fbpx
Menu Close

Event: Health Risks of Northwest Coal Exports

Next Tuesday, Sightline’s policy director Eric de Place will join University of Washington-Bothell’s Dr. Dan Jaffe and PeaceHealth’s Dr. Divya Bappanad to discuss the health risks of coal export proposals in the Northwest. Together, they will take a look at the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal that would bring 44 million tons of coal in uncovered, open-top rail cars to Longview, Washington, each year. This project will bring serious health risks to the community, including exposure to coal dust and diesel particle pollution that contribute to heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory disease.

Join us next Tuesday and stay tuned for a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Millennium Bulk Terminal that will be held in late May.

  • What: Health Forum: Risks of Coal Exports
  • When: Tuesday, April 19, 2016, 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm
  • Where: Longview Presbyterian Church (map)
  • RSVP: This event is free and open to the public
  • Sponsored by: Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, LCSC, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Power Past Coal

    Presenters:

    Eric de Place: policy director, Sightline Institute
    Dr. Dan Jaffe: professor of Atmospheric and Environmental Chemistry, University of Washington-Bothell
    Dr. Divya Bappanad: physician, PeaceHealth

Like what you're reading? Here's more on how coal dust threatens human health.

Weekend Reading 4/8/16

Keiko

Is there lead exposure risk in your community? Find out here.

Ta Nehisi-Coates is now writing comic books?! Black Panther features the first black superhero in mainstream American comics. Ta Nehisi-Coates gives you a behind-the-scenes look at this new Marvel comic book.

Anna

You knew this already, but here are more damning details: Fossil fuel giants and their trade groups spend an estimated $115 million per year blocking climate policies. (And in case you missed it—I did—the oil and gas trade groups, the American Petroleum Institute and the Natural Gas Alliance, merged last year, making one big PR and lobbying powerhouse.)

Economic Opportunity Institute has worked up an interesting analogy for talking about taxes in a productive way, and reinforcing paying taxes as a community activity, not a solitary one: A potluck dinner. I like where they’re going:

After all, even if I don’t necessarily like or need every item being served (tater tot casserole, anyone?), there’s something for everyone — and far more than I’d ever be able to prepare or provide on my own.

Meaghan

Many indigenous tribes are on the front lines of climate change. If you are around the Seattle-Bellevue area this Sunday (April 10), you may want to see if there’s still space available to attend the Indigenous Climate Solidarity Forum. The East Shore Unitarian Church is hosting representatives from four tribes [Lummi Nation (WA), Quinault Indian Nation (WA), Northern Cheyenne Nation (MT), and Ft. Bernard Reservation (ND)] who will share how their communities are being impacted by fossil fuels and climate change. They will also offer ways that other community members can join local tribes to curtail the expansion of fossil fuels extraction and transportation in the Pacific Northwest. More info here.

Tarika

This week I listened to a wonderful radio interview with Peggy McIntosh, the Wellesley women’s studies scholar who wrote “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” and David Owen, chair of Philosophy at the University of Louisville. They discussed how the concept of “a good fit” becomes a way for organizations to perpetuate a homogeneous staff, since people who are just like the hiring party can’t help but “fit” the best. “Fit” is a concept found most often in the nonprofit sector, where the majority of workers are women, which explains how the nonprofit sector can have what looks like gender diversity but still struggle with workforce diversity and inclusion in the areas of ethnic and cultural diversity, retaining staff under 30, and having a staff that reflects the composition of the communities the organization serves.

Dan

Back in the day “yuppie condo” was a favorite epithet for gentrification. But these days in Seattle, it’s actually a shortage of condos that is becoming a culprit of gentrification. That’s because when there are no condos to buy, the only other ownership option is single-family houses or townhouses, both of which consume far more urban land per unit than high density condos. Less capacity for people in the city means more unmet demand and higher housing prices, which are the root drivers of gentrification. The condo shortage limits options for first time buyers in particular.

The Daily Journal of Commerce has the rundown showing that the limited inventory of condos in Seattle is getting snatched up fast. The main reasons for the squeeze:

“Thousands of well-paid renters now in expensive apartments could become buyers, and home values have recovered to the point that more empty-nesters are ready to downsize.”

“The challenge with high-rise development is demand can rise much quicker than the supply.”

“Banks prefer to finance apartments over condos, and institutional investors are gobbling them up.”

“Right now, [builders] are going to get sued whether lawsuits are frivolous or meaningful.”

That last reason has the potential to be the most stubborn, long-term bottleneck because the risk of lawsuits enabled by State law scares off would-be condo developers, as discussed in this Puget Sound Business Journal article:

“The Washington Condominium Act has remarkably onerous construction defect laws.”

