There are lessons for other sectors of the economy in the Wall Street chaos. For example, commonsense regulations reduce risk and protect the public. But the chemical industry today resembles nothing more than Lehman Bros. circa 1999.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, industry titans such as Dow and DuPont have lobbied against requirements that they use safer chemicals at 7,000 high-risk chemical plants identified by the Department of Homeland Security. These facilities use and store highly toxic, chemicals such as chlorine gas. A terrorist attack or accident at one of them could form a toxic cloud that could endanger people up to 25 miles away. The EPA has identified 100 plants that each put one million or more people at risk.

Based on Homeland Security risk models, a disaster at one chemical facility could also inflict as much as $100 billion in economic damages, crippling the company and the local economy for years.

These risks are, however, avoidable - through simple, inexpensive regulations requiring companies to replace dangerous chemicals with relatively harmless agents that serve the same functions, such as liquid bleach, ozone and ultraviolet light.

Chemical facilities have demonstrated how quickly and cheaply they can make the transition to these alternatives. On 9/11, the manager of Washington's water-treatment plant spent a sleepless night worrying about seven 90-ton rail cars full of chlorine gas stored near the
Pentagon. Within 90 days, the plant converted to bleach.

Since 2001, more than 220 chemical facilities have voluntarily converted to safer processes. More than 85 percent reported doing so for less than $1 million per plant. A third expect to save money.

At this rate, though, it will take more than 70 years for voluntary conversions of the more than 3,000 plants that threaten a large population.

But instead of fast-tracking such improvements, Congress, in 2006, caved in to pressure from chemical-industry lobbyists, passing an "interim" law that actually prohibits the government from requiring safer chemicals or processes. The law expires on October 4, 2009 and the chemical lobby is pushing Congress to make it permanent.

The balance of power on the issue may be changing, though. The Association of American Railroads, representing the companies required to transport these volatile chemicals, recently broke with the chemical industry, calling on it to "stop manufacturing dangerous chemicals when safer substitutes are available." They added that if the companies didn't act, Congress should pass a tougher law.

Although the railroads are legally required to accept hazardous cargo, they're also financially liable in the event of a catastrophic release. Partly due to the railroads' clout, Congress is slowly starting to address the threat. In March, the House Homeland Security Committee adopted legislation (H.R. 5577) to correct flaws in the "interim" statute.

But the new bill has languished since then with no action in the Senate. Opponents, including Senator McCain (R-AZ), in the Senate say the House standards would result in excessive "paperwork." Those are the same words the chemical lobby used in their testimony before Congress.

It's still not too late for Congress to redeem itself if they return to Washington after the election. If they wait until next year they will only have nine months to send a truly protective law to the White House.

Yesterday we were listening closely to Apple's announcement of their new MacBook line up - Steve definitely put a lot of emphasis on the green elements of the new MacBooks - reduced toxics, more energy efficient, less packaging. All good news, but in our campaign for greener electronics we were looking for the new MacBooks to be the first computers completely free of toxic PVC plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs).

A check of the full specs revealed the MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air - as well as the LED Cinema Display will now have internal cables free of PVC and will have internal components containing no BFRs. Not quite the breakthrough we were hoping for. These new MacBooks are currently on a similar level of toxics reduction to the Sony Viao laptop series on PVC, and the Lenovo Think Vision in monitors. The BFR free internal components represent an improvement from the bar set by the Vaio line.

However while most, including us, were examining the specs of the new MacBooks, Steve released a long awaited (but much less hyped) update to his May 07 Greener Apple statement made in response to our successful GreenmyApple campaign. It makes very interesting reading, here are the highlights:

On the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) suspended their presidential campaigns for a day and came together at ground zero in New York City to honor 9/11 victims and their families.  Is it possible to keep that cooperation alive?  What if they decided to work together in the Senate this fall to complete some unfinished 9/11 business from the last Congress?

In 2006 Congress passed a temporary law to set minimum-security standards for U.S. chemical plants.  Unfortunately it was ghost written by industry lobbyists and it actually prohibits the government from requiring the most ironclad security measures.  It also expires on October 4, 2009 which will give Congress little time in 2009 to pass any law, let alone one that protects us.
 
