Mad Hatters, Cinnabar and B-Movies

 

Ten Bears' recent post just released a flood of information-associations for me, and in typical aneurotypical fashion, I'm treating you all to an infodump. I share because I love. 

There's good reason to think mercury could be a cause of endemic psychological dysfunction--methyl mercury was the sad story behind the character of the "Mad Hatter" in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Mercury poisoning can cause depression, anxiety, insomnia, chronic pain and personality changes, and there's good reason to believe that people turn to substance abuse to self-medicate. It would not surprise me that low level organic mercury poisoning could result in a pattern of alcoholism and other substance use. After all, we know very well that there is a link between lead exposure and criminal activity and substance abuse. And we know that as exposure to lead has gone down, so has crime. 

I think I first became aware that mercury was a problem because of cinnabar--I collect jewelry and the idea that certain jewelry could be mildly toxic fascinated me. It also reminded me of the deadliness of lead used in ancient cosmetics--and it bothered me that mercury poisoning is associated with fish because I eat rather a lot of it--tinned fish is a protein go-to when you work long hours and don't have a lot of time for cooking. And I adore sushi. 

American Gasbags

 

This week, scads of people formed huge lines at gas stations filling up containers that had no business holding liquid fuel because of a very temporary supply hiccup. Because of the kind of country we happen to have, this was characterized in the media as President Biden's problem. Which is kind of is, as in, his administration had to deal with it, but also is wasn't, in the sense that a major driver of shortages was panic-buying because people with a very particular set of political skills used the opportunity to make this about energy policies that had nothing to do with what was...to be perfectly clear...a criminal hack on our gas supply infrastructure. 

This kind of thoughtless, kneejerk jerkery has unfortunately had badly destructive consequences, already. (I'm going to leave alone whether the owner of a Hummer already had some wasteful notions about gas consumption, and ignore whether or not a lit cigarette had anything to do with the conflagration.) I can easily imagine worse situations--storing this fuel in sheds or garages, leaks, sparks, fumes. And accidents while siphoning the badly-stored fuel into gas tanks. I guess if it all makes it into cars there isn't too much risk of serious damage that your fuel filter wouldn't catch--but that's an "if" and I don't know if I'd want my garage-baby nursed on petrol with drowned dust-bunnies in it. (I'm no mechanic, so I don't know what the repercussions of a sludgy fuel pump are.)

The "Joe Biden's Green New Deal caused 1970's-like gas lines" stuff reminds me a lot of this February's "Joe Biden's Green New Deal caused Texas energy failures". It was another weird bunch of lies that seem to cohere around not understanding how anything works and wanting to blame libs when anything goes wrong. And yet some people accept that kind of twaddle, as poorly-stored and unsafely packaged, combustible and laden with debris as it is.

Which makes me wonder just which kind of American gasbag is ultimately more dangerous. While the damage isn't as obvious as a melted suburban assault vehicle is, I worry about the bullshit in our rhetorical gas tank.

UPDATE: In the interest of not being a part of the problem while trying to be part of the solution, I'll concede the above picture is not from this crisis. But yes, the panic-buying was real, and ill-considered. And the government isn't telling folks not to put gas in plastic bags unless that nonsense was out there.

Climate Sunday: Fire, Water and Other Things

 The tragedy of Hurricane Harvey is not even beginning to be over, because the nature of water is to go everywhere, and there are many places where it isn't very nice for water to go.  Consider Superfund sites, or active chemical plants or petroleum refineries, where who knows what could get into the water--and, well, that too, will go wherever the water goes. (Rural run-offs are also fairly disgusting and serious.) There will be mold, mildew, mosquitos, and the possibility of cholera and who knows what all else? But added to the natural dangers are those unnatural, chemical additives--asthma? Heart failure? Kidney problems? Cancer?

