Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thisisausername190 t1_j9oofwp wrote

Which fuel, you might ask?

> The Environmental Protection Agency recently gave a Chevron refinery the green light to create fuel from discarded plastics as part of a climate-friendly initiative to boost alternatives to petroleum. [emphasis mine]

And the cancer risk:

> According to agency records obtained by ProPublica and the Guardian, the production of one of the fuels could emit air pollution that is so toxic, one out of four people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer. [emphasis mine]

For more context:

> That risk is 250,000 times greater than the level usually considered acceptable by the EPA division that approves new chemicals.

> Aside from the chemical that carries a 25% lifetime risk of cancer from smoke-stack emissions, another of the Chevron fuels ushered in through the program is expected to cause 1.2 cancers in 10,000 people – also far higher than the agency allows for the general population.

> The EPA division that screens new chemicals typically limits cancer risk from a single air pollutant to one case of cancer in a million people. [emphasis mine)

> The one-in-four lifetime cancer risk from breathing the emissions from the Chevron jet fuel is higher even than the lifetime risk of lung cancer for current smokers.

I highly recommend reading the article, there’s a lot more there than I covered in this comment, including the people who are disproportionally affected.

301

Legitimate-Tea5561 t1_j9p6g8m wrote

>In an email Chevron spokes person Ross Allen wrote: “It is incorrect to say there is a one-in-four cancer risk from smoke-stack emissions. I urge you avoid suggesting otherwise.” Asked to clarify what exactly was wrong, Allen wrote that Chevron disagrees with ProPublica and the Guardian’s “characterization of language in the EPA consent order”. That document, signed by a Chevron manager at its refinery in Pascagoula, quantified the lifetime cancer risk from the inhalation of smoke-stack air as 2.5 cancers in 10 people, which can also be stated as one in four.

Urges us to avoid suggesting the truth.

>In a subsequent phone call, Allen said: “We do take care of our communities, our workers, and the environment. Generally, this is job one for Chevron.”

They take care of profiting off the communities, and spreading the cost of their pollution to every one else.

92

Portalrules123 t1_j9ruwig wrote

If that was their job one they literally wouldn’t be able to exist running as a massive conglomeration, because the economic system they are intrenched in is based purely on cold hard profit. So you already can tell this is a lie.

4

Underwood4EverHoC OP t1_j9oopk1 wrote

Plastics => fuel sounds very legit and safe as hell.

Thought an EPA official who obviously never smelled melting plastic or completed high school.

83

thisisausername190 t1_j9op6f7 wrote

Yeah, it’s pretty clear none of this makes any sense to anyone with common sense and a bit of knowledge on the subject. From the article:

> ProPublica and the Guardian asked Maria Doa, a scientist who worked at the EPA for 30 years, to review the document laying out the risk. Doa, who once ran the division that managed the risks posed by chemicals, was so alarmed by the cancer threat that she initially assumed it was a typographical error. “EPA should not allow these risks in Pascagoula or anywhere,” said Doa, who now is the senior director of chemical policy at Environmental Defense Fund. [emphasis mine]

82

Portalrules123 t1_j9rv3am wrote

The status quo is now actually being chosen over reality. It cannot be sustained, so lies and gaslighting are being used to make us think it can.

3

techleopard t1_j9ot18t wrote

I'm thinking more along the lines of "Thought an EPA official who just received a nice anonymous thank you gift and a promise of future employment."

32

Hydrochloric_Comment t1_j9ow54n wrote

Melting is not remotely the same as catalytic pyrolysis, lmao. But unfortunately, while plastic pyrolysis is theoretically a really great way to eliminate plastic waste, it’s not particularly helpful for emissions. Both in that the pyrolysis itself isn’t green, and that the emissions from using the fuel are typically not better than diesel.

16

Legitimate-Tea5561 t1_j9p4s54 wrote

Or how advanced nuclear waste technology is 'safe' because using the word advanced makes the waste seems acceptable.

−17

Susastelle t1_j9p5cut wrote

"The one-in-four lifetime cancer risk from breathing the emissions from the Chevron jet fuel is higher even than the lifetime risk of lung cancer for current smokers.

... Throwe said the existing testing and monitoring requirements for refineries couldn’t capture the pollution from these new plastic-based fuels because the rules were written before these chemicals existed.

... In her three decades at the EPA, Doa had never seen a chemical with that high a cancer risk that the agency allowed to be released into a community without restrictions.

“The only requirement seems to be just to use the chemicals as fuel and have the workers wear gloves,” she said.

While companies have made fuels from discarded plastics before, this EPA program gives them the same administrative break that renewable fuels receive: a dedicated EPA team that combines the usual six regulatory assessments into a single report.

The irony is that Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, which this initiative was meant to support, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost the production of renewable fuels. Truly renewable energy sources can be regenerated in a short period of time, such as plants or algae. While there is significant debate about whether ethanol, which is made from corn, and other plant-based renewable fuels are really better for the environment than fossil fuels, there is no question that plastics are not renewable and that their production and conversion into fuel releases climate-harming pollution.

... The idea of creating fuel from plastic offers the comforting sense that plastics are sustainable. But the release of cancer-causing pollution is just one of several significant problems that have plagued attempts to convert discarded plastic into new things. One recent study by scientists from the Department of Energy found that the economic and environmental costs of turning old plastic into new using a process called pyrolysis were 10 to 100 times higher than those of making new plastics from fossil fuels. The lead author said similar issues plague the use of this process to create fuels from plastics."

28

mudman13 t1_j9r94xj wrote

Wtaf they're like some batman villain.

10

UnwillingCouchFlower t1_j9qbr2k wrote

Everyone who is upset by this or feeling worried, if you are living in America, please take a moment to write your senators and representatives. If you would consider it, but need to find your representatives… Here a link where you can enter where you live and it will show your who represents you. (https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member)

Even if you copy parts of the comment above and emphasize that you are someone they represent and this is alarming for all people and it should not be allowed to happen because it’s not worth the risks, that is wonderful!

23

Chippopotanuse t1_j9t6mp3 wrote

This is really disturbing. Why the hell would the EPA let this pass scrutiny?

4