Cities that surround chemical plants have long been recognized as one of the nation's most vulnerable populations to terrorism and catastrophic accidents.  The Department of Homeland Security has identified 3,400 chemical plants that if attacked would each put neighboring communities of 1,000 or more at risk.  For example, one plant in New Jersey, the Kuehne chemical plant (see disaster map) puts 12 million people at risk due to its use of chlorine gas. According to the company’s own reports to the EPA, the disaster zone extends 14 miles, beyond ground zero in Manhattan.

Former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) told CBS’s 60 Minutes, “the threat is just staring us in the face.  I mean, all you’d have to do is to have a major chemical facility in a major metropolitan area go up and there’d be hell to pay politically.”

All that is protecting these plants today are security guards, video cameras, and fences. Instead of relying on guards and fences, we need to change what makes a chemical plant an attractive terrorist target.

Fortunately, many safer chemicals and processes are available that can turn these plants into safer places that would be pointless for a terrorist to attack. One example is a Canadian company, that’s in the very same business as Kuehne, which plans to open several new U.S. plants.  For more information: http://www.k2pure.com/news/28/23/

Safer chemical plants shouldn't be optional they should be the norm just like safer airplanes. But the chemical industry likes the temporary law because it actually bars the government from requiring safer chemicals or processes, in other words it eliminates their strongest competitors.  In addition, this law explicitly exempts thousands of chemical facilities including approximately 3,000 water treatment plants, many of which use deadly chlorine gas.

As you might expect the chemical industry wants Congress to do nothing this year and just renew the weak law NEXT year. That won’t make anyone safer but it will make the loopholes permanent.  In May we released a report showing that the chemical industry and allies fielded at least 238 registered lobbyists on Capitol Hill to keep the weak law weak.

So far this year only one Committee in Congress has taken action.  On March 6th, the House Homeland Security Committee adopted the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008” (H.R. 5577) in a bi-partisan vote. Their bill addressed all the flaws in the temporary law. Unfortunately it has been stalled since June due to a dispute with the House Energy and Commerce Committee (see Greenpeace letter to Speaker Pelosi) over which government agency should regulate drinking water facilities.

In the U.S. Senate no legislation has moved. This is the perfect opportunity for Senators Obama and McCain to join together and break the logjam of special interests and infighting that’s preventing the safeguarding of millions of Americans.

Will they get together again? Stranger things have happened...this year. The cynics will say Congress doesn’t have enough time this year but they’re making time for the oil companies who want to expand their off-shore drilling leases. But if Congress does fail to take action, leaders in Congress and our presidential candidates should promise to put this on their agenda to pass in the first 100 days of the 111th Congress.  That's not as good as passing truly protective legislation now but it might give us another reason to vote this year.

Take Action

-- Rick Hind

Yesterday Steve Jobs announced Apple new iPod line up. Here’s the bit that really got our attention about the new models:

• Arsenic-free glass
• Brominated flame retardant-free
• Mercury-free
• PVC-free

It’s great to see Apple dropping toxic chemicals like PVC, BFRs and mercury in their latest products and a victory for everyone who supported our Green my Apple campaign. In May 2007 Steve Jobs stated that Apple would improve it’s environmental record by removing toxic chemicals by the end of 2008 and boosting recycling by 2010.

While these iPods may rock what would really shake up the computer industry is if Apple sticks to it’s promise and becomes the first company to make personal computers free of toxic PVC and BFR’s. That would be truly groundbreaking announcement.

To get a bit techie for a sec – it’s simpler to make small devices like phones, iPods etc without PVC and brominated flame retardants because they use less power (so generate less heat) and have few components. That’s why Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Samsung have phones already free of these toxic chemicals but no company has yet cracked it for computers.

Now what we’d really like for Christmas is to see Apple remove toxic chemicals from all it’s products, and announce a free, global recycling scheme. That would make a very tasty green Apple.

We’re also keeping up the pressure on all the major electronic companies to remove toxic chemicals, improve recycling and be more climate friendly with our quarterly Guide to Greener Electronics. With several companies having committed to significant improvements at the end of 2008 or in 2009 it should be an interesting few months for green electronics.