We don't exactly know, and without regulations explicitly telling us what chemicals are being leeched into the flood water, and deposited in backyards, athletic fields, schoolyards and playgrounds, well, I guess people will have to assume the best--because obviously if these materials were harmful, the multi-million dollar corps involved would feel obliged to make that information transparent?

Sure! (I'm skeptical!) But there is that silly old thing I've noticed about the Trump Administration--they don't give a right rat's ass. And they are doubling down on not caring about science in the least.

But let's not center the problem on the US. Other places on this earth are weather-drenched and suffering.  So let's just get it out there--while floods are natural enough--the extremity of the floods we are seeing might very well be fueled by climate change.

But let's not just talk about wet things--there is a terrible wildfire on the West Coast. That too, can be possibly chalked up to climate change. These types of fires have their own, chemical consequences as well.

We can't afford to have non-scientists at the lead of agencies that rely on science to do their missions, and we can't ignore science just because someone somewhere is making bank on human misery. This is one of the many reasons why I despise this Trump Maladministration.

Climate Sunday: What's up with the EPA?

You know, I worry a little bit about an agency charged with protecting the environment when it is now being headed by someone who made many lawsuits against it. I'm funny that way. So when I hear that a number of folks have been forced off of the EPA advisory board, I feel like it's good odds they'll be replaced by people like Mandy Gunesekara, who is totally there for the coal industry, or folks who don't really care if a pesticide is shown to be detrimental to children's development.

I really don't have anything to add to that--there are just some pretty worrying signs, right there.

If It Was About a Pipeline *You* Didn't Want?

I guess the thing that strikes me as ridiculous about the conflict with the water-protectors who protested against the Dakota Pipeline which was just denied access is that these people were basically talking about what should be allowed in their own backyards. Maybe Speaker of the House Paul Ryan thinks it is a shame that they wanted to keep access to clean water and not to have the pipeline run through land their ancestors were buried in. Maybe, even after his share in the pipeline is sold, Donald Trump still feels that way, too.

But for now, the rights of local people are being respected. And that is, I would think, a good thing. And I don't really think government should muscle in and override their rights, any more than they should take away their right to protest or physically abuse them while they exercise that right. Some people think differently. But I would want them to think about how they would feel about the water their kids drink, or how they would feel about a pipeline running through their parents' graveyard.

It just isn't that more complicated than that. It's about a time and a place, and how these people said this isn't the time and place for this pipeline, right here. It isn't about weirdly hating on energy or business or wanting some special right. It was about their location. Energy companies don't have more of a right to a place because of money. People have rights and among them, the right to petition their government for redress of grievances. And if you find that problematic, you go consult with the founding fathers. See where they are buried, and consider whether a pipeline needs to run through their graves and how you would feel about that.

Climate Sunday: Know Your Class War

One of the things that is horrifying and galling about the water crisis that has poisoned the residents of Flint, MI, is that is should have been prevented. There is no way that officials in Michigan could not have known that the Flint River was polluted, or been able to do appropriate feasibility studies to determine if that water even could be treated adequately to be safe for drinking. But this particular story has an even uglier facet to it--Flint isn't alone.

Actually, a lot of communities have drinking water that is substandard or at-risk. Vox has found that there is lead poisoning in communities throughout the country. And it shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of the communities that have contaminated water are poorer communities--they are all-around more exposed to contamination, and remediation of pollution is expensive.

But lead isn't the only contaminant--there's pathogens (like the E.coli and Legionnaire's disease that may also be contaminating Flint's water), arsenic, radon and more. Some contamination is very area-specific, like the uranium in the groundwater used by thousands of Navajo nation people, or areas whose water can be jeopardized by coal ash spills.

So while the crisis in Flint is the most visible story about unsafe drinking water, and one of the more egregious cases of how the people there came to be drinking poison, keep in mind that people in St. Joseph, LA and Firebaugh, CA also have water they simply can not trust. And while there are ways to fix the infrastructure to provide these people with safe water--the resources to do it are not to be had locally, and this dynamic perpetuates poor health outcomes.

