitted from the creation of the new business, the EPA guidelines would be bad news. Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen maintains that the ethanol industry is a boost to both farmers and the environment, claiming that ethanol is still a cleaner source of energy.

In response to the Associated Press story regarding the negative impacts of the industry on Iowa wetlands and conservation sites, Dineen’s organization released a statement, claiming the story was yet another attack on the industry.

Feds Reach Out to Natives on Climate Change at Tribal Nations Conference

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

Building on the participation of tribes announced in President Barack Obama’s recent executive order laying out a plan to deal with climate change, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) announced that it too would partner with the administration.

As the White House Tribal Nations Conference wrapped up, NCAI announced measures to work directly with the federal government to address climate change effects in Indian country.

Several federal officials noted the severe impacts that climate change has had on American Indians and Alaska Natives, the NCAI said in a release. During the conference, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, Obama and others spoke directly to those issues in Indian country and about how the government can work with tribal leaders to best address these challenges.

Jewell set the tone for ongoing cooperation, the NCAI said in its statement, by speaking “of the ongoing dialogues we need to have as we work together toward tribal self-determination and self-governance and promoting prosperous and resilient tribal nations.”

Obama, having named Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Karen Diver and Northwest (Alaska) Arctic Borough Mayor Reggie Joule to the new State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, reiterated his commitment to working with tribes on the issues.

“The health of tribal nations depends on the health of tribal lands. So it falls on all of us to protect the extraordinary beauty of those lands for future generations,” he said at the Tribal Nations Conference. “And already, many of your lands have felt the impacts of a changing climate, including more extreme flooding and droughts. That’s why, as part of the Climate Action Plan I announced this year, my administration is partnering with you to identify where your lands are vulnerable to climate change, how we can make them more resilient.”

Obama referred to tribes extensively in the seven-point plan, which he issued on November 1. Many tribes already have action plans in place, since they have been forced to deal early on with the ramifications of a rapidly changing environment.

The NCAI also noted tribal references from Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, who talked about the more than 30 Alaska Native villages “facing imminent threats from rising seas levels,” as well as the ways in which climate change has hindered hydroelectric and other energy projects. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asked tribal leaders to “help us explain why climate change must be addressed now and why it is our responsibility” to combat it for seventh generation and beyond, the NCAI said.

“It is critically important that tribal leaders are at the table because too often, Native voices are left out of federal conversations around mitigating the effects of climate change,” the NCAI said in its statement. “Indian country faces some of the most difficult challenges stemming from climate change because of the remote location of many tribal lands and, particularly in Alaska, the dependence on the land and animals for subsistence living. NCAI applauds the Administration for this effort and is hopeful that by working together, government-to-government, tribal communities will have the tools necessary to address climate change.”

Nine Tribes to Receive $7 Million From Department of Energy for Wind, Biomass, Solar Projects

Ernesto Moniz, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

Nine tribes will receive a total of more than $7 million from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for clean-energy projects, the agency announced on November 14.

The Coeur d’Alene Tribe in Idaho, the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government in Fort Yukon, Alaska, the Forest County Potawatomi Community in Milwaukee, Menominee Tribal Enterprises in Wisconsin, the Seneca Nation of Indians in Irving, New York, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe Growth Fund in Ignacio, Colorado, the Tonto Apache Tribe of Payson, Arizona, the White Earth Reservation Tribal Council in Minnesota and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska will use their respective funds to develop a variety of alternative energy sources involving wind, biomass and solar power.

The DOE highlighted the awards during the 2013 White House Tribal Nations Conference as a way to help American Indian and Alaska Native tribes use clean energy to save money, increase energy security and promote economic development.

Today, we are very pleased to announce that nine tribes have been selected to receive over $7 million to further deploy clean energy projects,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in his remarks before the conference. “A couple of examples in those awards, wind power for tribal government buildings at Seneca Nation in New York, energy efficiency upgrades to reduce energy use by 40 percent in Alaska. There are nine tribes that will have these efficiencies. And that addresses this question of mitigation, reducing carbon pollution.”

