Green Parent Chicago

EarthTalk: What is the so-called Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and is Congress likely to go for it?

Dear EarthTalk: What is the so-called Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and is Congress likely to go for it?           -- Mark Talarico, Brooklyn, NY

The concept of a “Green New Deal” (GND), first called for in a 2007 New York Times op-ed by Thomas Friedman, has been in the news lately thanks to a protest outside of Nancy Pelosi’s office in mid-November a week after the 2018 mid-term elections when Democrats took back the House. The goal of the GND is to put America at the forefront of green technologies to meet or exceed our Paris climate treaty commitments while boosting the economy and reducing economic inequality.

Think of it as like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s original “New Deal” that helped get Americans back on their feet economically after the Great Depression through the creation of millions of federally-funded jobs that not only employed people but boosted U.S. economic productivity. The GND aims to give Americans a leg up in profiting off the transition to greener energy sources while simultaneously reducing the divide between the haves and have-nots.

At that November protest, hundreds of activists affiliated with the so-called Sunrise Movement showed up to call on Pelosi to back omnibus economic stimulus legislation that would put millions of Americans to work on facilitating the transition to an economy powered by 100 percent renewable, emissions-free energy. Later that day incoming Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showed her support by proposing the creation of a new House Select Committee on a Green New Deal tasked with detailing a “national, industrial, economic mobilization plan capable of making the U.S. economy 'carbon neutral' while promoting 'economic and environmental justice and equality’."

“There are so many different progressive issues that are important, and climate change and addressing renewable energy always gets to the bottom of the barrel,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Intercept. “That can gets kicked from session to session and so what this just needs to do is create a momentum and an energy to make sure that that it becomes a priority for leadership.”

At least 45 House members have expressed support for the GND, while eight likely Democratic presidential candidates (including Jay Inslee, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) are also behind it. And with the majority of Americans favoring taking strong action against climate change even if it means higher taxes, implementing some of kind of GND seems like a no-brainer.

But environmentalists might not want to hold their breath. For starters, Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for the creation of a new House Select Committee on a Green New Deal won’t be ready for a full House vote until 2020. Also, just because 40 members of Congress are supportive now doesn’t say anything about where the other 395 Congresspersons stand, let alone the 100 members of the still-Republican-controlled Senate. Meanwhile, conservative critics point out that a Green New Deal could actually hurt the economy more than help it given how reliant we are on abundant and cheap fossil fuels. Even some liberals worry that the GND is trying to bite off more than we can chew. Only time will tell if something like the GND will become the law of the land—and many greens are keeping their fingers crossed.

 

CONTACTS:  Thomas Friedman’s “A Warning from the Garden,” https://goo.gl/zQ324A; Sunrise Movement, www.sunrisemovement.org; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, ocasio-cortez.house.gov.

 

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. To donate, visit www.earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

EarthTalk: What is Environmental Justice?

Dear EarthTalk: What is meant by “environmental justice” and how is it under assault in the new Trump administration? -- Mike Garner, New Orleans, LA

Environmental justice is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income, with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” In layperson’s terms, it means making sure specific groups of people don’t bear a disproportionate burden from potential and existing environmental threats.

Traditionally, we think of situations like the siting and construction of a pollution-spewing factory in or near a low-income minority community as an example of an environmental injustice. Some recent examples ripped from the headlines include the lead contamination of the water supply of predominantly African-American Flint, Michigan, and the siting of the potentially hazardous Dakota Access Pipeline adjacent to sacred and ecologically sensitive Standing Rock Sioux tribal land.

“The federal government has recognized for decades that air and water quality are especially poor in low-income areas and communities of color, and some of that imbalance stems directly from government permitting decisions, such as where to allow the dumping of toxic materials,” reports the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental advocacy non-profit.