One might think that that real estate lobby would be powerful enough to fix the State Condo Act, but they are up against a foe that is no pushover: the trial lawyers’ lobby. Stay tuned: reforming the Condo Act is a recommendation in Seattle’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA), and this summer the University of Washington’s Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies will publish an analysis of impacts and remedies.

The Thin Green Line: Victories and Challenges

We need to oppose these projects because it’s a way for us to chart a new course away from fossil fuels. -Eric de Place
Tweet This

Want to catch up with the latest Thin Green Line news but don’t have time to sit down and read our recent articles? Don’t fret! You can listen on the go.

Sightline policy director Eric de Place and research fellow Nick Abraham gave an update on the Thin Green Line on KBOO radio, a community radio station based in Portland. Together, they discuss the victories and challenges that Northwest communities face while resisting fossil fuel development. Listen in.

  • At 1:45, Nick examines the demise of the Jordan Cove LNG project in Coos Bay, Oregon
  • Nick: “The communities that have come up against [the LNG project] in Southern Oregon, along the pipeline route and in the city, have shown unprecedented organization and are really making their voice heard. I think it has probably caught the company off guard and FERC off guard as well. They haven’t seen this type of outcry.” (7:25)
  • 9:30: Eric talks about the two proposed Longview fossil fuel projects: the oil refinery and propane-by-rail facility
  • Eric also explains the unanimous decision to deny the permit for the proposed Longview oil refinery (19:15)
  • “We need to oppose these project because it’s a way for us to chart a new course away from fossil fuels.” -Eric de Place (20:00)
  • At 23:25, Eric and Nick speak on the impacts of the proposed methanol projects in the Northwest
  • 31:12: Eric explains the idea behind the “Thin Green Line” phrase
  • Eric: “If the fossil fuel industry cannot get infrastructure between Coos Bay, Oregon, and Prince Rupert, BC, then [fossil fuels] will stay in the ground.” (31:47)
  • 32:52, “There is not one single [fossil fuel] project that has faced an opposition movement that has been able to proceed so far.” -Eric de Place
  • Eric: “No matter how big and ferocious these projects look, there is no reason to believe that they can’t be beaten. History is showing that they all can be beaten.” (33:00)

Listen to the interview here.

Rep. Ryan Zinke, Coal Export’s Man in Congress

Editor’s note 12/13/2016: President-elect Trump just picked Ryan Zinke to lead the US Department of Interior. It’s hard to imagine a choice more deeply embedded with coal industry interests or hostile to the treaty rights of Northwest tribes. To help shine a light on his record, Sightline is re-posting an examination of Zinke that we originally published on April 6, 2016.

Republican Ryan Zinke, Montana’s sole Representative in the US House, lauds Northwest coal export terminal plans and antagonizes their opponents. He wants the coal ports built posthaste and doesn’t much care about the vocal and broad-based objections to them—especially the supersized Gateway Pacific coal terminal proposed near Bellingham, Washington. But considering the large sums of money Zinke accepts from companies that would directly benefit from building those terminals, his attitude and actions are not surprising. They look very much like another case of pay-to-play politics advancing corporate agendas above public interest.

Tens of thousands in campaign cash from coal and rail interests

Campaign contribution records reveal that some of Zinke’s biggest political donors would directly benefit from the coal export project. So far in the 2016 election cycle, his second largest funder, with $11,700 in donations, is Berkshire Hathaway, the investment firm that owns BNSF Railway, which would haul the coal to the port. (BNSF is one of the most important earnings divisions for Berkshire.) What’s more, over the course his political career, Zinke has also taken an additional $17,700 directly from BNSF Railway.

Zinke’s fifth biggest funder this cycle, with $10,500 in gifts, is Cloud Peak Energy, the financially ailing western coal mining company that owns 49 percent of the Cherry Point coal export terminal project. The firm is so desperate to advance the project that it has agreed to pay up to $30 million toward the project’s permitting costs. Zinke has also taken $4,000 from now-bankrupt Arch Coal, the minority stakeholder in a proposed coal export terminal at Longview, Washington.

Influential House Committee appointments

Not only has Rep. Zinke pushed for speedy construction of coal terminals, but he has also worked to protect the industry’s profits. In 2015, for example, he defended a loophole for coal companies that allows them to avoid royalty payments assessed on export coal by first selling it to a domestic subsidiary. Sightline’s leading analysis of taxpayer losses from coal companies avoiding royalty payments shows that Cloud Peak is among the biggest beneficiaries of the loophole.

