environmental justice texas

8/3/2019 Environmental Justice Texas

1/9

1 Will Texas be a Toxic Dumping Ground or Paradise?

Will Texas be a Toxic Dumping Ground or Paradise?

Its Our Choice!

Our public policy makers stand in a position of public trustnot just for the present but as stewards for those who come along in the future.

- Rocky Anderson, Justice Party Candidate for President, spoken on February 19, 2010The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently called out Texas and its power companies as

the leading emitter in the U.S. of greenhouse gases and other dangerous toxins. The EPA report contains

explosive documentation of the level of mercury and arsenic pollution that these coal-fired power plants

are emitting into the air and water that sustain life in Texas. These same emissions also adversely affectclimate conditions for persons around the world. Information in Tables 1, Table 2, and Table 3, can also

be foundherealong with additional valuable and disturbing information.

Table1 Top Ten States Ranked byTotal Power Plant Emissions ofAirborne Mercury Pollution in 2010Rank State Airborne

Mercury

Emissions

(pounds)

1 Texas 11,127

2 Ohio 4,218

3 Pennsylvania 3,964

4 Missouri 3,835

5 Indiana 3,175
http://environmentgeorgiacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/GAE%20Biggest%20Mercury%20Polluters%20-%20WEB.pdfhttp://environmentgeorgiacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/GAE%20Biggest%20Mercury%20Polluters%20-%20WEB.pdfhttp://environmentgeorgiacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/GAE%20Biggest%20Mercury%20Polluters%20-%20WEB.pdfhttp://environmentgeorgiacenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/GAE%20Biggest%20Mercury%20Polluters%20-%20WEB.pdf


2/9

Will Texas be a Toxic Dumping Ground or Paradise? 2

Rank State Airborne

Mercury

Emissions

(pounds)

6 Alabama 3,002

7 West Virginia 2,4958 North Dakota 2,363

9 Kentucky 2,287

10 Michigan 2,253

Source: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Toxics Release Inventory(TRI).

Table2TheTop Five Polluting Power Companies in U.S.,2010, Airborne Mercury

Airborne

Rank CompanyMercury

Emissions

(pounds)

1American Electric

Power6,220

2Luminant

Generation Co.4,585

3 Southern Co. 4,369

4 Ameren Corp. 3,699

5 NRG Energy 3,025


As shown in Table 3, the dirtiest mercury-emitting companies are well entrenched in the dirtiest state with

the dirtiest power plants where we happen to live.


3/9


Table3Texashas Six of the Top 10 Dirtiest Power Plants, 2010 Airborne MercuryPollution

National

RankFacility Name

Airborne

Mercury

Emissions

(pounds)

State County City Owner

1Big Brown Steam Electric

Station & Lignite Mine1,610 TX Freestone Fairfield

Luminant

Generation Co. LLC

3

Martin Lake Steam

Electric Station & Lignite

Mine

1,420 TX Rusk Tatum

Luminant

Generation Co. LLC

4Limestone Electric

Generating Station1,150 TX Limestone Jewett

NRG Texas Power

LLC

5American Electric Power

H.W. Pirkey Power Plant1,070 TX Harrison Hallsville

American Electric

Power

7Monticello Steam Electric

Station & Lignite Mine

1,005 TX TitusMount

Pleasant

Luminant

Generation Co. LLC

10W.A. Parish Electric

Generating Station820 TX Fort Bend Thompsons

NRG Texas Power

LLC


Dangers of Toxins Released by Coal-fired Power Plants to

the Rivers and Lakes of Texas and to the Fish and Animals

that Live there

Mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants ends up in the air we breathe and the water we drink. Thispollution also limits the ability of Texans to safely eat the fish caught in the rivers, lakes, and Gulf Coast

fisheries of Texas.