Environmental justice has been a hot topic lately as it relates to who bears the brunt of climate change impacts. According to EPA research, city dwellers and the poor are among the Americans most likely to suffer from climate change. NRDC points out that 24 to 27 percent of urban African-Americans, Latinos and indigenous people in the U.S. are now living below the poverty line, compared with only 13 percent of urban whites—meaning that minority groups are at the greatest risk from the heat waves, bad air, stronger storms and other negative consequences of a warming climate.

The federal government has been working on environmental justice issues since at least 1992 when then-President George H.W. Bush created a White House office dedicated to “environmental equity.” Bill Clinton took up the mantle when he assumed the presidency in 1994 and issued Executive Order #12898 calling for the federal government to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Clinton’s order created the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice to coordinate and oversee implementation of the rule across different federal agencies, and spawned the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, which has awarded upwards of $24 million since then in funding to more than 1,400 community-based and tribal organizations working in communities facing environmental justice problems.

But that all is likely to change now that Donald Trump has proposed slashing the EPA’s overall budget by $2 billion and cutting funding for environmental justice programs specifically by 78 percent, from $6.7 million to just $1.5 million. “These cuts are a direct attack on low-income communities and communities of color everywhere who are on the front lines of toxic pollution,” says NRDC’s environmental justice head Al Huang.

CONTACTS: EPA Environmental Justice, www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of the nonprofit Earth Action Network. To donate, visit www.earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

Disaffected Voters: It's Your Actions, Not Your Feelings

I appreciate the anger over this year’s presidential election. I’m just as despondent that Trump will be our next president. But to those whose protests blew up my Twitter feed: I have to ask the question: Where were you when the Democrats nominated the wrong candidate this past July? Where were you when the AP called the primary in June before California had even voted? Where were you when your fellow Americans were getting abused and shot to death on Facebook live? Where was your anger when your fellow Americans were getting sprayed with rubber bullets and tear gassed to protect our water?

I am happy that you are taking action in the streets over an issue, but doesn’t it seem a little too late? To get the candidate you want elected it takes legwork, educating fellow voters, phone-banking, donations and much, much more. Did you do any of these for Hillary Clinton? I think it’s looking pretty obvious that it wasn’t enough to simply announce #ImWithHer and mark your ballot on election day.

The race to the presidency started back in 2015, when did you get involved? I’m seeing a lot of self-examination, lots of Democratic voters in shock and saying they didn’t do enough to help her win. After all of the polls and warnings, the consistently pathetic turnout at Clinton events, the extremely close primary with Bernie Sanders, the coverage of the Wikileaks revelations, did you really think she would win this thing as a shoe-in? Forget what the mainstream media kept yapping about, it's clear now that there was much collusion and coordination between Clinton’s campaign and major news outlets in her favor.

Let’s look at the facts: the American people, as Bernie Sanders once again just reiterated, were more concerned about the issues of wages, jobs, and the economy. This was frankly more important to them than getting the first woman president elected. You may not agree with how many Trump supporters are channeling their anger inappropriately by targeting other races and other cultures, but you cannot deny that their anger and frustration has legitimate causes. It is extremely misguided, yes, but the root causes still need to be addressed.

As many have been pointing out over the past several months and once again this week: the Democratic Party must suffer the blame for their part in the failure to elect a strong challenger to Donald Trump.

And today I am hearing lots of folks talking about remaking the Democratic Party and frankly, I’m not in that camp, unless it includes the ideals of the progressive Green Party platform and the Democratic Socialists of America. Both groups who continue to be the “party of the people”.

As it stands right now, the Democratic Party has rubber stamped neoliberalism, corporate welfare and incremental progress on clean energy and climate justice when bold action is required. They continue to lead us into conflict in the Middle East and turn a blind eye to drone strikes on innocent civilians in foreign countries, a blind eye to police brutality and racial justice, a blind eye to the escalation at the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, and a blind eye to standing up against trade deals like the TPP that will continue to gut our economy.

