Must-read recap: The New Lede's top stories
Flaws in carbon credit programs spark concerns; Shell plastics plant hit with federal lawsuit; EPA poised to allow chlormequat use on food crops; fresh chemical leak at Shell plastics plant.
Flaws in carbon credit programs for farms spark concerns
As fears about climate change grow, a new “gold rush” of carbon credit programs are incentivizing US farmers to slash greenhouse gas emissions generated by the practices they use growing crops and raising livestock. But experts say the programs face difficulty in ensuring that the credits provided truly match emission cuts.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that agriculture accounted for 11.2% of US greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. Greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun in the atmosphere, triggering harmful climate changes and increasing temperatures worldwide. Carbon dioxide is released when farmers till their fields, for instance, and nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with almost 300 times more warming potential than carbon dioxide, is released when farmers spread fertilizer or manure on their fields.
In one increasingly popular mitigation strategy, private carbon programs pay farmers for implementing practices known to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generating credits that can then be sold to large corporations wanting to use the credits to offset their own emissions. One tradable carbon credit equals one ton of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent amount of a different greenhouse gas reduced, sequestered or avoided.
Many programs pay farmers for planting cover crops — a practice shown to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that soils release into the air. But few offer any incentives for farmers to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, though nitrous oxide is a highly potent greenhouse gas. A 2021 report estimated nitrous oxide made up for 2.4% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, while the EPA estimates nitrous oxide makes up over half of all greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
As the popularity of carbon credit programs grows, concerns and questions about the validity of the programs to truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from farms are also emerging. Carbon credit schemes have been criticized for a lack of rigorous accounting of the amount of carbon dioxide lost from soils. Additionally, the difficulty of measuring nitrous oxide emissions could mean some businesses are paying for carbon credits that don’t really reduce emissions as much as promised.
That’s the “worst-case scenario,” said Eric Slessarev, a biogeochemist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “We better hope we’re right, on average, because if we’re not right, then we’re in trouble,” he said.
Farmers can reduce nitrous oxide emissions by changing the type and amount of fertilizer used and the timing of applications of fertilizer and manure. But some farmers are wary of making changes that may cut crop yields, and few of the major carbon credit programs available offer direct incentives to help farmers cut nitrous oxide emissions. (Read the rest of the story.)
After repeated air pollution violations, Shell plastics plant hit with federal lawsuit
A unit of the British multinational Shell plc is repeatedly violating state and federal air pollution rules and harming the health of area residents, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court by an environmental group after a series of air permit violations at the company’s new plastics production plant in Pennsylvania.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by the Clean Air Council against Shell Chemical Appalachia, seeks monetary penalties and demands an end to the plant’s release of illegally high levels of pollutants that include nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
VOCs can cause difficulty breathing, nausea and damage the central nervous system and other organs, according to the American Lung Association. Some can cause cancer.
“Illegal air emissions, smoking flares, and malfunctions at the Plant have resulted in excess emissions of VOCs, NOx, particulate matter (“PM”), benzene, and other harmful pollution,” the complaint states.
Shell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The filing comes six months after Shell announced the start of operations at the plant in November and one month after a malfunction at the facility’s waste water treatment system caused a chemical leak that released a foul odor and sent cancer-causing benzene and other toxins over the fence-line and into the surrounding community.
Residents reported experiencing headaches, nausea, irritated throats and watery eyes during the April 11 chemical leak incident. Shell’s passive air monitors recorded benzene levels of up to 110 micrograms per cubic meter that week, far exceeding the 29 micrograms per cubic meter minimal risk level under federal guidelines. (Read the rest of the story.)
EPA move to allow new pesticide use on food crops worries health advocates
Federal regulators are poised to allow US farmers to start applying a pesticide currently restricted to non-food uses on fields producing an array of food crops in a move that scientists and advocates say could threaten human and ecological health.
Last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposed decision to allow the first-ever uses of chlormequat chloride on wheat, barley, oats and a hybrid of rye and wheat known as triticale. The agency said the move is aimed at helping farmers limit the bending and breaking of small grains, a condition called lodging, which can impair harvesting and reduce yields. The pesticide acts as a plant growth regulator, controlling plant size by blocking hormones that stimulate growth prior to bloom.
Chlormequat is not currently approved for use on food or animal feed in the United States, though it has been allowed for use on ornamental crops grown in nurseries and greenhouses since 1962.
Farm groups welcomed the EPA action; the pesticide is already used by farmers in other countries on small grain products that are imported to the US. But critics say laboratory research has linked the chemical to problems with reproduction and development, and the EPA should not be putting people and animals at greater risk of exposure.
The crops included in the proposed decision can make up a significant portion of a child’s diet, a fact that makes the EPA’s proposal potentially dangerous for children, according to Phil Landrigan, a professor of public health and epidemiologist at Boston College.
“There appears to be evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity,” Landrigan said of chlormequat research. “Some little kids will spend a year of their life eating mostly a Cheerio diet. That’s what kids do. And in the end, the children who happen to be eating that atypical diet are the ones who are really heavily exposed.”
The EPA has “a legal duty to protect infants and children against the toxic effects of pesticides,” Landrigan said. “And they appear not to have taken that responsibility seriously.” (Read the rest of the story.)
Outrage over fresh chemical leak at Shell plastics plant
When Shell Chemical Appalachia announced the start of a massive plastics manufacturing facility last November in western Pennsylvania, the subsidiary of oil major Shell described it as “world-class,” and touted the company’s “strong and innovative safety focus.”
But now, just six months later, the plant has been the site of multiple malfunctions, including the leakage of benzene, a known carcinogen, along with other pollutants last month. The events come with putrid chemical odors and have area residents fearing for their health and calling on state officials to shut the plant down.
“We’re being told everything is okay, everything is safe, and it’s not,” said Hilary Flint, a cancer survivor who said she worries daily about how the malfunctions at the Shell plant may be affecting her health. Though she lives several miles away, she often spends time visiting her partner in Monaca, the community neighboring the Shell plant. Flint said both she and her partner contracted respiratory illnesses the week of the Shell plant’s chemical leak.
On Tuesday, the environmental advocacy group Earthworks shared a video the group said showed “a major pollution event” that occurred April 13-14, dates that Shell air monitors recorded benzene levels up to 110 micrograms per cubic meter. The minimal risk level for benzene exposure is set at 29 micrograms per cubic meter, set by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The World Health Organization says benzene exposure is a “major public health concern” and that “no safe level of exposure can be recommended.”
For Shell, a benzene level above nine micrograms per cubic meter is supposed to trigger an investigation, under the terms of an agreement between Shell and environmental groups.
A key issue is Shell’s “ground flare pollution control,” a process designed to burn up invisible harmful hydrocarbons produced through plant operations so they don’t contaminate the air. While Shell has assured the community its flares successfully destroy up to 99.55% of emissions, Earthworks and other groups critical of Shell claim air monitoring proves the flaring operations are not working.
“Shell is releasing harmful pollutants and exceeding multiple pollution limits,” Anais Peterson, Earthworks petrochemical organizer, said in a statement Tuesday. “For almost six months Shell has been polluting Beaver County and the surrounding areas with no repercussions.” (Read the rest of the story.)