Zinke also sits, quite usefully, on two key committees in the US House of Representatives: the Armed Services Committee, which oversees the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Natural Resources Committee, which sets coal mining policy. These positions have enabled him to exert special influence on behalf of the would-be Northwest coal export industry.

Disregard for Lummi Nation treaty rights

In the case of Cherry Point, it remains to be seen whether Rep. Zinke’s political power will be enough. Last month, he publicly lashed out at the Army Corps of Engineers, calling for a federal investigation of Colonel John Buck, the district commander overseeing the environmental review process for the proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal. Zinke was apparently incensed by rumors that the Corps was preparing to halt its review process in response to claims by the Lummi Nation that the project would violate the tribe’s constitutionally protected treaty rights.

But on April 1, the Gateway Pacific backers themselves asked to suspend work on the project’s environmental review process, apparently fearing that the Army Corps would indeed honor the Lummi’s claims and put a stop to the project. Zinke may not recognize that the prospects are dimming for coal exports, but it seems his big financial backers—coal and rail companies—can already see the writing on the wall. And, surely worrying to the first-term Congressman, once-reliable donors to his campaign coffers may soon cough up little more than coal dust.

 

From Montana to the Coast, Coal Dust Threatens Human Health

Update 4/4/16: The Gateway Pacific Terminal project has requested a temporary suspension of the proposal’s environmental review process.

If the coal industry gets its way, the Columbia River Gorge will soon host dozens of loaded coal trains each day, carrying as much as 96 million tons annually to export terminals in Washington. It’s an amount of coal so vast that a year’s worth of the cargo would dwarf even the biggest landscape features in the region and overshadow the tallest structures in nearby Portland, Oregon. We’ve long known that burning coal is harmful to air quality, and now a recent study conducted in the Gorge shows that even just transporting it in the usual way—in uncovered, open-top rail cars—also has serious air quality consequences.

Columbia River Gorge study

The research, led by Daniel Jaffe, professor of atmospheric and environmental chemistry at the University of Washington, measured diesel particulate matter and coal dust released by the coal trains that currently traverse the railways in the Columbia River Gorge. Both particulate matter and coal dust contain toxic, microscopic pollutants harmful to our health.

Jaffe and his colleagues set up monitoring equipment next to a rail line between the towns of Lyle and Dallesport, Washington, and took measurements every 10 seconds of the respirable particulate matter emitted by both ordinary freight trains and coal trains. After measuring emissions from 367 trains over a 2-month period, the scientists found that diesel-powered open-top coal trains emitted twice as much particulate matter as diesel-powered freight trains. Notably, coal dust made up approximately half of the coal train emissions.

To date, few studies have evaluated air quality impacts for people living near rail lines where coal is transported. The Jaffe study, which was published in the journal Atmospheric Pollution Research in November 2015, signals that coal dust emitted in the Columbia River Gorge could cause potentially severe health consequences.

The study’s findings are especially disquieting in light of the fact that two large coal export facilities have been proposed for Longview and Bellingham, Washington. Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point would be the largest coal facility in North America, capable of handling 48 million tons of coal per year. The Millennium Bulk Terminals at Longview plan to export 44 million tons of coal. If the proposals are successful, 17 more loaded open-topped coal trains per day would travel through the Columbia River Gorge. These open-top trains would litter the ground and air with coal dust not only in the Gorge but in each area they travel through on the way to their destination, including Idaho, Spokane County, Eastern Washington, Skagit and Whatcom Counties, Snohomish County, King County, Tacoma and Olympia, and Southwest Washington. (As The Oregonian has pointed out, it’s possible that coal trains would be routed through Oregon as well.)

A massive quantity: Thousands of pounds over hundreds of miles

Coal is transported in uncovered hoppers, open-top rail cars that typically carry 100 to 120 tons of coal apiece. According to BNSF railway testimony before the Surface Transportation Board in 2009, an estimated 645 pounds of coal dust can escape from each rail car over the course of a 400-mile trip. Much of it accumulates on and near the railroad tracks, but wind and stormwater spread coal dust over larger areas of land and water.

Coal trains are inherently dirty, and there doesn’t appear to be a viable fix. In non-peer-reviewed studies conducted by BNSF, the rail company claimed that shaping the coal like a loaf and applying chemical agents called surfactants to the top of the coal results in an 85 percent decrease in coal train dust. That means that even under a rosy scenario in which the coal loads remain somehow undisturbed during transit, the average single train car would still release a full 97 pounds of coal dust during its journey. For a 125-car coal train, that’s 12,125 pounds over just 400 miles.