The Democratic Party showed their cards when they nominated Hillary Clinton: a candidate who did the absolute bare minimum to address the needs of the working class and the hurting country, a candidate so completely entrenched in service to her corporate donors and political insiders that even as the story broke about the misdeeds of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she invited Wasserman Schultz back into her campaign circle as a slap in the face to the millions of voters who chose Clinton’s primary challenger. The arrogance of this action alone should speak volumes about the “hard work” that was done by Clinton to campaign for the vote of the American people.

When Bernie Sanders was talking about the issues that affect the poor, the working class, healthcare, college, climate change, racial and social justice issues, his ideas were marked as “pie in the sky”, unrealistic, and a fairytale. Supporters of these issues and of the candidate himself were labeled as ridiculous whiners who did not really understand the way politics works in this country. They were seen as unrealistic and expecting something that would never come to pass.

What of the tens of thousands of voters who showed up to support these same ideas and this platform in consistently red states like Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, and other parts of the West? (Not to mention the tens of thousands who showed up at other rallies for Sanders all over the nation.) Any wonder how they voted on election day?

Let’s not chalk it up to sexism. Let’s not cheapen the reality like this. Yes sexism is real and a major problem in the United States to this day. These voters were not voting for the male challenger simply because they did not want a woman president. Did some voters not trust a female president to do the job? I think so. But can the 13 million votes that Bernie Sanders won in the primary be attributed to sexism? Can the numbers and the data that back up the failing economic prospects of millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump be attributed to sexism? Of course not. If you believe this, well therein lies the fairytale.

So now that you are charged up and ready to fight, now that you’ve been awakened, stay consistent. Channel your anger, your energy into showing up for the small fights, the boring stuff, learn as much as you can about the political process and who does what and who doesn’t do what. Don’t listen to the media. Use your own judgment.

There isn’t a guru or an expert who can tell you how to proceed. Don’t make a big show of it on social media, just do it. Call attention to it, but take your personal story out of it unless it’s remarkable. Follow the numbers, the data, and the facts (not Nate Silver). Do your own research. Do your homework. Find independent sources, not tied to corporate media conglomerates. Stand up for your neighbor even if you don’t know them personally, even if you think it won’t impact you. Stand up just because. Get to work. This affects you, but it’s not all about you. It’s about your actions, not your feelings.

Letter Shows Sanders Led Early Warning to Clinton on Keystone Pipeline XL

Nearly five years ago, a letter from Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Patrick Leahy, and Sen. Ron Wyden, to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned the State Department of a conflict of interest in the selection of Cardno Entrix, a private consulting firm, in conducting an environmental review of the safety of the controversial Keystone Pipeline XL project.

Danielle Droitsch, Canada Project Director with the National Resources Defense Council, was first to report on the letter in her policy blog.

However, mainstream news coverage of the initial contact between the 3 senators and Sec. Clinton was limited. The firm was permitted by the State Department, under Sec. Hillary Clinton, to conduct an environmental impact review (EIS) of the tar sands pipeline, although they had previously listed TransCanada Corp., the owner of the Keystone Pipeline as a "major client."

Obama rejected the Keystone XL expansion project this past November, citing environmental concerns. The White House worried the project would have a significant impact on the supply of clean water in the U.S. across the Great Plains States. According to a Washington Post story from November 2011:

"White House officials became concerned about the political repercussions of approving the pipeline, and in November 2011 the administration said it would review alternatives to the proposed route, which crossed the Ogallala Aquifer that stretches across Nebraska and other Great Plains states. The aquifer is one of the world's largest underground sources of fresh water and supplies drinking water to millions of people in the Plains. That review effectively delayed the decision until after Obama's reelection."

In a letter to the State Department in August 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency was also concerned "about the risk of oil spills that could affect drinking water and sensitive ecosystems, as well as the effect of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline."

But just recently at Sunday's debate in Flint, MI, Clinton, touted her commitment to clean water availability and the environment.