In an exciting victory for children in the United States, President Bush signed into law national product-safety legislation that will ban certain chemicals from being used when producing toys. The new law ensures that toys and child-care products are free of brain-damaging materials like lead, and several types of phthalates, a chemical used to soften plastic that has been linked to hormonal problems in children.

Last month, this legislation passed in Congress. I am impressed that Congress was able to do the right thing and protect our children, even in the face of some very heavy lobbying against these new safety regulations by ExxonMobil who manufactures phthalates.

If you are a parent concerned about toxics in your children’s toys – there is a website you can check out for product safety guides --  www.HealthyToys.org

--Michelle

 

Last week I called out Apple on the lack of any environmental information on the new iPhone 3G. Pre-launch publicity and specs for the new MacBook Air and iMac included information on how Apple was making progress on eliminating the worst toxic chemicals by the end of 2008. There was none of this for the iPhone, but last night I noticed a late addition to the iPhone tech specs:

iPhone 3G embodies Apple's continuing environmental progress. It is designed with the following features to reduce environmental impact:

- PVC-free handset
- PVC-free headphones
- PVC-free USB cable
- Bromine-free printed circuit boards
- Mercury-free LCD display
- Majority of packaging made from post-consumer recycled fiberboard and biobased materials
- Power adapter outperforms strictest global energy efficiency standards

On Friday, Apple unleashes its latest in wireless communications—the new iPhone 3G. I have seen pictures of people already lining up outside of electronic stores around the world waiting anxiously to be one of the first owners of this new phone.

I’m the first to admit that I’m not a technology junky. I only caved and got my first cell phone last fall. So, I won’t be one of those iPhone fans camping out with tents and food supplies for the new phone (that I probably wouldn’t know how to use in the first place).

Among all the hype about this new phone—it’s half the price and about twice as fast as the original iPhone—I haven’t seen any mention of the iPhone being any greener!

The first generation iPhone contained toxic chemicals that competitors like Nokia and Sony Ericsson have already removed from their new phones. What gives?

After the successful Greenpeace campaign, GreenmyApple, Steve Jobs promised all Apple products would be free of toxic PVC plastic and Brominated Flame Retardants.

While Apple has been making progress towards this goal by using less toxic chemicals in the latest MacBook Air and iMac, I haven’t seen any improvements in the iPhone. If engineers can figure out how to get wireless internet access and a touchpad screen on a tiny phone, I’m pretty sure they can figure out how to strip it of toxic chemicals and make it safer for users and the environment.

But, maybe the new iPhone is greener, and Apple is just keeping that information under the radar. I hope that’s the case. If so, I just might support the revolution and buy one for myself. If you read or hear anything about this—let me know!

If that’s not the case, I hope Apple can become greener sooner than later. So many people buy their products and it’d be awesome if Apple could become the first electronic company to completely eliminate PVC and BFRs. That's the sort of revolution that's needed.

--Michelle 

In Washington, you never know who you might run in to, including the rich and powerful. On my way home from work recently, I stopped at Olsson's Books to return some DVD rentals. I was immediately struck by the long lines at the registers.  The last time I'd seen such a crowd was for a book signing by Kristen Breitweiser.  Kristen is one of the 9/11 widows who fought for the 9/11 Commission report. Her book, Wake-Up Call, is a moving account of the loss of her husband at the World Trade Center and how she became a leading voice for holding our leaders accountable.  She has also joined Greenpeace in urging Congress to require U.S. chemical plants to convert to safer chemicals and processes to prevent them from becoming targets of terrorism.

As I scanned the crowd, one face jumped out at me, Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Homeland Security Department. He was waiting on line with an armful of books. The reason for the crowd was more mundane, a 50%-off-everything sale because the store is about to close.

My mind raced, what would Kristen Breitweiser do? I looked in my book bag and found a copy of a June 10th letter from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to Congress.  The letter was in opposition to chemical security legislation (H.R. 5577) adopted by the Homeland Security Committee in March. The DHS letter also mirrored the chemical industry's lobbying agenda.

Knowing Chertoff had been criticized for a lack of accountability in the wake of the devastation of New Orleans after Katrina, I decided to appeal to his self-professed independence. After he completed his purchases I introduced myself and showed him the letter and asked him to reconsider his opposition to this critical legislation.