Even under good conditions, the average 125-car coal train would emit 12,125 pounds of coal dust over just 400 miles of rail travel.
Tweet This

But coal traveling to the proposed Washington terminals would travel a full 1,367 miles by rail, emitting even more coal dust. Nearly all the open-top coal trains observed by the Jaffe study emitted coal dust, even though the trains had already traveled more than 900 miles from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana to the site of the study.

Many factors can impact the hold of surfactant on coal, including high train speeds, wind speed, and rough handling during transport. Powder River Basin coal—the type that is transported through the Pacific Northwest—is particularly susceptible to breaking down, “virtually independent of how the coal is transported or handled,” according to one handbook on coal analysis. In fact, four of the coal trains observed in the course of Jaffe’s study emitted such large, visible plumes of coal dust that the study labeled them “super-dusters.” If super-dusters pass through the Gorge at the same rate over the course of the year, that’s about 24 super-duster trains passing through the region each year.

A toxic quality: Diesel particulate matter and coal dust

The quantity of particulate matter is not the only concern; its composition is also particularly toxic. Consider what coal trains deliver to the rail-side communities they pass through. According to Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a mixture of soot, black carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, metals, acids (such as sulfuric acid), and other toxic substances like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These tiny particles travel deep into the lungs’ alveoli, the smallest compartment of the lungs, where they enter the bloodstream and can contribute to various diseases in the lungs and other organs.

42% of fine particulate matter released by all trains in the Columbia River Gorge was black carbon.
Tweet This

The US Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization identify particulate matter as carcinogenic to humans. Increased levels of particulate matter are associated with many ill health affects, including higher rates of asthma or worsening asthma; increased lung and breast cancer rates; lung, heart, and immune system abnormalities in children; higher rates of heart attacks and strokes; and higher childhood rates of neurodevelopmental disorders. The elderly, pregnant women, children, and people who already have lung diseases such as asthma are at special risk.

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) spews forth from the diesel engines of train locomotives, as well as ships and diesel trucks. A substantial amount of DPM is black carbon, the major component of soot, which absorbs and transports PAHs and other toxic compounds that contribute to heart and lung disease. Previous studies have found that black carbon makes up 45 to 52 percent of fine particulate matter (particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, which are believed to pose the greatest health risks). The Jaffe study found that on average, 42 percent of fine particulate matter released by all trains in the Columbia River Gorge was black carbon.

The data collected by Jaffe and colleagues suggests that fine particulate matter emissions from coal trains are composed of approximately half diesel particulate matter and half coal dust. Coal dust, a powdered form of coal created by mining and transportation activities, introduces additional health concerns. Inhaling coal dust can lead to difficulty breathing, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema. It contains particulate matter including minerals such as silicates, which scar the lungs and reduce oxygen intake. (It’s the same stuff that in enclosed environments like a mine causes black lung disease for an estimated 70 percent of coal miners during their lifetimes.)

Plus, according to the Washington Department of Health’s comment letter on the proposed Gateway Terminal, coal dust contains lead, mercury, and arsenic. Lead and mercury are neurotoxins that affect the nervous system, and arsenic is a carcinogen linked to cancers of many organ systems. These toxins can enter the body through breathing in coal dust or eating food and fish harvested from land and water contaminated by coal dust.

The public’s chance to weigh in

Jaffe’s coal dust study illustrates that the risks from coal dust blowing off trains are real, persistent, and dangerous. Enormous quantities of toxic coal dust and diesel particulate matter would cost communities all along the rail route from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana to the proposed export terminals on the coast at Longview and Bellingham.

This year, residents of the Pacific Northwest will get to see the first drafts of the official environmental reviews for these huge terminals. It’s probably the last best chance for the public to voice their concerns about the proposals and the many ways that coal trains—and the dust they cough up all along their routes—put Northwest communities, land, and water at risk.

 

Weekend Reading 4/1/16

Serena

“It’s like a modern art installation. So fabulous—the people and machines and objects of our lives all working together.” That was Italian consul general Mauro Battocchi speaking about (wait for it…) a recycling facility. The “trash tourism” circuit, with little to no marketing, has apparently taken off, with officials from around the world visiting world-class recyclers in San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and other locales to learn more about “Zero Waste” or “Circular Economy” infrastructure.

Just in case you were feeling optimistic about life because the sun finally came out this week in our lovely Cascadian slice of the continent, here’s a little something to dampen your mood: three recent studies show climate change is happening even faster than we anticipated.