Joe Romm, reporting for ClimateProgress in 2011, declared that the environmental review process by Cardno Entrix should have been invalidated, once the conflict of interest was plainly made known. The Los Angeles Times broke the story in the mainstream press in July of 2011 about the flawed environmental review:

"The State Department has completed two environmental impact statements on the pipeline with the help of Cardno Entrix, a private environmental consulting firm that has said its biggest clients include TransCanada Corp., the owner of the Keystone pipeline system, whose current routes extend from Hardisty, Alberta, to Oklahoma and Illinois. Cardno Entrix gained national attention last year as the environmental consultant for BP after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The Environmental Protection Agency has criticized the resulting assessments as fundamentally flawed. "What we've seen from the State Department recently are sloppy reports, inadequate investigations and a total disregard for the dozen accidents that occurred" in the existing Keystone I pipeline, said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. "If the president doesn't stand up, all signs point to an agency that is simply going through the motions before giving its approval."

Sanders' letter from October 4, 2011 to Sec. Clinton at the State Department reads:

"We write to express our serious concern with recent reports that the Department of State allowed a contractor with a financial relationship with TransCanada, which seeks to build the Keystone XL pipeline, to conduct the Department's environmental review mandated under federal law as pan of its consideration of TransCanada's proposed pipeline. " "We find it inappropriate that a contractor with financial ties to TransCanada, which publicly promotes itself by identifying TransCanada as a "major client", was selected to conduct what is intended to be an objective government review." "This is a critically important issue for our environment and the energy future of our county. At a time when all credible scientific evidence and opinion indicate that we are losing the battle against global warming, it is imperative that we have objective environmental assessments of major carbon-dependent energy projects. An entity with a financial stake in the success or failure of a developer's project proposal is not in a position to provide such an assessment. It is our strong opinion that the only satisfactory remedy is for the Department to conduct a new, objective, and comprehensive environmental review, either directly or through a contractor with no financial ties to TransCanada."

A Mother Jones exclusive by Andy Kroll from March 21, 2013, notes that beyond ignoring the conflict of interest inherent in the environmental impact study, the State Department further attempted to minimize the risks of the controversial Keystone Pipeline XL project:

"State released documents in conjunction with the Keystone report in which these experts' work histories were redacted so that anyone reading the documents wouldn't know who'd previously hired them. Yet unredacted versions of these documents obtained by Mother Jones confirm that three experts working for an outside contractor had done consulting work for TransCanada and other oil companies with a stake in the Keystone's approval." "The State Department has faced heaps of criticism for potential conflicts of interests involving TransCanada and Keystone XL. ...Emails obtained by Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that opposes the Keystone pipeline, revealed a cozy relationship between TransCanada lobbyist Paul Elliott and Marja Verloop, an official at the US Embassy in Canada whose portfolio covers the Keystone project. Before he lobbied for TransCanada, Elliott worked as deputy campaign manager on Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential bid. Clinton served as secretary of state until recently."

Brendan DeMelle at Desmogblog has detailed the extensive relationship between Clinton and and the State Department and lobbyists for TransCanada. Sanders continued the pressure on the Keystone Pipeline XL issue later on in 2011 with an editorial in The Guardian:

"Picture this: a large, multibillion dollar Canadian corporation comes to the president of the United States and wants to build a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. After reviewing the project, it becomes clear that instead of reducing America's reliance on oil from overseas, this pipeline would carry oil across America, risking spills on our land and waters, just to export the oil to other countries. In addition, the pipeline would increase gasoline prices in America, add to our air pollution, and most importantly, be a major setback in the fight to reverse global warming."

-Christine S. Escobar

Bernie Sanders for President

Aled Lewis (aledlewis)

 

Hillary Clinton is banking on the hope that you are stupid. Bernie Sanders knows you aren’t. So ask yourself:

Who would speak for you?

Have you ever had to juggle expenses to pay down your medical bills? Did you have to walk away from your family home during the foreclosure crisis? Do you have enough money saved up to pay for your child’s college tuition? Are you still repaying student loans while trying to save for retirement, but getting nowhere?

Who would speak for you?

