Distinguished Speaker Series Anne Caruso p1 False Solutions for Plasic Polution Dr. Randi Pokladnik p2-4 Are We a Safe Haven From Climate Catastrophe? David Beach p4 Injection Well Accountability - Take Action Today Campaign p5 Brine Education Ron Prosek p6 From the Treasurer Ron Prosek p7-8
In this month's newsletter
Tom Haines Walking to the Sun: A Journey Through America's Energy Landscape November 5, 2022 at 3pm
October 2022 Newsletter
Fact Ohio Faith communities together for a sustainable future
FaCT Distinguished Speaker Series Presents Tom Haines, Author of Walking to the Sun: A Journey Through America’s Energy Landscape Walking to the Sun by Tom Haines came out in 2018 during the same week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a dire picture of our planet heating more rapidly than scientists had predicted. The report warned that only 12 years remained to avert a tipping point of irreversible global warming, a death sentence for Earth as a habitable planet. Tom Haines, an award winning journalist, decided in 2013 to investigate our energy system up close by walking across the country from Maine to Texas studying our energy production and usage. He talked to workers in all parts of the country and in all types of energy production. His book is a comprehensive description of our massive fossil fuel energy system, as well as the emerging production of wind and solar power. Haines’ skill as a storyteller makes this subject unusually human and compelling. Mr. Haines has a 40 year career writing for the Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Washington Post, the Atlantic, the New York Times, and others. His interest in our energy system springs from his awareness of and concern for the peril Earth is facing as a livable planet. He wanted answers and did find some which he shares in Walking to the Sun. We are honored to present Tom Haines on November 5th at 3pm as the next author in FaCT’s Distinguished Speaker Series. Those in attendance will be entered into a drawing for a copy of Walking to the Sun. Please join us for this free Zoom presentation. REGISTER: Tom Haines - Walking to the Sun
As consumers become increasingly aware of the health risks and environmental issues associated with a world drowning in plastics, the petrochemical industry is advocating another false solution to address the plastic crisis facing the planet: advanced recycling or chemical recycling. Chemical recycling uses incineration processes including pyrolysis, gasification, and solvolysis to break down plastic waste. The industry claims this will make plastic production “circular” by using plastic to make more plastic, but thiis so-called circular system has never been effectively accomplished. A 2019 study by the U.S. Department of Energy estimated the US discarded 44 million metric tons of plastic, and 86 percent of this plastic ended up in landfills. The PR departments of the plastics industry and the American Chemical Council are working overtime to convince politicians and citizens that chemical recycling is the answer to the enormous problem of plastic wastes. However, like carbon capture and blue hydrogen, this process is just another way to greenwash an industry that is responsible for generating 400 million tons of plastic waste each year. From cradle to grave, the entire process of plastic production has a damaging carbon footprint. The United Nations has declared plastic waste a serious threat to humanity and the planet. The industry is misleading consumers and decision-makers by falsely using the term “recycling”. Recycling means “to return a material to a previous stage of a cyclic process.” If used plastic material were turned back into a similar plastic, it would provide a benefit to the environment by reducing the need for fossil-fuel-based feedstock to create virgin plastic. But this doesn’t happen. Chemical recycling converts the majority of plastic waste to fuel. The technology of chemical recycling can be grouped into two main categories: heat-based and solvent- based. There are two primary methods that use heat and pressure to break down the long chain plastic polymers: pyrolysis and gasification. Both apply high temperatures to the waste plastic in a low oxygen setting or an oxygen-depleted reactor. Solvent-based depolymerization relies on heat as well but also uses solvents to break bonds, to strip out impurities, or to retain intact polymers. A study released in September 2022, shows that reuse and mechanical recycling of plastic packaging are both better choices than chemical recycling when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “Emissions from mechanical recycling are lower than those from chemical recycling by a factor of 9.” The study points out that reducing the amounts of unnecessary packaging will help move the world towards a zero-emission economy. The majority of facilities are not truly recycling any plastic. Large quantities of hazardous waste are generated, toxic air pollutants are released, and facilities are “disproportionately located in communities of low income or people of color, or both.” Agilyx in Tigard, Oregon is one of the few commercial-scale