Jeb Bush Makes Me Feel Bad

Jeb Bush has secured the crucial "Jeb Bush's mom" endorsement https://t.co/7nxhoNBLOo

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) January 23, 2016

This week, Jeb Bush seems to have brought his mom around to supporting his campaign, which is great, because she wasn't that excited before, to be honest. This surely means Jebmentum is on its way. Or not.

See, I think the guy has a "unforced error" problem that is going to be insurmountable. Take the water crisis in Flint. Now, Marco Rubio ducked and said he didn't really know about it, and Donald Trump ducked and said he didn't have anything to say about it. But here is Jeb Bush:

“I admire Rick Snyder for stepping up right now. He’s going to the challenge, and he’s fired people and accepted responsibility to fix this,” Bush, a former Florida governor, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Yep. "Heckuva job, Rick Snyder." After a year and a half or so of covering it up and ignoring it, the Michigan Republican is finally getting around to spreading the blame between his administration and anybody else he can point at. And Jeb calls that leadership. But when you're happy to tout getting an endorsement from your mom, maybe a participation trophy does look like a major award.

Climate Sunday: Finger-Pointing, anyone?

The above Tweet from MI Gov. Rick Snyder is in response to statements made by the candidates at tonight's Democratic debate. (I've screen-capped it instead of embedding, as one does when a rapid-response might just be too rapid and could be deleted.) It might make Gov. Snyder's day if we just let bygones be bygones and forget about who poisoned whom, but believe it or not, some people still think accountability is part of the process of making things right. Hillary Clinton used her time to bring up the issue at the end of the debate, and Sen. Sanders stated that the governor should resign.

I think there is a point to removing Snyder from the office because what he knew and when he knew it is an important part of solving the crisis. That the water was discolored and smelled bad and wasn't safe was brought up long before he was apparently bothered to do anything about it. It might even seem to some people like nothing got done because somebody didn't want to accept the blame, as if addressing it meant taking responsibility for it. Oddly enough, being responsible enough to take care of the well-being of one's citizens when one is governor is what that leadership position is all about.

And considering this disaster to be about "political statements" is clearly missing the point by a mile.

The Least the Governor of Michigan Could Do

Michigan governor calls in the National Guard to help with the water crisis in Flint: https://t.co/jd1JjxpZat pic.twitter.com/I9LLwCTmJG

— The Root (@TheRoot) January 14, 2016

Calling in the National Guard to distribute water to the people in Flint, MI who do not have drinkable tap water, is a bit behind the beat and the least he could do. The people of Flint have had their water prices jacked-up by Detroit before the switch to the corrosive and polluted Flint River water source, and have enjoyed the benefits of funky, yellow, e coli-laden, lead-contaminated, and now possibly Legionnaire's disease-tainted water ever since. And they are being asked to pay for the privilege of being poisoned.

You couldn't call what is happening to these people "government", let alone "emergency management". I'd call it "depraved indifference" to the people Governor Snyder is supposed to be answerable to, and there should be a better answer than passing out bottled water at this late date. These folks need their water bills forgiven, they need a new water supply, and for the damage done to their kids, there needs to be a monetary settlement because the damage from lead to the children of Flint is not reversible and will impact their long-term cognitive health.

And every other governor or would-be governor of any state should look at this episode in future as the reason why you do not save pennies at the expense of human health and safety. It's an appalling mess.

Something Rotten Leaking in California

The above video is an infrared image of the plume of methane leaking from the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak, which was discovered in late October and has been spewing 110K lbs of methane per hour, making the worst environmental disaster in the US since 2010's BP oil spill.  The leak smells because of mercaptan, which has a rotten-egg odor and can cause nausea and dizziness, causing thousands of people to evacuate the area.  There are apparently several difficulties in capping the leak, which can make it take at least three more months to be resolved.