Vox has a helpful explainer on what “cage-free” really means on your egg cartons (spoiler: not much at all… except that your retailer is happy to make big bucks selling them to you).

Keiko

Puget Sound Sage’s executive director Rebecca Saldaña wrote a great piece in the Huffington Post that takes a look at Seattle’s racist housing history and current equitable and sustainable growth strategies in the city. (Shout-out to HALA and Seattle for Everyone!) I was particularly disturbed by this portion of a Broadmoor property deed in 1928 that clearly reveals Seattle’s exclusionary housing legacy:

No part of said property hereby conveyed shall ever be used or occupied by any Hebrew or by any person of the Ethiopian, Malay or any Asiatic Race, and the party of the second part his heirs, personal representatives or assigns, shall never place any such person in the possession or occupancy of said property…excepting only employeees(sic) in the domestic service on the premises of persons qualified hereunder as occupants and users and residing on the premises.

Speaking of creating inclusive neighborhoods… new research confirms that your childhood neighborhood is a major determinant of your economic success later in life. In fact, the effects of your neighborhood may play a much larger role in your success than it has ever been understood before. City Observatory recently used this research to prove why mixed-income neighborhoods matter.

Flint isn’t Michigan’s only disaster. Environmental racism is taking black lives in Detroit (and everywhere in America). This Newsweek piece is a must read.

Don’t miss environmental author and activist Bill McKibben speak at Seattle Town Hall this Monday, April 4th. He will offer an update from the global frontlines, touch on the Exxon scandal, and explain how you can join the fossil fuel resistance. You can even join for a special Ales and Appetizers reception with Bill before the talk! Get your tickets here.

Louis

One thing that drives me crazy is our reliance on plastic products, which feeds our addiction for petroleum since plastics are synthesized from these hydrocarbons and need to burn hydrocarbons to produce them. There are some alternatives out there. Ecovative, a firm located on the East Coast, takes mycelium (remember that term from high school biology?) and combines it with agricultural waste to make mushroom-based materials such as particleboard, plywood, fiberboard, Styrofoam replacement, and more. They are free of harmful resins such as carcinogenic urea-formaldehyde and can achieve fire resistance without added chemicals. So not only do fungi include the world’s largest organism, but perhaps they can break our dependency on petroleum products. If only we could make items to wrap and store food not made from plastic.

John

In our post a few years ago on Is Meat Sustainable? we reported on Allan Savory’s advocacy of “holistic grazing management,” along with an acknowledgement that his approach has some critics. I recently ran across some material offering different opinions on meat and the environment. The Guardian contains a point-counterpoint on the topic from commentators George Monbiot (critical) and L. Hunter Lovins (supportive). Along with her arguments Lovins provides links to professional papers that back up Savory’s approach.

A recent Grist article reported on a study finding that cutting projected world meat consumption in half would have positive effects in reducing greenhouse gases and reduce human diseases as well. But the same article also linked to an earlier Grist piece that described real efforts to raise more sustainable meat. I hope this collection of reads may be useful to those who wish to explore both sides of the question.

 

John Abbotts is a former Sightline research consultant and Louis Poncz is a Sightline volunteer; both occasionally submit material to Weekend Reading.

Yes, Your Couch Is Probably Toxic

For the first time in four decades, non-toxic, fire-safe couches are widely available throughout North America. In response to tireless advocacy and in spite of a campaign of chicanery orchestrated by the chemical industry, recent code changes transformed how upholstered furniture is made and sold in California, in Cascadia, and beyond.

How Big Chem bullied us into this toxic mess

Starting in 1975, Big Chem held California hostage to an ineffective and dangerous flammability standard that compelled furniture manufacturers to blend toxic flame retardants into their products. Because California’s market share is so big, the rest of the continent was dragged along into these wrongheaded rules. The flammability standard applied to the foam in couch cushions and other furnishings, as well as foam-padded child-rearing equipment like crib mattresses, nursing pillows, and strollers. In short, if you bought a product with foam manufactured in North America in the last 40 years, your upholstered purchase was almost certainly poisoned.

The label from the bottom of the author's couch, credit Lisa Terrell, used with permission

The label from the bottom of the author’s couch, by Lisa Terrell (used with permission).

And this poison had no upside. Firefighters and fire safety experts know that blending flame retardants into foam actually creates deadlier fires, accelerating the progression of flames in real-world fires and making a fire’s smoke more deadly. Scientists and public health advocates know that flame retardants can make living things infertile, impotent, stunted, overweight, diabetic, malformed, sickly, mutated, cancerous, or even dead. And manufacturers know that poisoning their customers is bad business, and blending flame retardants into foam is expensive, burdensome, and often requires duplicative testing.