Dr. Larry K. Lowry, PhD, with The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler Health, published

Implications of Mercury (Hg) in East Texas Lakes, which includes the following list of warnings about

particular species of fish that have high levels of mercury in them and that are found in the waters of East

Texas and in the waters along the Gulf of Mexico. Read the complete articlehere.
http://www.swcpeh.org/files/pdf/swcpeh_health-implications-mercury-et-lakes.pdfhttp://www.swcpeh.org/files/pdf/swcpeh_health-implications-mercury-et-lakes.pdfhttp://www.swcpeh.org/files/pdf/swcpeh_health-implications-mercury-et-lakes.pdfhttp://www.swcpeh.org/files/pdf/swcpeh_health-implications-mercury-et-lakes.pdf


4/9


Source:Implications of Mercury (Hg) in East Texas Lakes

Figure1Listof Mercury Advisories associated Affected Species of FishA birds-eye view of mercury advisories and bans is Texas is shown in Figure 2.

Source:Implications of Mercury (Hg) in East Texas Lakes

Figure2Mapsof Texas Showing Mercury Advisories and Bans


5/9


6/9


The Clean Air Task Force has prepared an interactive Texas map on a Website titled, Death and

Disease from Power Plants where viewers can click on a coal-fired power plant location on themap and see the economic and health effects on individuals who live near a power plant.

Implications ofTexas Greenhouse Emissions on the Climate

While the issue of Climate Change is not the primary subject of this article, I will address it here because

it is an offshoot, if not a major branch of the types of problems created by the failure of the political

system in the U.S. and our state to regulate and stop dangerous pollution. Like Mercury pollution, the

Houston Chronicle reports thatTexas leads the nationin emitting Greenhouse gases which most climate

scientists believe cause Climate Change and the unpredictable weather that it brings.

Climate Change has become more politicized than it should be. Large energy companies, including the

companies mentioned in Table 2 and companies like Exxon Mobil see stricter pollution and greenhouse

regulations as a threat to their profits and have spent large of money to mold public opinion to be

skeptical of the reality of Climate change. Here are some arguments that are frequently made by Climate

Change skeptics.

There is no proof that Climate change is real.Persons who use the terms proof or provemisuse those these terms as they rarely appear in scientific debate, which is essentially what the

Climate Change debate entails. The Scientific Method, which underlies most science research,

establishes tentative hypotheses which are then examined and re-examined by scientists overtime. Some issues me be considered as settled, but never proven in any absolute way. Forexample, Einstein theory of Relativity is being constantly examined by scientists and refined. The

same thing can be said about Quantum Mechanics. Scientists are more likely to be comfortable

with the standard of proof used in civil law suits, which is the preponderance of evidence, notthe criminal law standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

We need to wait until we are absolutely certain that Climate Change is real, before we act. The

same proof fallacy appears here again. But, if one looks at this objection closely, it is clear thatthe emphasis in this argument is more about what policy toward Climate Change is prudent.

For example, the late dare devil, Evel Knievel, had a much laxer standard of what is risky thansome who teaches defensive driving for a living. Regarding Climate Change, the Scientific

Americanpoints out in Top 10 Places Already Affected by Climate Change that small islandnations and countries such as Bangladesh with many areas at or below sea-level are more likely to

take the possibility of Climate Change more seriously than if you happen to live in a higher

elevation area of the world. Worst case scenario thinkers prefer to err on the side of safety.

George W. Bush, for example, was not a worse case scenario thinker, was warned when becamePresident about the possible dangers to New Orleans of a major hurricane. As President he cut

funding for expanding wetlands, which act as buffer against hurricanes, near New Orleans. He

also did not order the Army Corps of Engineers to raise the height of levies around New Orleans.

There plenty of other blame to go around for the disaster that happened to New Orleans afterHurricane. My view is that if you cant live with the consequences of a worst case scenario thatcan be prevented, then it is prudent to act to prevent the worst case from happening. With Climate

Change neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans are acting prudently to keep what many

climate scientists are warning is on the path to happen in our lifetimes.
http://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/map.php?state=Texashttp://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/map.php?state=Texashttp://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/map.php?state=Texashttp://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-leads-U-S-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2476015.phphttp://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-leads-U-S-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2476015.phphttp://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-leads-U-S-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2476015.phphttp://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-changehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-changehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-changehttp://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-leads-U-S-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2476015.phphttp://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/map.php?state=Texashttp://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/map.php?state=Texas


7/9


Scientists do not agree that Climate Change is real. There have been dueling lists of scientists

and supposed scientists such as uncredentialed TV weather persons put forward byenvironmental groups and Climate Change skeptics. The record is clean the preponderance ofcredentialed climate scientists believe that Climate Change is real. NASA scientists, such as

James Hansen with NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have access to the most

sophisticated climate-monitoring satellites in the world have been in the forefront of warning

about the dangers of Climate Change.