Do you wonder if you’ll have enough money for groceries until the next payday, even though you work full time? Do you worry that your teenage son or daughter will be a victim of police brutality or racial profiling? Are you a long time environmental activist hoping to see your country finally make a major investment in clean energy and break from outdated technologies that destroy our waterways and mountaintops?

Who would speak for you?

Are you chronically ill or self-employed and unable to manage the cost of healthcare premiums, prescription drugs, co-pays and annual deductibles that increasingly eat away at your income? Has the cost of healthcare ever kept you from seeing a doctor or specialist? Mandatory health insurance coverage is not the same as equal healthcare benefits for all.

Who would speak for you?

Are you a young college grad unable to find a decent paying job that values your education and intelligence? Are you struggling to pay down your massive student debt balance? Are you a two income family working harder and longer only to realize less and less financial stability as each year passes? Do you wonder how you will ever be able to afford to send your children to college?

Who would speak for you?

You’ve heard the claim that Clinton is a champion of women and all Americans. But how could her fighting spirit not push for a $15 minimum wage for all American workers, including the millions of hardworking American women, many of whom are not being paid what men in the same positions doing the same jobs are? As Julie Kashen, senior policy advisor of the Make it Work campaign fighting for working women's rights, recently wrote:

“...since two-thirds of the people who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage are women, higher minimum wages would help close the gender gap in pay.”

Who would speak for you?

The cold hard reality is nowhere more plain to see than in the numbers: Sanders has a personal net worth of $330,506. Clinton’s is ‍‍‍$21.5 million. To take a page from Bill Clinton, that looks like good old “arithmetic” to me. Clinton is the candidate of the privileged class and a type of feminism that isn’t concerned with poor women.

Who would speak for you?

Clinton’s message has reinvented itself time and again to fit the seemingly most advantageous political path. Sanders has been saying the same goddamn thing for the past 30 plus years and has the voting record and career campaign finance record to prove it. With the sales and royalties of her multiple published books alone, Clinton could still currently earn a handsome salary. Instead, she chose to accept enormous sums of money from the very corporations she claims she will rail against if elected. Clinton Foundation donors include those who have specifically benefited from offshore tax havens. It takes a special kind of delusion to turn a blind eye to this duality.

What’s wrong with being rich, some ask? Everything, if it keeps you from understanding the anger of the very people whose lives are being destroyed by the greed of a few. The top richest possess a gilded future and the laws and rules of taxation governing this future look extremely different those than those that apply to the ordinary American, whose wealth lies not in trusts and shadow companies and capital gains or offshore, but instead in ordinary checking and savings accounts.

Lobbyists who have pushed for the Keystone Pipeline, and accepted money from Lehman Brothers, are, as you read this, currently heading Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Her top campaign finance bundlers have worked for the fossil fuel industry. By saying she is going after the same lobbyists who run her campaign, the moneyed elite that donate to both her campaign and her family’s Clinton Foundation, it's clear Clinton’s recent adoption of populist language on the eve of the Iowa caucuses amounts to nothing more than posturing for votes.

Last week as voters in Iowa listened to Sanders explain his proposals, Clinton was scheduled to fly to the East Coast to attend a finance industry fundraiser for her campaign. It has now been postponed until mid February. But for the few privileged enough to drop anywhere from $2,700 individually or raise $27,000 for the one dinner, my guess is that the subject matter of these two events will be drastically different. She is banking on this, and hoping you won’t notice at all.

Who would speak for you?

Pundits wonder why Clinton’s brand of politics is no longer resonating with younger voters? Here's my guess: They’re hungry for more and will no longer be satisfied with mere crumbs tossed their way. As Gen X parents screwed by the system installed in large part by Clinton’s husband now raise their own children and young adults, they have instilled much of their anti-establishment skepticism upon them.

Not content to be merely placated by brand loyalty and reality television, a massive number of younger voters are looking for the alternative to a status quo that has left them and their parents future out to dry.