As Chertoff looked at the letter he clearly recognized it as well as the difficulty in defending it.  He abruptly said, "if you want to talk to me, you'll have to go through channels...I don't do DRIVE-BYS." I could see why he’d want to avoid a public debate about his position but comparing my question to a "drive-by," especially in D.C., was way out of proportion.  So I said, "Sorry but as a taxpayer I'm concerned about the millions of Americans at risk from poison gas release due to a terrorist attack or accident at any one of 100 U.S. chemical plants."  He then seemed to realize he may have over reacted and said, "what's holding up the legislation is not me but a rivalry between two congressional Committees" and then he walked away.

However passing the buck is not a sufficient answer. At a June 12th hearing, the House Environment and Hazardous Materials (EHM) Subcommittee grilled Chertoff's DHS for failing to provide the Committee with requested input on legislation. Meanwhile the DHS had already sent their June 10th letter to a different Committee embracing the chemical industry's legislative agenda. Both Committees see through this divide and conquer tactic. The EHM Subcommittee expects to move legislation in July.  Greenpeace and a broad coalition of labor, public interest and environmental groups are pushing to get the legislation to the House floor as soon as possible.

On June 17th Polico ran an excellent summary of the situation at:
www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11123.html

-- Rick Hind 

I'm extremely pumped because Congress is having a hearing on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008.  I’ve been an intern on the Toxics campaign at Greenpeace for the last 8 months, but this chemical security bill has been in the making for almost 8 years.  Since 9/11 when chemical facilities went from being considered not only toxic polluters, but also a homeland security threat.  

This is because certain toxic by inhalation (TIH) chemicals, like chlorine gas and anhydrous ammonia, are stored at chemical facilities in bulk quantities (we’re talking 90 ton railcars) with extremely limited and vulnerable security, like chain link fences and cameras.  

These facilities are sometimes located right next to neighborhoods and major cities (google earth is a great tool!).  There are at least 100 chemical plants that would put over a million people at risk if there is an accident or terrorist attack involving a poison gas leak!  That’s like 100 potential Bhopals…  

As you can imagine, I've become sort of paranoid since I started learning about all this stuff.  You’ll see me on the metro, hands pressed against the glass, nose at the window, ogling the rail-cars running alongside the tracks for the chlorine gas label.  

But we aren’t all doom and gloom here at Greenpeace.  The good thing about chemical facility security is that safer alternative chemicals do exist and are used by some companies.  This is actually a preventable and quite solvable homeland security problem.  As it is now written, the bill to be discussed at the hearing tomorrow by an Energy and Commerce subcommittee would require high risk facilities to assess and implement safer chemicals as a way to improve plant security. 

This provision is supported by the labor unions, the railroad industry and environmental organizations.  Not surprisingly, the majority of the chemical industry is opposed to safer technology.  Both sides have been lobbying Congress for years on this issue, and so far the industry has had their way with weak bills and no permanent legislation.    

So the hearing should be pretty exciting!  The witnesses who will share testimony include a well-known lobbyist from the American Chemistry Council, a front group for major chemical producers such as DuPont and Dow, and a homeland security expert from the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank.  The information they share will hopefully persuade members of the committee to keep the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008 alive and strong so it can keep moving to the House floor.    

I was. I seriously was born on a bayou. Bayou Teche. My whole family is from three small towns in southern Louisiana. Lafayette, Broussard, and New Iberia. So when Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita through our entire nation into a tailspin of heartbreak and anger, I was particularly emotional. Luck was with my family that August because neither storm did much damage to my family's homes but instead nestled either side of my hometowns.

My little family, who has resided in Southern Florida, (a hurricane mecca in its own right) since 1987 and travel frequently to Acadiana (that's what the Cajun's call southern Louisiana). For Thanksgiving of 2006, we visited a cousin stationed in the National Guard in New Orleans. And I traveled the Ninth Ward with a dear of friend of many Greenpeace staff. Shylia Lewis. In 2004 we helped her build a Habitat for Humanity home for her family that was toxic free. You can read her Greenpeace story here. The Habitat houses on her block had the least amount of damage of all and Shylia said it was because those homes were built with love. I'm no sap even if it is Valentines Day, but I think she's on to something.