Federal government is skewing the results reported by climate scientists through the power of

the government to reward and punish study results by giving orfunding climate research.This statement was given credence due to what was called climate-gate when email systemsused by climate scientists in Great Britain were hacked. Persons who believe that climate

scientific research is rigged latched onto story as the smoking gun that Climate Change wasmade up governments seeking to put in stricter controls on the use of greenhouse gases produced

by factories such as coal-fired power plants that could reinforce climate change processes at

work. In fact, during the Bush and Obama administrations climate scientists warning about

Climate Change were more often fired or muzzled, rather than rewarded.Also since the climate-gate scandal broke, there has been another scandal that has gripped the British government, andthat is the stories he exposing the existence of a giant hacking effort led by Rupert Murdochs

News Corporation ((News Corp) whose reporters spied on a variety of persons to create stories,

that were short on truth, but long on sensation . TheNews of the World, Murdochs British

tabloid had to be closed because of its hacking practices. Rupert Murdoch was also one of theleading Climate Change deniers who over time has made debunking Climate Change his top

priority. Murdoch publications, such as Fox News in the U.S. have specialized in portraying

opinion as news.

There is opposition to solutions proposed by governments and business elites for combating

Climate Change. For example Cap-and-Trade systems, which allow polluters to trade pollutioncredits, allow for selective enforcement, one for polluters and one for everyone else. Carbontaxes are opposed as a hidden method of raising taxes that will ultimately be paid by consumers

through higher energy rates. I happen to oppose both Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes and agree

with both of these arguments, It should be pointed out these are proposed solutions that areseparate and apart from the questions, Is Climate Change real? Doesnt Climate Change posea real threat to world?, and Should the U.S. and Texas governments be taking steps to combatClimate Change. I think the answer to all these questions is an emphatic Yes.

Solutions to the problem of Climate Change are and will be the subject of vigorous debate during the

upcoming 2012 Presidential and Congressional and State legislative elections.After the election and for

the coming decade, the debate will continue in future elections and during federal and state legislative

hearings and around EPA rules that address this subject. Too much time has been spent of debating

whether Climate Change exists. In a functioning democracy, rational debate on finding solutions is the

best way to determine how to deal with Climate Change. But, it is time to act with a sense of urgency, not

going down rabbit holes which polluting industries have constructed to divert voters from the looming

dangers of Climate Change on people in the U.S., Texas, and the world.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.htmlhttp://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.htmlhttp://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html


8/9


Implications for Individuals and Families who Fish and Eat

the Fish they Catch

If you want to go fishing in Texas, instead of hiring a fishing guide, you may need the advice of a

chemist, specializing in testing waters for toxic chemicals or wildlife biologists who knows how to

measure fish for toxic residues. I have included fish advisories and bans in this article taken from the

Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, who most Texans would agree is an authoritative source of

information about the safety of eating the fish caught in public waters in Texas. Check the list of

advisories and bans at the Parks and Wildlifesadvisory page.

The Parks and Wildlife department, which has a motto, Life is better outside also publishes SpecialNotices containing food safety warnings in its 2011-2012 Texas Commercial Fishing Guide (Effective

SEPT. 1, 2011, Expires Aug. 31, 2012) See full texthere.

Most casual fishing enthusiasts would not think about reading the Commercial Fishing Guide to find if

the fish in the river or lake in which they were planning to fish was safe or not. And, many would assume

that Texas waters would be safe for fishing and not go to the Parks and Wildlifes Bans and AdvisoriesWebpage. Also, I have been to several of the lakes mentioned in the notices below and did not find anyposted warning about the categories of fish that were not safe to eat or about any dangers of Mercury or

PCBs or other toxins mentioned in the Texas Parks and Wildlifes advisories and bans on fishconsumption. This practice is counter to the normal practice where warnings appear routinely oneverything that is remotely dangerous and always appear on products that are always dangerous such as

High Voltage lines. Mercury is always dangerous.