Methane is a particularly active greenhouse gas, which makes this mess pretty troubling--but you know me, I can always envision something worse. As you all know, California has been having a serious drought, causing aquifers of groundwater to be pumped like mad. What's less discussed is the way this is causing ground subsidence--in other words, California is sinking. This is causing some infrastructure to break down--which can include pipelines.

It's the same kind of infrastructure damage that I wonder about regarding the connection between fracking and earthquakes.  It's not reassuring, the things I think about.

Climate Sunday: Cherry Blossoms and Daffodils

Yep, that's the National Mall today! Fall-blooming blossoms going strong in the warmth. https://t.co/VTxrTLH8En pic.twitter.com/OdHVZJCbrX

— Capital Weather Gang (@capitalweather) December 9, 2015

We are enjoying a particularly mild December here in the East Coast. Just yesterday my dad had to mow his lawn. Fall-blooming cherry blossoms are still going strong in DC. Buffalo, NY just had its first little bit of snow, the latest snow has started there since 1899. We're not alone. All of the lower 48 states have had higher-than-normal temps, and daffodils have bloomed in the UK. It's weird, but it's sort of a pleasant-weird for many of us. Looks like I'll be in shorts for Christmas Eve instead of dashing through the snow. I can deal with that.

But as you've probably guessed, I know this pattern is largely to do with current weather conditions, and isn't necessarily "proof" of global warming. (Although the last five years having all been records pretty much is.) And, as you've also probably guessed, I'm just starting on a pleasant note before launching into my weekly warnings and portents.

Climate Sunday: No, Additional CO2 is not Better For Plants

So, this is the fertilizer that Sen. Jim Inhofe, climate change denier, was spreading just recently:

“Counter to the doomsday predictions of climate alarmists, increasing observations suggest a much reduced and practically harmless climate response to increased amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Inhofe said. “Also missing from the climate alarmists’ doomsday scenarios and well-scripted talking points are the benefits from increased carbon that has led to a greening of the planet and contributed to increased agricultural productivity.”

Oh, and one other thing.

“People do not realize that you cannot grow things without CO2,” Inhofe said. “CO2 is a fertilizer. It is something you cannot do without. No one ever talks about the benefits that people are inducing that as a fertilizer on a daily basis.”

Know Your Class War: Freddie Gray's Neighborhood

(This picture, from this post, sums up the question: "What is important in our lives?" If there are cities with "ghost blocks" like this, where every house is boarded up, what does that say to the people who live in close proximity to such blocks? What do those residents feel walking down such a weirdly dead area? What would their conception of the future look like?)

At Crooks & Liars, Karoli has written a most excellent piece regarding Freddie Gray's shadowed start in life, from premature birth to childhood development poisoned by lead, and surrounded by poverty. We know that exposure to toxic chemicals and substances like lead are a damaging part of poverty, robbing people of IQ points and years of life expectancy. The exposure to lead, specifically, has been associated with criminal incidents, with might help explain, if not totally excuse, Gray's rap sheet.

Happy Earth Day, If You Want It

It makes sense that President Obama gave an address about global warming on Earth Day in the Everglades National Park, because this sensitive region has dozens of species of plant and animal life that would be impacted by sea level rise. But let's make no mistake: even if we discount the loss of irreplaceable habitat, the advance of climate change will have significant impact on the livelihood of people living in regions like Florida, with impacts to fishing, tourism, agriculture and real estate.

Addressing climate change isn't the job-killer--climate change is.

It also makes me a little happy to see the President take a message about climate change to Florida in light of word that "climate change" is forbidden as a topic of conversation for officials in that state. That strikes me as nonsensical, and even a little chilling. (Really? Recommending someone seek a mental health evaluation for indulging in a little "politically incorrect" truth-telling? That seems like some kind of Soviet tactic, to me.)  I hope the whole affair gave Governor Scott the vapors.