But despite an impressive coalition of firefighters, nurses, public health officials, environmentalists, and toxicologists, reforming the old flammability standard seemed Sisyphean. Repeated attempts to curtail toxic flame retardants in furniture foam failed.

If you bought a product with foam manufactured in North America in the last 40 years, your upholstered purchase was almost certainly poisoned.
Tweet This

The reason? Profit. Four chemical companies dominated the flame retardant market for furniture foam sold in North America. Replacing the feckless flammability standard would decimate their billion-dollar boondoggle. Thus, Big Chem created phony grassroots front groups, produced stunningly deceptive expert testimony, lined the pockets of lawmakers, and, in a last-ditch effort, even sued to defend its bottom line.

In 2013, though, California Governor Jerry Brown tossed out his state’s outdated, scientifically discredited flammability standard in favor of a common sense, non-toxic alternative based on sound fire science. (Interestingly, he had signed the old standard into law during his first stint as governor.) Most manufacturers say they can comply with the new standard without adding flame retardants to furniture foam, though the regulations do not ban their use. In 2014, Gov. Brown passed a law requiring furniture manufacturers to label consumer products containing flame-retardant chemicals. On January 1, 2015, both laws went into effect.

Consumer and commercial money talked, manufacturers listened

Led by Kaiser Permanente, the healthcare industry pushed the market to adopt these changes more quickly than they would have otherwise. Backed up by $50 million of furniture purchases each year, Kaiser and other healthcare systems announced that by 2016, they would not buy furniture treated with flame retardants. By the end of 2014, companies spending more than $520 million annually on furniture signed the Center for Environmental Health’s Purchaser’s Pledge to preferentially purchase furniture made without flame retardants.

With consumer and commercial demand indicating a large and growing market for flame-retardant-free furniture, companies including Crate and Barrel, Room & Board, Williams-Sonoma (Pottery Barn, West Elm), IKEA, La-Z-Boy, The Futon Shop, Scandinavian Designs, and Wal-Mart quickly announced they would sell non-toxic, fire-safe furniture. Ashley Furniture, the nation’s largest furniture retailer, announced it would eliminate flame retardants from its furniture lines in March 2015.

How you can find a toxic-free couch

In the market for a new couch? The Green Science Policy Institute has compiled a list of manufacturers that sell retardant-free furniture, though this list is not comprehensive. And Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) produced an easy-to-follow guide for consumers.

First, find the flammability label attached to the furniture. It’s usually located underneath the furniture or under the cushions:

Where to find the flammability label, by NRDC, used with permission.

Where to find the flammability label, by NRDC. (Used with permission.)

You may see three different kinds of labels. Your best bet explicitly states that the furniture complies with Technical Bulletin 117-2013 and contains no added flame retardants:

Non-toxic, fire-safe couch label. Credit NRDC, used with permission.

Non-toxic, fire-safe couch label, by NRDC. (Used with permission.)

But be aware that some manufacturers may still carry products that comply with the old flammability standard. In fact, a recent Washington Toxics Coalition survey found that nearly half of all sofas on the market contain or likely contain flame retardants. If you see this label, it is almost certainly toxic:

Toxic couch label. Credit NRDC, used with permission.

Toxic couch label, by NRDC. (Used with permission.)

Finally, products with labels with “Technical Bulletin 117-2013” or “TB117-2013” may or may not contain flame retardant chemicals. Ask the store staff, or check with the manufacturer.

Ask questions re toxicity label. Credit NRDC, used with permission.

Ask questions re toxicity label, by NRDC. (Used with permission.)

Of course, you also might be wondering, “What do I do with my old couch?” You don’t want to create a “hand-me-down hazard,” as this Environmental Health Perspectives article sharply observes. So where Sightline would usually be all for reusing and recycling, the answer here is that our old, toxic furniture should go to the landfill, not to the second-hand store. Ideally, it would go to a hazardous waste facility. Unfortunately, these couches’ end-of-life questions are far from resolved, but meanwhile, we should not send these toxics downstream to others of us who simply can’t afford new furniture.

A new day for all our derrières

Having dogged this issue for years now, I am thrilled to see us turning a corner on a rule that was outdated, unscientific, and flat-out dangerous to our families and public health. Thanks to tireless research, organizing, and advocacy by a broad coalition of experts, officials, and concerned community members, I now have hope that by the time my new daughter is furnishing her first apartment with second-hand goods, she will be able to choose from a variety of fire-safe and non-toxic furniture.