facilities in operation. It uses pyrolysis to turn polystyrene into styrene. Styrene is made from benzene, a known carcinogen. The plant released 500,000 pounds of hazardous waste in 2019. PureCycle in Ironton, Ohio claims to be a “purification facility” for plastic trash while generating more than 2200 pounds of hazardous waste per month. Chemical recycling burns fossil fuels to meet its high energy needs, thus adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. “In 2019 alone, the global production and incineration of plastic accounted for more than 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses released to the atmosphere, approximately equal to the emissions from 189 five-hundred megawatt coal power plants.” When plastic is burned, carbon is combusted; but toxic additives used in plastic production remain in the residue. If the plastic is used for fuels or chemical feedstocks, the toxic additives remain intact. These toxins can be carcinogens or endocrine disruptors and include: dioxins, furans, heavy metals, flame retardants, PAHs, VOCs, phthalates, bisphenol A, chlorine and fluorine. The “EPA provides little information about emissions and relies heavily on self-reporting by the industry.” The American Chemistry Council has promoted toxic chemical recycling and is “actively trying to influence state and local governments and decision-makers to approve new plastic expansion projects, remove regulatory obstacles, and award public monies or tax breaks to pass some of the needed investment on to taxpayers.” The ACC supports bills which would allocate money (HR 5115) for recycling infrastructure including chemical recycling and research (HR 7728) on the technology. These bills must not be passed. A 2020 Greenpeace report “Deception by the Numbers” looked at financial investments for 51 chemical recycling projects. They found that since 2017, $506 million had been awarded through public funds such as bonds, loans, grants, tax credits and other incentives. Of that $506 million, “89 percent was spent on waste-to-fuel / plastic-to-fuel.” Taxpayers are not paying for plastic recycling but rather paying for fuels for the petrochemical industry. One of the major sticking points when it comes to regulations is the classification of chemical recycling. It is being defined as a manufacturing process rather than a waste incineration process. This means facilities are subject to less stringent air and water quality requirements. Currently, there are twenty signed state laws, including HB 166 in Ohio and SB 4084 in West Virginia, that redefine waste to exclude “advanced/chemical recycling”. One of the few states to kill an industry-backed plastics bill was Rhode Island. A June 27, 2022 issue of “Plastic News” reported that two senior Democrats in the Rhode Island House of Representatives had “significant questions about the bill.” Environmental groups in the state argued that the state should focus on reducing single use plastics. The Conservation Law Foundation said “there was no evidence to support the claim that new plastics were being made, and instead materials were being burned creating climate-changing gasses and air pollution.” A final concern with these dangerous facilities is where they are located. In most cases, poor communities of color seem to be the sites for the majority of waste to energy plants. You will not see a chemical recycling facility in a rich suburb. Many lawmakers admit this is clearly a case of environmental injustice. They are writing and passing laws hoping to address the disproportionate amounts of hazardous facilities, like chemical recycling, located in poor communities, near schools, close to water sources, and adjacent to parks and public lands. (Rhode Island HB 5923). SOBE Thermal Energy Systems is proposing a “recycling facility for tires and plastics” in Youngstown, Ohio. They want to use gasification to create a fuel that will be burned to create steam to heat some downtown buildings. When the CEO of SOBE, Dave Ferro, was questioned about this facility his inaccurate reply was, “his plant would be as clean or cleaner than natural gas.” Peer reviewed analyses of the incineration of plastics/tires point out the toxic air pollutants created in the process (dioxin and furans) as well as all the plastic additives that are never fully destroyed. This facility will subject the community around Youngstown to a constant stream of toxins in their air, land and water. I urge everyone to do the research, read the scientific studies. Do not buy into industry claims that this is recycling. It is simply a dirty waste-to-energy project.
{{page}}
False Solutions for Plastic Pollution: Chemical Recycling Dr. Randi Pokladnik
False Solutions: Chemical Recycling, continued from page 2
Are We a Safe Haven From Climate Catastrophe? David Beach, Lake Effects
Lake Effects (https://www.lake-effects.org/)is a nonprofit community project created by David Beach to collect progressive policy ideas for Cleveland. It draws on the thinking of local residents, as well as best practices from national groups. The goal is to help us imagine what a more progressive, equitable, and sustainable city can be like.