It’s time to end legalized tax evasion in America. If hoarding extreme wealth could be defined as a mental disorder, isn’t it time that we wrest control of this country from the grip of the unhinged 1 percent?

In early 1972, a book called “A Populist Manifesto” The Making of A New Majority was published. Authored by Jack Newfield and Jeff Greenfield, this book outlined a progressive populist “political alignment” among the many political interests of the day (civil rights, the ecology movement, women’s rights, low and moderate income citizens being short-changed by the mutating liberal agenda of the day moving away from the social democrat ideals of Roosevelt and Johnson). The book’s preface begins with 3 facts, the first of which states:

“Wealth and power are unequally and unfairly distributed in America today.”

That was 44 years ago. Enough is enough. Our time is now. Our candidate is Bernie Sanders. Intersectionality is at the heart of the Sanders campaign and the reason his campaign messages resonate with such a wide cross section of Americans. We see through Clinton, the candidate who fiercely opposed gay marriage, supported the Iraq War, called the TPP the “gold standard”, received funds from the private prison industry, opposes the Glass-Steagall act, advocated for fracking, and profited from promoting the Keystone Pipeline.

We the people of the United States of America deserve more and we are not stupid.

Who would speak for you?

Related articles

Bernie Sanders Makes History And Sets A New Record By Surpassing 2 Million Donations

The Big Short nails the culprits of the 2008 financial crisis - and you're one of them

The 606 to Open in Early June With 2 Days of Festivities

One of Chicago's newest parks is set to open on the city's northside June 6 with 2 days of free events.

The schedule of events planned for June 6 and 7 at The 606 will include a procession/parade, music and dancing, a pancake breakfast, restaurant vendors and hands-on activities for all ages.

Located at the site of the abandoned Bloomingdale railway line, the elevated "urban oasis" runs along Bloomingdale Ave. (1800 N), from Ridgeway Ave. (3750 W) on the west to Ashland Ave (1600 W) on the east, through the Bucktown, Wicker Park, Humboldt Park, and Logan Square neighborhoods.

The new park will be linked to 5 existing parks at street level. It was conceived by an alliance between The Friends of The Bloomingdale Trail, the City of Chicago, Chicago Park District, The Trust for Public Land, and dozens of other community groups. Construction took 2 years to complete.

The final design of the park space is credited to Collins Engineers, Lead Artist Frances Whitehead, and landscape designers Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates.

For a complete schedule of opening day events, visit: http://the606.org/events/openingday/

-Christine

 

Green Festival This Weekend, GPC Readers Can Get Free Admission, Here's How:

If it's May in Chicago, then you know it's time for the mama and the papa of eco living events: Green Festival Chicago.

For one weekend only at Navy Pier, this Saturday and Sunday, the Green Festival will host DIY workshops, discussions and speakers, a Green Marketplace with the latest sustainable businesses and vendors, an Organic Beer and Wine pavillion, test drives of electric and hybrid vehicles, vegetarian and vegan food, and a Green Kids Zone with free activities for all ages of kids.

Definitely bring the kids and teens to Green Festival because 18 and under are free.

I'm very excited to check out the Green Festival this year, as I learn something new each year as I get discover all the great new local eco offerings around the Midwest and the country.

I'm also thrilled to tell you that Green Parent Chicago readers can get a special FREE weekend pass to the Green Festival. Just visit the festival website here and enter GREENPARENTCHICAGO for a free weekend pass good for both days. (A $20 value!) But, don't wait, it's a limited offer.

-Christine

 

Knowledge is Free

http://www.cispaisback.org/

-Christine

Chicago River Environmental Awareness Paddle

WHAT: Chicago River Environmental Awareness Paddle

WHEN: Saturday, September 15th
1:30 pm to 5 pm
Registration and safety talk at 1:30 pm
Paddle starts at 2 pm

HOW: BY BOAT

WHERE: Launch from behind Lawrence Fisheries
Cermak and Canal
Pull out at Richard J. Daley Park @ Western Ave. under I-55
(north of 35th & Western Ave)

WHO: YOU and the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization and PERRO (Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform Organization )along with Chicago River Canoe and Kayak

· What do you know about the environmental impact of dirty industry on the South Branch of the Chicago River?