 

Valerie Pacino is a recovering couch potato, who first became interested in California’s furniture flammability standard as a Sightline intern and a Master of Public Health student at the University of Washington.

Public Comment Period for Tesoro’s Anacortes Xylene Facility Closes April 15

Here’s the latest in a string of petrochemical developments across the Northwest: the oil company Tesoro plans to spend $400 million upgrading its Anacortes refinery to add a xylene extraction facility that could pose serious environmental risks to the Salish Sea. The public has a limited opportunity to weigh in—from right now until April 15.

A lesser-known liquid petrochemical, xylene, is the principal chemical precursor in the production of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is used for making plastic bottles, polyester fibers, food packaging, paint, rubber, solvents, and other products. It is created from a partially refined crude oil product called reformate that is often produced from light oil, such as Bakken shale oil, which yields particularly high levels of petroleum naphtha. The facility would be capable of producing 15,000 barrels of xylene per day for export, primarily to Asia, representing roughly a 9 percent increase in total US xylene production.

Xylene is also dangerous to public health. Short-term exposure to xylene is known to cause difficulty breathing, impaired memory, and delayed response to visual stimulus, among other issues. At very high levels of short-term exposure, people have died. Long-term exposure can lead to depression, insomnia, tremors, and worse.

Xylene production also creates yet another spill risk for the Salish Sea, and xylene tanker mishaps have caused tremendous damage in the past, such as the 2007 spill on the Mississippi River. The Tesoro expansion would add up to five tankers per month navigating Fidalgo Bay and the surroundings water of the Salish Sea.

Right now, Skagit County officials are deciding how they will review the project. Will they take a broad or narrow view of the chemicals potential impacts? Will they consider offsite risks or the compounding dangers of petrochemical developments nearby? These and other questions are yet to be answered.

The public only has until April 15th to weigh in. You can submit comments here.

Looking for more resources?

  • Skagit County, the lead agency conducting an environmental review of the project, has published key background material.
  • Sightline has examined the checkered past of Tesoro in a hard-hitting report on the firm’s track record, The Dirt on Tesoro.

Submit your comment now

Special thanks to Tom Glade at Evergreen Islands for bird-dogging the project and providing many of the materials that made this article possible.

Weekend Reading 3/25/16

Margaret

A friend of mine has just been priced out of her long-time apartment in Capitol Hill. After close to a decade in the neighborhood, this year’s rent hike was too much for the family budget. She’ll be moving to Lake Forest Park in a few weeks, taking on a longer commute, which will leave her less time to spend with her family.

Last week Dupre+Scott, a local research team focused on apartment and housing issues in Puget Sound, made a presentation to Seattle’s City Council. The duo parsed out the region’s housing trends behind this all-too-common story. Their presentation slides, available here, are info-packed graphics that put Seattle’s housing crunch in perspective, both historically and geographically. One slide showed that rent hikes across Puget Sound last year were among the highest of the last 25 years.

Much of their presentation centered on a remedy to the housing squeeze: focused growth in Seattle’s housing stock over the next four years. Most interesting to me: the region’s two previous building booms, in the late 60s and late 80s, both surpassed existing plans for new building, when adjusted for the size of the economy during each period.

Capitol Hill, you are losing a great community member. Let’s hope this new housing push will keep you from losing many more.

Kristin

Happy people aren’t blind to bad things; they are attuned to good things.

I liked these behavioral science tips for eating better.

And these tips for surviving and thriving in midlife.

Why should people in Rutland, Vermont get four times as much taxpayer money as people next door in Washington County, NY? Because the US Senate is one of the most undemocratic institutions in the world. The Senate gives disproportionate power to people in small states, and they gleefully wield that power to take a disproportionate share of taxpayer money and to unfairly block policies that the majority of Americans want.

Is the 2016 presidential election season getting you down? It’s not just you: America’s two-party system is less democratic, and our mental health is worse, than countries with more effective, more representative, multi-party systems.

Tarika

The Harvard Business Review published findings this week indicating that white women and people of color are penalized for promoting diversity within their organizations. Authors Stefanie Johnson and David Hekman surveyed 350 executives on “diversity-valuing behaviors” including whether they respected cultural, religious, gender, and racial differences; valued working with a diverse group of people; and felt comfortable managing people from different racial or cultural backgrounds. Johnson and Hekman found that “[white] women and nonwhite executives who were reported as frequently engaging in [diversity-valuing] behaviors were rated much worse by their bosses, in terms of competence and performance ratings, than their female and nonwhite counterparts who did not actively promote balance.” Further, they found that “white and male executives aren’t rewarded, career-wise, for engaging in diversity-valuing behavior, and nonwhite and female executives actually get punished for it.” Johnson and Hekman then asked 307 working adults to review a hiring decision made by a fictitious manager, and showed them a picture of the manager. The participants rated nonwhite managers and white female managers as less effective if they hired a nonwhite or white female job candidate instead of a white male candidate. The participants also judged a manager harshly if they hired someone who looked like them, except for when white male managers hired another white male.