In other news, WI Governor and likely 2016 GOP Presidential Primary contestant Scott Walker decided Earth Day is exactly when you propose to cut 57 employees from the Department of Natural Resources. (Gov. Walker does not seem especially sentimental regarding his state's natural resources or popular input regarding them.) Wisconsin is another state where discussion of climate change has been, well, chilled. Which is a damn shame, because ground water is at risk in case of climate-change related drought even if WI is a land of lakes and streams--and as dairy country, watering and having lush grazing land for livestock is at a premium. I am a bit of a cheese fan. I would like my supply guaranteed, please.

One might take a moment to reflect that, while climate change is global, all politics is local. Responsible conservation begins with people electing responsible state government to act as stewards of the people's resources. Making the Earth cleaner, safer, less-polluted, and less at-risk of large-scale awfulness seems remote, but in many ways involves managing what you can--like not having people who regard your state as so many saleable resources to unload, as opposed to a precious place to sustain for your family and future generations to enjoy, as your governor.

Five Years Since the BP Gulf Oil Spill

A BP spokesperson says that by now, the stuff that washes up is probably safe and they just don't think the spill is what made the oyster yield go away, but I have my suspicions that they might be putting a spin on things. At four years out, several species were determined to be seriously impacted by the spill. The region hasn't really recovered.

I can't help comparing it to the Exxon Valdez spill. The area stayed a mess and the health of the people who were involved in the cleanup suffered over the long term. I worry what will be facing people exposed to the oil and the chemicals like Corexit in the future. And I don't really trust the industry to do all they should to make sure disasters like this don't happen again, not just because of the damage to the environment and the impact of the cleanup, but because of the safety of workers like those who lost their lives when the rig blew.

Five years later, the events still make me sad and angry.

Climate Sunday: Water, Water Everywhere, nor any Drop to Drink?

One of the things I try to be consistent about regarding my appreciation for the environment and my real desire that we don't completely screw it up is: we need certain things like water, air and food to live--so let's actually not fuck with them so hard. Funny thing about this is, those are the things that are most directly getting screwed up. Prime example--3 billion gallons of oil industry wastewater got dumped into the California aquifer. That water is used for drinking and irrigation. Agriculture is highly important in California because they serve a lot of our food needs. And the sad thing about the timing is--California is experiencing a major drought.

There's some jaw-dropping stupid involved in screwing up the already compromised water supply of a state that provides a hell of a lot of our food. But this is the mentality we've got since somebody decided to push for the "Halliburton loophole", that made contaminating freshwater supplies with whatever crap fossil fuel industry folks thought was okay (thallium? arsenic? you betcha!) completely legal.

If I dropped arsenic in your soda, I'd go to jail. Oil companies can put who the hell knows what in the drinking water of hundreds of thousands of people and it does not mean squat.

Now, there is some push back. In my own state, activists have suggested oil company folks drink their own supply and see what they get from it. But I'm afraid that bubble-headed anti-regulationists (well-funded by the Koch Brothers, and others) are looking to get into office and unleash even more dirty water fuckery.

I sure would like to think we're smart enough as a people to not vote for more dirty water in this country.

Climate Tuesday: Like I was Saying, People are Missing All of the Points

So, the takeaway from Naomi Klein's book, if I just boiled it down to the simplest message is, "For crying out loud, not everything has to come down to the Almighty Buck!"

So here's another example of people who seem to be missing all of the points in the extractivist quest to mine for gold in...the dumbest places.  So here we go--West Virginia.

I like West Virginia, it's a beautiful state. The Ohio River is lovely, and its water serves the thirst requirements and more for over 3 million people. So, of course, oil companies are looking at that stream of liquid life and thinking,

"Hey, could there be natural gas under there?"