The reason I want to talk about the Gulf Coast today is because (1) communities and families are still recovering and they need our help and (2) the toxic contamination from these horrific storms has been outrageous and not widely covered, in fact covered up.

An article came out today from the CDC in Atlanta that discusses the toxic fumes Hurricane Katrina and Rita victims have been living in since 2005. There has been high levels (five times as much as in modern homes) of formaldehyde found in the trailors that FEMA gave to a large amount of Gulf Coast families. CDC announced that FEMA (you know the kids who refused to take any responsibility for the lack of humanity shown from governmental agencies after the hurricane) should move people out of those trailors immediately for fear of respiratory problems.

After complaining of headaches and nosebleeds and asking repeatedly to be moved out of the trailors, families finally talked to some lawyers and demanded that the trailors be checked out to see what could be causing their health concerns. CDC found it. Extremely high levels of toxic fumes.  

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has listed formaldehyde as a carcinogen and the EPA has listed it as a probable carcinogen.  

Read the CNN story.  

------------------------------------------------ 

Greenpeace isn't the only group that has worked on building toxic free homes on the Gulf Coast.

Unity Homes is still helping people live toxic free.  

Habitat for Humanity is in dire need of volunteers.  

And don't forget Jazz Festival is approaching!!  

Happy late Mardi Gras!

Renee  

 

Hello,

I'm very sorry I haven't updated my blog recently. I know how many of you check up on my  blog posting each morning. ha. 

So, I think I mentioned around thanksgiving that my good friend Liz is having a baby. She is due in two weeks!  Kind of exciting, a little scary, and making all my friends more interested in creating a toxic fee world.

Liz brings her own bags to the grocery store and she now uses a sigg bottle for her water. I gave a hard time for drinking out of plastic bottles the last time I was there. At first she just thought I was being an alarmist, but I kept sending her articles on the subject and she realized that I'm not the only one getting rid of them. Hey, I've known her since I was 14, I'm suppose to do stuff like that.

Work Group for Safe Markets recently released a study called Baby's Toxic Bottle. A little scary sounding I have to admit, but its based on the same reason I pushed Liz to get rid of the plastic water bottles. Bisphenol A. 

It's in disposable water bottles and now there is proof that it is in baby bottles. Not good for Liz junior. (actually his name is William, but I'll use Liz jr for now - I mean that's what he is)

With all this evidence that bisphenol A is an endocrine disruptor and biaccumulates in the body, many environmentalists and social justice advocates are calling for an immediate moratorium on the use of bisphenol A in baby bottles and other food and beverage containers. One of the biggest issues with this chemical is that is in hard polycarbonate plastics (nalgeens and baby bottles) and leaches when the bottle is heated up. So, when you leave your water bottle in the car while you go grocery shopping on Saturday afternoon and the sun warms it up or when new parents heat up formula in a heat bath on the stove in the baby bottle whoever drinks out of it gets a dose of Bisphenol A. Not exactly what you want to be feeding your newborn. But it turns out around 95% of baby bottles contain it. Bisphenol A was first designed as synthetic estrogen and then was later polymerized to produce polycarbonate. A synthetic hormone that was chemically treated to make baby bottles? Really?

You can read the report here. It also lists things that you can do to help and background information if you would like to know more.  

alright, i'm finished now. Its freezing in washington dc and I need some soup. minus the bisphenol A, I hope.

 

All the best,

Renee  

 

 

 

 

Not even a year ago, Steve Jobs said we were making a big fuss over a whole lot of nothing. Since then, he has posted his environmental commitment on the Apple website and on Tuesday for the first time in Apple history he discussed the environment in Macworld's keynote address.

He did it, not because he is a fan of Greenpeace, but because he was moved by the actions of people who want greener electronics. Greenpeace gave Apple consumers the tools to voice their concerns, to get creative, and to make a statement. And the proof of success was in that speech.

There is only one thing not quite right. He announced a super cool new laptop, but it isn't as green as it could be. Yes, it does have less of the toxins PVC and BFR, but Steve Jobs could have really revolutionized the industry on Tuesday. He could have announced a toxic free super cool new laptop.

Jobs didn't give our dream keynote address, but he did a whole lot better than last year. And this time he promised to keep us posted on what their doing.

Keep going, you're almost there Steve!

-Renee