· Ever canoed or kayaked on the Chicago River? Want to do it (again)?

· Want to learn about community victories and future plans from the folks that shut down the Fisk and Crawford Coal Plants?

Boats: $25 PER BOAT

Types of boats:

· Single kayaks (1 person) - $25

· Tandem kayaks (2 people) - $25

· Canoes (2-3 people) - $25

Payment: Cash, Check, Credit

Age Restrictions:

· No youth under 14

· Youth 14-17 must be accompanied by parent or other adult in a boat.

· Single kayaks only available to ages 18+.

To RSVP contact LVEJO at info@lvejo.org

-via LVEJO and PERRO

-Christine

-photo credit: vxla, flickr

EarthTalk: Chemicals in Babies' Cord Blood?

Dear EarthTalk: A few years back a study found over 200 chemicals in the umbilical cords of newborns, particularly African American, Asian and Hispanic babies. What are the causes of this phenomenon and what can be done about it? -- Bettina Olsen, New York, NY

The study referenced found traces of some 232 synthetic chemicals in cord blood samples from 10 different babies of African American, Asian and Hispanic descent born in 2009 in different parts of the U.S. Study sponsors Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Rachel’s Network were looking to find out if the hormone-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), a plasticizer widely used in food and drink storage containers, is present in the cord blood of minority babies in the U.S. Sadly and not surprisingly, BPA turned up in nine of the 10 cord blood samples tested. But perhaps even worse is the study’s detection of whole new raft of chemicals showing up in babies’ cord blood for the first time. Some of these newer offenders include tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) from computer circuit boards, synthetic fragrances used in common cosmetics and detergents and Teflon-relative perfluorobutanoic acid.

The 2009 study was a follow-up to an earlier analysis of chemicals in cord blood in the mainstream U.S. population during 2004 births. That earlier study found some 287 different industrial chemicals and pollutants in babies’ cord blood, although BPA was not yet on EWG’s watch list at the time. The more recent study focused on minority babies because minority communities in the U.S. tend to bear a disproportionate pollution burden given their closer proximity to busy roads, industrial sites and older housing. But EWG points out that they tested for chemicals that are likely found in virtually every American household, so none of us are immune to exposure. EWG hopes that by continuing to monitor the chemicals we are born with it can hold corporate polluters’ and government regulators’ feet to the fire in regard to waste outputs and pollution mitigation.

EWG did not look for chemicals associated with smoking or alcohol consumption on the part of mothers, instead focusing on contaminants from exposures to consumer products and commercial chemicals omnipresent on supermarket shelves. To EWG, the presence of these chemicals in umbilical cord blood represents “a significant failure on the part of the Congress and government agencies” charged with protecting human health. “Our results strongly suggest that the health of all children is threatened by trace amounts of hundreds of synthetic chemicals coursing through their bodies from the earliest stages of life.”

Part of the problem is outdated laws governing the handling and use of toxic chemicals. Currently 1976’s Toxic Substances Control Act is the law of the land in regard to controlling the distribution, use and disposal of toxic chemicals nationwide. But EWG and other groups complain that hundreds of thousands of new chemical formulations are unleashed on an unwitting public every year via America’s store shelves because the federal government assumes new products and ingredients to be innocent until proven guilty. These critics would like to see the federal government take a more proactive role in approving new substances for use in consumer products, not to mention residential and workplace environments.

On the legislative front, green groups are pinning their hopes for a reformed Toxic Substances Control Act on New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act (S. 847), introduced last fall. The bill is currently spinning its wheels in committee hearings, but its 17 bi-partisan co-sponsors are optimistic that it will come up for a floor vote before the 112th Congress wraps up the end of this year.

CONTACT: EWG’s “Pollution in Minority Newborns,” www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.