Briefly

Stuff that matters


flint water crisis

Flint still doesn’t have safe drinking water.

More than two and a half years since Flint’s water crisis started, Mayor Karen Weaver has extended the city’s state of emergency, which was set to expire on Monday. Both the state and federal states of emergency expired in mid-August.

“The fact of the matter is we still cannot drink our water without a filter,” Weaver said Tuesday in a statement. “That is why I have signed a declaration to renew the state of emergency in the City of Flint until the lingering issues have been resolved and the water is deemed safe to drink.”

The crisis started after the city’s emergency manager switched the municipal water supply to the Flint River in April 2014, exposing thousands of Flint residents and 6,000-12,000 children to lead-contaminated water. Even small amounts of lead exposure can lead to serious health consequences for children.

By extending the city’s state of emergency, Weaver hopes to renew attention on the city’s water crisis. In September, the Senate authorized $220 million and the House authorized $170 million in federal aid for Flint and other cities dealing with lead contamination, but there are mixed signals on the fate of the funding.


chicken out

Meat taxes are totally going to be a thing — someday.

To the delight of vegans everywhere, the Guardian reported on Monday that a tax on meat products is “inevitable.”

That claim comes from new analysis from Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return, a group that keeps investors up-to-date on trends in factory farming. It found that countries will likely start to place levies on meat — similar to ones that already exist on tobacco — to cut down on carbon emissions and health problems.

Raising livestock produces about 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and demand is expected to drive meat consumption even higher. Governments in Germany and Denmark are already exploring the possibilities of a meat tax. In 2016, researchers found that a 40 percent tax on beef (plus 20 percent on dairy) would save 500,000 lives a year, and drastically reduce carbon emissions.

For the 39 percent of Americans who say they’re trying to eat more plant-based foods, a meat tax could be a helpful nudge in the reducetarian direction. For the rest of Americans … well, we don’t expect them to be thrilled about steak being 40 percent more expensive.

“It’s hard to imagine concerted action to tax meat today,” Rob Bailey, research director at London think tank Chatham House, told the Guardian, “but over the course of the next 10 to 20 years, I expect to see meat taxes accumulate.”


Where there's smoke

Farmworkers are risking their health to harvest produce near California wildfires.

The out-of-control fires have already burned up an area the size of New York City and Boston combined. Meanwhile, farmworkers are still working 8 to 10 hour days, often without protective gear to guard them against the wildfire smoke.

Health officials are warning residents to stay indoors or wear masks if they need to go outside. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health advised employers to take precautions to protect their workers, but the law doesn’t require them to provide masks or other protective equipment.

Volunteers with the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy handed out thousands of masks to farmworkers in Southern California. “It’s a little bit of playing whack-a-mole as the smoke drifts north,” says Lucas Zucker, policy and communications director at the alliance. “There’s definitely pressure in the industry to get those strawberries harvested before they get damaged by the ash.”

Breathing in smoky air can trigger asthma attacks, chest palpitations, and other respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Wildfire smoke also carries particles known to cause cancer.

Despite the risks, Zucker says many farmworkers have little choice but to stay on the job. “It’s a horrific choice to choose between the income that you need to keep a roof over your family’s head, and taking care of your own health and safety,” he says.


Bad EPA

Trump’s EPA eases off on the whole “environmental protection” thing.

The Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to defend human health and the environment, but a New York Times analysis published Monday suggests that it hasn’t been doing a great job.

EPA enforcement data indicates that the agency has gone easier on polluters and been less strict about penalties under Trump compared to the two previous administrations. For example, under President Obama, the EPA ramped up demands that companies retrofit their factories to cut down on pollution. Those demands have petered out to a mere 12 percent of what was requested by the Obama administration.

Confidential EPA documents obtained by the Times also show that EPA enforcement officers around the country must now receive permission from Washington, D.C., before they can order air and water pollution tests — tests that are kiiiind of essential to keeping polluters in check.

That’s no accident. According to the report, the documents show that “the enforcement slowdown coincides with major policy changes ordered by Mr. Pruitt’s team after pleas from oil and gas industry executives.”

The EPA released a statement on Monday that “there is no reduction in E.P.A.’s commitment to ensure compliance with our nation’s environmental laws.” That’s nice, but the facts state otherwise.


Patagonia Wars

This House committee has clearly picked a side in the national monument debate.

It’s not Patagonia’s.

The public lands dispute heated up on Monday when outdoor clothing brand Patagonia turned its homepage into a call to arms against President Donald Trump’s decision to significantly shrink two national monuments in Utah.

On Friday, the House Natural Resources Committee fired back at Patagonia, accusing the company of “hijacking the public lands debate” in an attempt to sell more products.

It seems highly unusual for a House committee to traffic in conspiracy theories, but, to its credit, Patagonia’s website did see record traffic following the company’s stand against Trump.

Anyways — the Natural Resources committee will hold a hearing on Thursday to consider legislation proposed by Utah Republican Chris Stewart that would turn the remaining parts of Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument into a national park.

That means Grand-Staircase Escalante would no longer be preserved under the Antiquities Act for containing objects of historical, cultural, or scientific interest; instead, it would be protected for its scenic, educational, and recreational value.

Democratic State Senator Jim Dabakis called Stewart’s proposal a “sleight of hand, a trick” to divert attention from the plot to open up public lands for mineral extraction.


ice code

Northern Alaska is warming so fast, it’s faking out computers.

The loss of near-shore sea ice near Utqiaġvik (Barrow) has been so abrupt, it’s transformed the local climate.

Open water in the Arctic causes a compounding warming effect and rapidly elevates temperatures — water is darker than ice and absorbs heat quicker. The effect is particularly strong between October and December, the time of the year that used to have sea ice, but often doesn’t anymore. Octobers in Utqiaġvik are now nearly 8 degrees warmer than Octobers in the 1980s and ’90s.

Apparently, the computers tracking temperatures there have finally had enough. Deke Arndt, chief of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring Branch, explains:

In an ironic exclamation point to swift regional climate change in and near the Arctic, the average temperature observed at the weather station at Utqiaġvik has now changed so rapidly that it triggered an algorithm designed to detect artificial changes in a station’s instrumentation or environment and disqualified itself from the NOAA Alaskan temperature analysis, leaving northern Alaska analyzed a little cooler than it really was.

Basically, the computer thought the weather station had been moved. It hasn’t moved; Utqiaġvik is just a different place now.


partly sunny

A bill in Congress would require more scientific research … into geoengineering.

On the one hand, supporting science is good! On the other hand, geoengineering — the modification of planetary systems to counteract the effects of global warming — is a risky long-shot attempt to address climate change, when much simpler, more direct solutions are already known.

A new bill introduced by a Jerry McNerney, a Democratic representative from California, calls for “a federal commitment to the creation of a geoengineering research agenda and an assessment of the potential risks of geoengineering practices” by the National Academies of Sciences.

The bill comes out of the House Science, Space, and Technology committee, chaired by outgoing climate foe Lamar Smith. Smith has somehow managed to support geoengineering research without acknowledging the changing climate that would render it necessary in the first place.

To be fair, research into geoengineering is a far cry from — as one proposal would have it — actually spraying particles into clouds to make them brighter, reflecting more sunlight and therefore allowing less heat to enter the atmosphere.

Whether that kind of planetary meddling will ever be a viable approach to climate change requires a lot more research, yes. But with the sciences feeling the pinch of a science-allergic administration, lots of important research is already on the chopping block.