EPA sparks furor over approval of new Chevron boat fuel that could cause cancer to everyone exposed to it over a lifetime

Folks who aren't particularly fond of the oil and gas industry and oil companies in particular are causing quite a stir over EPA's recent approval of a new boat fuel by Chevron. The new fuel, derived from discarded plastic, is so toxic that everyone exposed to it over the course of a lifetime would be expected to get cancer - that's according to calculations made by investigative reporters from ProPublica from data in an EPA risk assessment. Their calculated risk was 1.3:1  - basically anyone exposed to it - a number ProPublica claims was confirmed by EPA.

Photo: © Frank J. Maccioli

EPA had earlier refused to provide the risk assessment to reporters from ProPublica and another news site, The Guardian. The document was not obtained until ProPublica made a formal request through the federal Freedom of Information Act.

EPA's risk assessment, which was also done to review some other new fuel additives, including jet fuel (which apparently would cause cancer in 1 of 4 people exposed), typically uses extreme exposure scenarios to arrive at a risk number. However, as noted in this article, EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines for Carcinogens generally does not approve things that result in a risk of more than 1 cancer death in 1 million exposures, let alone a 1 in 4 risk, or, as it worked out for the boat fuel additive, a 1.3 in 1 risk!

So what do you think, is this much ado about nothing or a serious threat to the well being of folks who operate boats and/or live near marinas?

CARB Approves Unprecedented Climate Action Plan

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just approved the unprecedented climate action plan that was described here in a previous article.

The next steps will require the adoption of specific rules and regulations to implement the plan, which aims to reduce fossil fuel emissions in the state to negligible levels by 2045.

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board

So, what do you think? As I asked before, will it be successful or just a pipe dream? Ref: CARB approves unprecedented climate action plan to shift world’s 4th largest economy from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy

More info at: Frank's Environment Space

Tired of arguing with climate change deniers? Try this instead.

Do you ever find yourself getting frustrated, tired, and angry trying to explain climate change science to deniers? Or maybe just fed up with arguing with them? Do what I do - just tell them they are wrong and refer them to this web-site (I am unaffiliated with it). it has rebuttals to every single “climate change is a hoax” argument that anyone makes.

Just refer the folks arguing with you to this site and tell them to argue with the experts:

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation Global warming is real and human-caused. It is leading to large-scale climate change. Under the guise of climate "skepticism", the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming "skepticism". Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial. Posted on 10 November 2022 by Doug Bostrom, Marc Kodack Catastrophic reverb Kemp et al. caused prolonged ripples with their paper Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenario s . One can't help but think most of the heat is emotional, not intellectual; excited critics of the paper offer little more than "this sounds scary, don't harsh our vibe." Vague and even outlandish concerns over terminology aside, true perception of catastrophe is the province of those living the actual experience. Ask a pastoralist in South Africa or Pakistan who has just had their livelihood wiped out, with no means to rebuild: "Are you living an existential climate catastrophe?" Quite arguably the climate catastrophe train has already left the station, and abstract objections to the concept are coming from what a we might call "a place of privilege." Discussion continues via Bhowmick et al. in From Climate Endgame to Climate Long Game , with a reply from Kemp et al., Democratic climate action and studying extreme climate risks are not in tension . Other notables: ICCI has published its latest comprehensive magnum opus on Earth's ice, State of the Cryosphere 2022: Growing Losses, Global Impacts , included here in our government/NGO section. As the title page suggests and the entire work details, "We cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice." Indeed geophysics is aloof to us but we'd be foolish to reciprocate, unfair though this may be. Meanwhile, ICCI faces a Sisyphean task. Having just dusted their hands of this publication, the authors must carry straight on; our cascade of better information never ceases, as exemplified in a new and concerning paper by Khan et al. just published in PNAS: Extensive inland thinning and speed-up of Northeast Greenland Ice Stream . Tropical cyclones combine with climate change to begin sending enivronmental regimes beyond healthy tolerance, a form of compound event. Rajeev & Mishra investigate how this is unfolding as actual events as opposed to projections, in Observational evidence of increasing compound tropical cyclone-moist heat extremes in India . Busy rodent hydrologic engineers can be important allies in counteracting negative effects of warming and associated problems with surface water, and as a bonus have notable positive effects on nitrate loading. Dewey et al. explain, in Beaver dams overshadow climate extremes in controlling riparian hydrology and water quality . "Now we know better." We rushed into

https://skepticalscience.com/

California Proposes Drastic Fossil Fuel Reduction Climate Change Plan - Visionary or Naive Pipe Dream?

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) today released its 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. The unprecedented plan, if enacted into law, presents the most drastic climate change proposal in the entire world. 

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board

The major thrust of the plan is to nearly eliminate the use of fossil fuels anywhere in the state by 2045. This would assume a massive movement to electrify the transportation sector - cars, buses, trains, and trucks - which together are the largest single source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the state. It would also require the phasing out of how Californians heat their homes, elimination of certain chemicals and refrigerants, the expansion of power sources derived from wind, solar, hydrogen, and biomethane, and increased usage of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration (CCS). 

If successful, the plan would reduce total fossil fuel usage in the state by 86% and a reduction in petroleum liquids by 94%. In addition to reductions of GHGs, the proposal would also reduce total air pollutants by 71%.

CARB claims that its economic modeling for the proposal shows a net economic benefit to the state, resulting in an expansion of California's economy (currently the 5th largest economy in the world and soon to be the 4th largest) to $5.1 trillion by 2045 (from $3.2 trillion today) and an increase of at least 4 million new jobs. 

It will also save Californians $200 million in health care costs related to air pollution.

“California is drastically cutting our dependence on fossil fuels and cleaning our air – this plan is a comprehensive roadmap to achieve a pollution-free future,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “It’s the most ambitious set of climate goals of any jurisdiction in the world, and if adopted, it’ll spur an economic transformation akin to the industrial revolution. While big polluters focus on increasing their profits at our expense, California is protecting communities, creating jobs and accelerating our transition to clean energy.”

Added CARB Chair Liane Randolph, "This plan delivers a massive reduction of climate-warming pollution, cutting it down to a fraction of what it is today. And by rapidly shifting away from all fossil fuels and then reaching carbon neutrality, the plan delivers public health benefits to everyone in California, most importantly to the communities suffering from persistent air pollution. This plan clearly and unequivocally presents challenging and ambitious goals, but we simply have no other choice but to meet them – and do it in less than a quarter century. We all have experienced firsthand the impacts of climate change, whether wildfires, drought, record-breaking heat waves and more. Failure is not an option. There is too much at stake and we need to move as fast and as far as we can to lessen the worst impacts of climate change and leave future generations a livable and healthy California.”

CARB's Board will vote on the new proposal at its December 15-16 meeting. The initial draft was reviewed by the Board in June and discussed with the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) in September. Changes requested by the Board, Governor Newsome, and the EJAC are included in the final proposal as well as requirements from new state laws passed by the state Legislature this year.

What do you think, is this proposal realistic given the proliferation of fossil fuel powered systems throughout the state and the world or is it a pipe dream based on a naive belief that other states and countries will do the same thing, particularly in those parts of the world whose governments are, shall we say, not as progressive as California?

Your comments are welcomed below.

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board

Photo Credit: California Air Resources Board