“American Indian and Alaska Native tribes host a wide range of untapped energy resources that can help build a sustainable energy future for their local communities,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in a statement announcing the awards. “Responsible development of these clean energy resources will help cut energy waste and fight the harmful effects of carbon pollution—strengthening energy security of tribal nations throughout the country.”

In remarks at the Tribal Nations Conference, Moniz said the government planned to work more closely with American Indians on developing energy sources.

“We are looking forward to establishing and advancing a subgroup of the White House Council on Native American Affairs, to really focus on energy development, energy deployment in Indian country,” he said. “I think, working together, with us and agriculture, EPA and other cabinet colleagues, we really want to harness the energy potential in Indian country—conventional energy, renewable energy—to expedite clean energy deployment and electrification. That is something that we will get together on and try to advance promptly.”

While Indian country officially takes up just two percent of the land known as the United States, that territory holds a good five percent of all U.S. renewable energy resources, the DOE noted.

The grants are part of an ongoing push to invest in tribal clean energy projects that began in 2002. The DOE’s Tribal Energy Program has put about $42 million into 175 such projects, providing financial and technical assistance as well along with its Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. Other grants were announced earlier this year to other tribes.

The initiative also includes technical assistance.

Moniz said the DOE intends to continue and expand on these efforts.

“From community solar projects in New Mexico and Colorado, to the commercial scale wind projects in Maine, small biomass projects in Wisconsin, DOE is working with 20 tribes and Alaskan Native villages to empower leaders with tools and resources needed to lead energy development that can foster self-sufficiency, sustainability, and economic growth,” he told the tribal leaders at the conference. “At the Department of Energy I have certainly made it a priority to raise our game with state, local governments, tribes. We believe, in the end, a national policy needs to build from tribal, state, local, and regional policies and activity.”

USDA: Certification gets conservation easements on the ground faster

Source: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service

WASHINGTON, November 14, 2013 – The nation’s top easement program for protecting fertile agricultural land is making it easier for people to enroll land through advanced certification.

The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program is certifying eligible entities, such as states, organizations or tribes, to place lands in this Farm Bill conservation easement program.

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service administers the program that has protected more than 2 million acres of the nation’s most valuable lands for the production of food, feed and fiber since 1996.

This program provides matching funds to organizations to purchase conservation easements on private working lands.

“Certification is the recognition of a successful partnership between the entity and NRCS, meaning they’ve already successfully implemented the program and don’t need direct NRCS involvement,” said Jeremy Stone, the program’s manager. “It allows them to streamline their processes and get more conservation on the ground faster.”

State, tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations as well as other entities that become certified have more flexibility and a shorter process to acquire easements. Certified organizations may enter into longer term cooperative agreements and conduct the program’s closings without prior submission of individual appraisals, deeds or title documents for NRCS review.

To qualify for certification an eligible organization must hold, manage and monitor a minimum of five of the program’s conservation easements. For a full list of the certification criteria, see the program’s web page.

Entities may apply for certification by submitting a letter of request and application materials to the NRCS state conservationist where they’re seeking certification at any time. Although this is a continuous application process, to be considered for the first certification round in the 2014 program year, applications must be received by January 3, 2014.

These easements ensure that productive farms and ranches will be kept in agricultural uses forever.

“In order to feed the increasing world population, we must ensure farmers and ranchers have prime agricultural land available. FRPP plays a crucial role in keeping land in agricultural uses and certifying entities make that process easier,” NRCS Chief Jason Weller said.

For more information on the application materials required for certification, contact the NRCS FRPP manager in your state.

Americans just aren’t buying that climate-denial crap anymore

By John Upton, Grist

Looks like Fox News and Congress are becoming ever more intellectually isolated from the American people, perched together on a sinking island of climate denialism.

Stanford University Professor Jon Krosnick led analysis of more than a decade’s worth of poll results for 46 states. The results show that the majority of residents of all of those states, whether they be red or blue, are united in their worries about the climate — and in their desire for the government to take climate action.

“To me, the most striking finding that is new today was that we could not find a single state in the country where climate scepticism was in the majority,” Krosnick told The Guardian.