Another Harvard study confirmed this week what some scientists have been saying for years: that natural gas infrastructure is leaking massive amounts of methane into the air, increasing the impact of global warming by actually trapping heat in the atmosphere much more efficiently than CO2. The data, collected by both satellite and ground observations, shows that US methane emissions increased by more than 30 percent between 2002 and 2014, “accounting for 30 to 60 percent of an enormous spike in methane in the entire planet’s atmosphere.” Bill McKibben summarizes the findings in an article for The Nation, explaining why natural gas is merely a clean energy illusion. The facts show that if natural gas is the “bridge fuel” to a sustainable energy future, then it is a bridge to nowhere.

Serena

The New Yorker’s Comma Queen discusses gender-neutral pronouns and how to use them, her bottom line being, “I think you should call people what they want to be called… period.”

The Atlantic is taking a new strategic tack in addressing controversial issues like climate change, gun violence, and immigration: asking more questions.

Too Soon to Celebrate the Demise of Jordan Cove LNG

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on Oil Check Northwest. It it reprinted here with permission.

Earlier this month, in a decision that caught everyone from activists to the Governor’s office by surprise, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected plans to build a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal, known as Jordan Cove, in Coos Bay, Oregon. The project also would build a pipeline cutting across more than half the state.

“Because the record does not support a finding that the public benefits of the Pacific Connector Pipeline outweigh the adverse effects on landowners, we deny Pacific Connector’s request…to construct and operate the pipeline,” the FERC order read. FERC’s permit denial meant that project backers—Veresen, Inc., a Canadian energy company, and pipeline operator, the Williams Partners—would not be able to begin construction of the Jordan Cove Energy Project.

FERC’s judgment was heralded as a long-awaited victory by those who have been fighting the project for more than a decade. Lost in the headlines, however, was its window for the project still to be built.

Opposition to Jordan Cove LNG

Leading up to FERC’s decision, it had not been an easy road for Jordan Cove. Its two backing companies failed to negotiate deals with 90% of residents along the 232-mile pipeline path and would likely have relied heavily on federal eminent domain law. This practice of seizing private land (and compensating owners accordingly) for a project deemed in the public interest is a controversial legal tool, and one that is especially reviled in rural Oregon.

Residents of Coos Bay and the surrounding region also raised serious concerns. The small city would see up to two massive oceangoing vessels per week carrying LNG to Asia, raising the risk of spills and increasing traffic for the trade dependent region. Jordan Cove would be Oregon’s single largest source of pollution, fostering both local and global concerns. Furthermore, natural gas pipeline leaks recently have become a terrifying prospect for many after California’s Porter Ranch disaster. Outside Los Angeles, a well couldn’t be capped for 4 months, and after locals became sick in droves, all 11,000 residents of nearby Porter Ranch had to be evacuated.

The decision against Jordan Cove was an important  victory, but developments this week show that project backer Veresen is gearing up for another fight.

How the project has already come crawling back

Jordan Cove’s LNG would be shipped entirely to Asia, where demand has been notoriously volatile. FERC’s decision made it clear that because demand for LNG in places like China, Japan, and Korea has been so unstable, the project’s viability was in question. FERC made it clear that demand for LNG wasn’t strong enough, and therefore, the project’s benefits did not outweigh impacts to landowners and the environment.

But FERC left Veresen a chance to reapply for permits if the company could prove significant demand for LNG. Unfortunately for concerned Oregonians, that’s exactly what happened this week.

On Tuesday, March 22, Japan-based Jera Co., Inc., signed an agreement with Veresen to purchase 1.5 million of the facility’s estimated 6 million tons of annual LNG capacity. While details of the proposal are still being finalized, this announcement puts Jordan Cove right back into the mix.

Big hurdles remain. Oregonians still have the same concerns, and opposition against the project and pipeline remain fierce. Backers will have to undergo what is likely to be a contentious permitting process, and FERC still could deny the project based on previously cited concerns. Veresen will also likely seek more agreements to solidify its position that the project is financially viable, but the deal with Jera alone gives this project new life.

In short, we have to rewrite some headlines: Jordan Cove is anything but dead.

Learn more about the Jordan Cove export project.