In rural areas, it is not unusual to let school children fish unsupervised and is often considered to one ofthe Pluses in living the rural lifestyle where children can learn about nature and the outdoors directly and

not from books.

Political Implications of Environmental Justice Issues inTexas

There are several reasons why the people are not aware of how polluted the air and water has become in

Texas:

People falsely assume that State and Federal regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect the

health and safety of its citizens is doing its job. While employees of the agencies are for the mostpart honest government employees trying to do their jobs, the persons who head the agencies are

appointed by elected officials who take campaign contributions from the persons they are

supposed to regulate. This means that the policies that the employees of the regulatory bodies are

enforcing are weak or non-existent laws that protect the polluters, but not the people. Forexample, most of the coal-fired plants that spew out the mercury pollution that contaminates theair and water ofTexas were grandfathered out of existing state pollution laws. The EPArecently stepped in to set higher air and water standards, but even the EPA lags behind the

technologies that allows scientists to measure toxins in the environment and only very slowly

tightens the standards on toxins and arsenic, with which there is no safe level.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/regulations/fish_hunt/fish/consumption_bans.phtml#worthhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/regulations/fish_hunt/fish/consumption_bans.phtml#worthhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/regulations/fish_hunt/fish/consumption_bans.phtml#worthhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_v3400_0074.pdfhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_v3400_0074.pdfhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_v3400_0074.pdfhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_v3400_0074.pdfhttp://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/regulations/fish_hunt/fish/consumption_bans.phtml#worth


9/9


At both the State and Federal levels, there is a revolving door between industry that pollutes and

the regulatory agencies, where employees of the industries who are supposedly regulated and

employees of those agencies who regulate them move seamlessly between the public and private

sectors. If a government employee writes a favorable rule, that employee can receive his or her

reward by going to the higher paying job in the public sector. An executive from a polluting

agency can give a campaign contribution to an elected official, or now under the Citizens United

case can have his corporation give indirectly a Super PAC that supports the elected official and berewarded with an appointed as the head or member of the Board of Directors of the agency who

will go easy on his or her former employers. As many have noted, the current system of

campaign finance is legalized bribery.

The culture of deregulation has taken its toll in Texas as it has at the federal government level.

Regulation has been demonized as job killing or bad for business. The trade-offs forderegulating industries that emit very toxic substances as a by-product of its business, are

polluted waters, fish tainted with deadly toxins, and unsafe air and water that enter our bodies and

cause us to get sick and/or die prematurely.

One of the fear tactics used by the companies and agencies who pollute is that it is argued

electricity rates will go up if tighter pollution standards are enforced. In hard economic times, this

argument has a certain persuasive power. But, the cost of electricity is not the only cost thatconsumers face. For example, if you get sick from consuming mercury or your child suffers

mental damage from high levels of mercury that is also a cost you will have to pay. One of the

criticisms of current market-pricing mechanisms is that companies that pollute can pass on the

health and environmental cleanup costs to the public at large, while they retain the profits they

make from their polluting industries.

A Texas culture that values commerce over nature, profits over the safety of the air we breathe, the water

we drink, and the food we eat should not be surprised with the results that we see in our state.

Voters of Texas are at a Moral Crossroads

Texas is at a crossroads with regard to the type of world we want to leave future generations. There ismuch talk about the problem of the Federal Deficit, and it is an issue of concern. But, there is a greater

deficit, a moral deficit, that occurs when voters turn a blind eye to the rising dangers to the totalecosystem that sustains life in our nation, our state, and in the world, This type of intentional moral

blindness allows the health and safety of children and future generations to be sacrificed to the goal of

protecting the Status Quo, where the Bottom Line is allowed to be the last word in every important

political decision that we make.

environmental justice texas

Documents