Yep. The state that just recently had water services to 300,000 residents interrupted by a chemical spill wants to play River Roulette. Sad to say, the governor there is a Democrat, albeit I guess a pitiful one. Which is a reminder that stupidity in the pursuit of petrodollars is not a partisan issue--it's a problem all over.  Fossil fuel royalties are no way to plug a budget hole if it's a stopgap at best and poses more serious clean-up problems down the road. This is the kind of short-term political thinking that makes things worse.

Climate Sunday: Time for a Revolution

There has been a kind of lazy thinking regarding climate change regarding the cost, and as part of my Climate (mostly) Sunday posts, I've often tried to track how the idea that converting our economy to a more sustainable and egalitarian track was proper and necessary.

Oil isn't the future once you've met peak oil--when tar sands or dilbit or whatever you want to call it means more effort and money is put into extracting more polluting fuels. It isn't even the future when you realize burning it is harming the atmosphere. Coal isn't the future when mountaintop removal dumps arsenic into groundwater, and high-sulfur coal produces sickening levels of particulate pollution. Fracking isn't the answer when groundwater is polluted and local farms and residences experience sickness.

The climate science deniers hedge their bets with the refuge that doing something about climate change will cost a lot anyway, so why be out of pocket just for the sake of trees and polar bears and poor people? The answer is that not addressing climate change will cost plenty in the long run. Denialists are basically screwing themselves. It's possible that addressing climate change could very well be beneficial to growth--if we get serious, creative, and on point.

I don't think we have time to waste--I'm enough of a cynic to believe that tipping points are real, and that we could reach a point of no return--but this can not mean that we don't try.

So I have very little time for people who want to blame climate scientists for "being in it for the money".  Seriously? I mean, seriously? Then you can't say addressing climate change is also communism. Sorry. The future might have to be local action, clean energy, water protection, and sustainable food systems. In other words, getting a better quality of life by not supporting pollution and destructive business practices.

And surprisingly, the only ones really hurt by that would be the people disproportionately benefitting from the current tilted and earth-damaging system.

Something has to give.

Climate Thursday: Drilling for Lava? And "The End of the World"!

People are stubborn, which is I think one of the main arguments going for climate science denialism--people prefer not to be told what to do, even if what they are planning to do is probably dumb. Example--Smokey the Bear should not have to tell people to be careful not to set forests on fire. But people go halfway peeing out campfires and flicking cigars around during wildfire season anyway.

In other words, yes, people sometimes do need to be told. For example, we do need to have boundaries on where oil and gas drilling takes place. And I don't just mean being careful about draining aquifers from fracking or running the risk of contaminating wells--although those are pretty dumb things people are already doing. I mean things like deciding we need to drill for oil in Yellowstone Park.

There's a supervolcano under Yellowstone that hasn't gone off for some hundreds of thousands of years, but given that the area is geologically volatile, I'd say there's a good argument about avoiding making the land angry. Drilling for oil is bad enough without drilling for lava. (Although the gentleman from Wyoming isn't the first mook to suggest drilling in Yellowstone was perfectly viable, and I guess he won't be the last.)

Climate Sunday: What is happening here?

Should it surprise anyone that the kinds of people who want fracking solution to be proprietary and plump for sealed settlements for whenever they actually do get caught poisoning people, should decide to work on a state level to weaken the effort of the EPA whenever they try to make sure we have breathable air and drinkable water?

There's a reason they work on the state level--they might win a round where local players might see a payoff. And the people who would be stuck with the pollution, the spent land, the air quality repercussions, are presumed to be the folks who would never pay attention anyway. So if you kind of wonder what is happening around you and why--here it is: really smart people were drafted to propagandize a situation in which it was totally permissible to poison you, and called it "job-creation". And they were so good at it that it worked. And if you live in a rural area or a coal, gas, oil mining/drilling area, you are probably a little bit poisoned. And the people you think are saving you from socialism are the people who basically poisoned you by working to zone that shit.

Mad yet? Wanna try? Because collective effort called voting could mean getting people who care about the environment to work for you--not against you. And that might be worthwhile, a little, no?