In every state surveyed for which sufficient data was available:

At least three-quarters of residents are aware that the climate is changing.
At least two-thirds want the government to limit greenhouse gas emissions from businesses.
At least 62 percent want regulations that cut carbon pollution from power plants.
At least half want the U.S. to take action to fight climate change, even if other countries do not.

This map shows the percentage of state residents who believe global warming has been happening:

Click to embiggen. — Committee on Energy & Commerce

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress continue to block climate action. Many of them are so idiotic as to claim that global warming doesn’t exist, that it’s not a big deal, or that it’s caused by forces beyond the control of humans. How could Congress be so out of touch with the people it represents? Fossil fuel campaign contributions and lobbyists don’t help, nor does the bubble in which the lawmakers live. Here are some reflections from the research summary:

We have seen through these surveys that contrary to expectations, Americans support many of the energy policies that have been discussed over the years and are willing to pay some amount to have them enacted. This runs contrary to the idea that the reason why congress is not enacting these policies is because there is not public support and that the public would be unwilling to pay. It is unfair to blame the public for the lack of policies enacted by the federal government on these issues. Why has legislation action been so limited with regard to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? Two possibilities include that legislators have decided to ignore their constituents or that they are simply unaware of the public consensus on these issues.

“These polls are further proof that the American people are awake to the threat of climate change, and have not been taken in by the polluting industries’ conspiracy of denial,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), one of the co-chairs of a congressional climate change task force. “Now it’s time for Congress to wake up and face the facts: climate change is real; it is hurting our people, our economy, and our planet; and we have to do something about it.”

Want to know what your neighbors think about climate change? Click here for fact sheets on all the states studied. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Pollution skewing birth numbers for Aamjiwnaang First Nation mothers

More than 50 industrial facilities are located near the homes of 850 people of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation close to the U.S.-Canadian border near Lake Huron. A study conducted between 1999 and 2003 showed an unusually low birth rate for baby boys among the tribe’s women.Jonathan Lin/Flickr — More than 50 industrial facilities are located near the homes of 850 people of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation close to the U.S.-Canadian border near Lake Huron. A study conducted between 1999 and 2003 showed an unusually low birth rate for baby boys among the tribe’s women.
Jonathan Lin/Flickr

Source: Buffalo Post

Is exposure to estrogen-blocking chemicals in one of Canada’s most industrialized regions the reason so few baby boys are born to the Aamjiwnaang First Nation mothers who live near there?

An article by Brian Bienkowski that originally appeared in Environmental Health News and was picked up by Scientific American says a new study is the first to confirm the community’s concerns over elevated exposure to pollutants.

The findings do not prove that chemicals are causing fewer baby boys in the community, but they provide some limited evidence suggesting a possible link.
“While we’re far from a conclusive statement, the kinds of health problems they experience – neurodevelopment, skewed sex ratios – are the health effects we would expect from such chemicals and metals,” said Niladri Basu, lead author of the study and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal.

A 2005 report said baby boys account for only 35 percent of births in the tribe, compared with 51.2 percent nationwide. The reservation sits within 15 miles of a region known as “Chemical Valley,” which is home to more than 50 industrial facilities, including oil refineries and chemical manufacturers.

Forty-two pairs of Aamjiwnaang mothers and children were tested for the study. For four types of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the average levels found in the children ranged from 2 to 7 times higher than the average Canadian child. The mothers’ average levels were about double the Canadian average for three of the compounds.
PCBs were widely used industrial compounds until they were banned in the 1970s in the United States and Canada because they were building up in the environment.
Eating fish is the most common exposure route for PCBs. But a survey revealed the community eats very little fish, so the high levels of PCBs remain “a puzzle,” Basu said. He suspects the chemicals are still in the soil and air from decades ago.

Shanna Swan, professor and vice-chair for research and mentoring at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, noted that the study was small and it is important not to jump to conclusions. Swan surveyed the community to see if there was interest in following up on the original research, based on births between 1999 and 2003, and was told no.
“There’s no question there’s exposure, it’s clearly a polluted place,” Swan told Bienkowski. “But this is their ancestral home … what to they get out of you telling them how badly off they are?”