As disasters exacerbated by climate change ravage places around the world, it may seem like Northeast Ohio is a safe haven. We aren’t affected by rising sea levels. We don’t get hurricanes, wildfires, or deadly weeks of 110-degree heat. And we have plenty of fresh water. Indeed, recent studies (https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/) predict that northern cities like Cleveland will benefit from a mass migration of millions of people, as living conditions in the American South and Southwest become increasingly hostile and costly this century. However, while we may be buffered from some of the worst effects of climate change, we should not be complacent. There still are plenty of impacts to worry about. Ohio’s average annual temperature has risen more than 1.5 degrees F. since the beginning of the 20th century, and unprecedented warming is expected to continue. We also have experienced a significant increase in heavy rain events. These changes in Northeast Ohio contribute to the following: Public health, especially in cities, will be negatively affected by increasing heat waves, reduced air quality, and increasing insect and waterborne diseases. Extreme rainfall will cause flooding, erosion, and damage to homes and infrastructure. Meanwhile, greater heat and evaporation during other times could lead to more periods of drought. Increases in heat waves, floods, droughts, insects, and weeds will present increasing challenges to managing crops, livestock, and forests. Native plant and animal species will face increasing stresses from rapidly changing climate conditions, pests, diseases, and invasive species moving north from warmer regions. Local public officials are already anticipating these climate threats (https://www.ccbh.net/climate-change/). Public health agencies are preparing for more heat-related deaths and new insect-borne diseases. Water infrastructure agencies are expecting damage from more intense rainstorms and flooding. Water quality experts are concerned about changing water levels and harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie. Air quality officials are worrying about increased smog during heat waves, which will lead to increased asthma, allergies, and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Land conservation managers are wondering if native plant species will survive rapidly shifting ecological conditions. What about the warmer Cleveland winters we anticipate? Well, we might not like them. The lake won’t freeze as much, which means there will be more lake effect snow, and our winters will likely be snowier, slushier, messier. So let’s not delude ourselves that climate change will be good for Cleveland. We will have plenty of negative impacts. And, since we live in an interconnected world, we will be impacted by climate disasters elsewhere — everything from disruptions in global food supplies to increased security threats from social and economic instability. There’s no escaping the worsening global catastrophe of climate change. No matter where we live or how sheltered we may seem to be, we all have a stake in advancing political solutions that will reduce the harms — policies that reduce carbon pollution, end the use of fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and move our society toward a clean and just economy.
In Ohio, oil and gas drilling produces millions of barrels of toxic radioactive waste every year. The waste, both solid and liquid, is produced from unknown chemicals and water mixing with deep shale deposits miles below ground. The solid waste is brought back up to the surface before the well starts producing. The liquid waste is brought back to the surface during the entire life of the well. Since 1985, the State of Ohio has allowed radioactive oil and gas liquid waste to be spread on roads for deicing and dust control. What happens to radioactive oil and gas waste when it is not being spread on roads? The process: Ohio accepts on average 20-30 million barrels of radioactive oil and gas liquid waste per year. This waste comes from fracked gas wells and conventional gas wells in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia This waste is disposed of in class II injection wells. These disposal wells are old oil wells, or new wells drilled just for injecting oilfield waste. These injection wells work because Ohio bedrock is full of cracks, fissures, and faults and they leak. These disposal wells are a threat to our health, our drinking water, fish, and wildlife. If this seems like a bad idea, you are on the right track! Ohio’s 226 class II wells are located all over the state except in Southwest Ohio. See map of well locations here. Why are these wells a threat to our health? Oil and gas waste contains high levels of radioactive Radium 226 and 228. Radium is a bone-seeking, cancer-causing substance that mimics calcium in the body. Class II wells are linked to earthquakes in Ohio, Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Ohio communities have been living with leaking class II injection wells, accidents, blowouts, and spills. Loading and unloading oil and gas waste cause one of the highest levels of toxic air pollution during the entire process. Ohio rules only require 100 feet between a Class II injection well and private drinking water well, rivers, streams, and wetlands.
Buckeye Environmental Network, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, FaCT, and 30 grassroots organizations petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency, (US EPA) to revoke Ohio’s authority to manage Ohio’s class II injection well program because the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has failed to: (1) meet basic requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act that are designed to protect underground sources of drinking water and public health (2) carry out its environmental justice obligations under federal law
Injection Well Accountability - Take Action Today
MAKE A PHONE CALL TODAY: Contact US EPA Administrator Debra Shore’s office, at 1-888-445-5134 Phone Script: Hi, this is (insert name), I live in (insert city in Ohio), and I’m calling today to ask Administrator Shore to begin actions to remove Ohio’s authority to manage the class II oil and gas waste Injection well program. The program managed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), continues to endanger underground drinking water sources and public health.
Petitioners request that the United States Environmental Protection Agency begin to remove Ohio’s authority over its Class II injection program under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Fossil Fuel Sacrifice Zones
FaCT’s Brine Education Program Receives Major Grant Ron Prosek, Chair, FaCT Brine Education Committee
Shortly before the Annual Meeting at the end of September, FaCT was awarded an $8,625 grant from the Mountain Watershed Foundation to support the work of FaCT’s Brine Education Committee. The Direct Support Fund is made possible by Cloud Mountain Foundation, The Plastic Solutions Fund, The Heinz Endowments and The 11th Hour Project and is a project of the Mountain Watershed Association. Our committee has continued to add more presentations to its schedule to include faith communities in various parts of the state, especially in oil/gas development areas. Some of these scheduled presentations are in person, and some are being conducted on Zoom. Just recently the Ohio Department of Health issued a report on a modeling study of brine spreading that they recently completed. Their conclusion is that the spreading of toxic and radioactive well waste brine on Ohio roads exposes the public to “a radiation dose that is unnecessary and avoidable.” [Ohio Department of Health, “Brine Radiation Analysis for Radium Concentrations,” September 30, 2022; p. 3] This statement from ODH represents a significant change in their position. Previous to their recent study, they merely stated that the spreading of radioactive well waste brine had not been proven safe. However, their study compelled them to state clearly that brine spreading is NOT safe. Faith communities represent strong and caring individuals with the power to effect change. We invite you to help your faith community become part of the solution to the problem of toxic and radioactive well waste brine spreading on roads or other surfaces in Ohio. We invite you to schedule a presentation from FaCT’s Brine Education Committee by emailing me at: rprosek.factohio@gmail.com. We can present to your faith community via Zoom, or, depending on Covid conditions, in person.
Guernsey County is in the center of beautiful Ohio with rolling fields and a historic state park. Kevin and Marlene Young have owned property in Guernsey for 47 years, investing time, savings, and labor into their 21 acres. They built their home here, with space for horses, stables, a half-mile race track, and workspace to modify street rods. As the Youngs neared retirement they looked forward to enjoying the land that they worked on for so long. In 2016 Caithness Energy took over the land across from their home. The massive Guernsey Natural Gas Power Station is now under construction in their front yard. Read More
Cleveland skyline and Lake Erie viewed from Lake Erie Nature Preserve
From the Treasurer: Almost time for End-of-Year Campaign by Ron Prosek
Many thanks to all of FaCT’s donors. Your continued support has kept FaCT going and growing! In November we will be launching our end-of-the year Annual Fund Campaign. Our campaign last year was successful, though our target was rather modest, having raised some some $4,500. This year, our budget goal for the end-of-the-year Annual Campaign is significantly more ambitious at $14,000. Can we achieve this? Yes we can! First of all, we found two generous anonymous donors who decided to match each other to kick off our campaign with advanced pledges. So we are off to a great start in our campaign! And, to incentivize moving folks from our average donation range of $50 to $150, up to $500 or more in this special end-of-the year campaign, we will offer a premium for those who donate $500 or more. That premium will be a copy of Walking to the Sun by Tom Haines, our distinguished speaker for November 5. Alternatively, five hundred dollar or greater donors may choose End of the Megafauna by Ross MacPhee, our September speaker. A third choice will be Drawdown by Paul Hawken: https://www.allencheng.com/drawdown-book-summary-paul-hawken/ Second, as the end of the year approaches, the easiest way to make a large donation is to tap your IRA mandatory withdrawals if you’re in the age category that requires it. That’s what my wife Judy and I do. We’d rather give our withdrawn money to FaCT, which is 501c3 tax-exempt organization, than to have to pay federal taxes on it. Yeah, I know the stock market is volatile, but still, if you have to take something out of your IRA by the end of 2022, why not donate some of it to FaCT? Even if you don’t have an available IRA, you may have other funds you can tap. If we each do what can to dig a little deeper this year, we can fully fund our programming. If we all pitch in, I think we can even exceed our $14,000 goal for this Annual Fund Campaign!
Please donate this month if you can. Thank you for your generous donations to FaCT. They are really helping FaCT to educate faith communities about the environmental challenges facing Ohio families. To make a donation, please make your check out to FaCT. Please mail the form below with your check to: FaCT, P.O. Box 1235 Mentor, OH 44061 Or donate via FaCT’s secure PayPal link at: www.factohio.org -------------------------Clip and mail with your check---------------------- Name:__________________________Phone:___________________ Email:_______________________Address_______________________ Amount of this donation: $___________ THANK YOU! [ October 2022 ] Contributions to FaCT are tax-deductible as FaCT is an IRS-designated 501c3 public charity I would like to make an ANNUAL PLEDGE of $________________. THANK YOU!
FaCT Membership