NEWSBYNIKKI GLOUDEMAN

A few months ago, the story of a possible connection between serious birth defects in Kettleman City, Calif., and a huge toxic waste dump in the town’s backyard gripped environmentalists, health advocates and concerned citizens across the country.  Since then, after a series of twists and turns, the story has faded from the public spotlight—but much to the chagrin of the dump, damning new information has brought fresh attention to the issue.

Early last week, the EPA released a report that revealed the landfill, Waste Management Inc., has violated a litany of environmental safety measures, information that with any justice will put a wrench in the plant’s careless plans to nearly double its size.

Among its abuses, the report revealed that the plant unlawfully disposed of prohibited wastes; used substandard analytical equipment; improperly marked containers filled with hazardous waste; and—perhaps in the most incriminating bit—failed to properly maintain and operate the facility to prevent it from fires, explosions or other releases that would put the community’s health in jeopardy.

If there were a Girl Scout badge for environmental bravery and dedication, 15-year-olds Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen would be first in line to get them.

The pair of high schoolers have been garnering major press for their campaign to rid palm oil from Girl Scout cookies—the production of which, as we’ve written about before, destroys rainforests in Malaysia and Indonesia, and puts endangered orangutans at risk.

The girls began their crusade three years ago, while still in the fifth grade, after doing a research project on endangered orangutans in pursuit of the coveted Girl Scout Bronze Award. After learning that their beloved cookies played a role in makes the animals endangered, they launched a grassroots effort—complete with letter writing and presentations—to make Girl Scouts USA ditch dirty palm oil in favor of a more sustainable ingredient such as canola or sunflower oil.

Anyone who's ever campaigned for something they believe in, knows it takes unflagging commitment, especially when the campaign involves opposing corporate or government power. In the case of a group of locals working against environmental destruction in California's Richardson Grove State Park, that dedication is evident in spades.

As I recently blogged, various environmental groups, business owners and other concerned residents are up in arms about a plan by California's state transportation agency to widen highways in Humboldt County, Calif., to make room for large trucks—an act that would involve destroying old-growth trees and put various wildlife at risk in beautiful Richardson Grove State Park.

Already, those against the plan have made their voices heard by successfully forcing Caltrans to conduct a complete environmental analysis of the project, and by filing a lawsuit against the agency. But as is necessary in a fight like this, they haven't stopped there.

Since its debut in 1932, the Shark Park Golf Course has been a popular spot for local golfers to tee up. Unfortunately, it has also been a popular spot for the devastation of sensitive wetlands and endangered species.

Now—nearly 80 years after it opened—environmental groups have stood up to say, "Enough is enough."

Last Wednesday, six conservation groups, including The Sierra Club, Sequoia Audubon, Wild Equity Institute and Center for Biological Diversity, filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco for its careless preservation of the course.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, it’s disheartening to learn that California's state transportation agency has plans to destroy a swatch of majestic redwoods in Richardson Grove State Park—all so that it can widen a highway and make room for large commercial trucks.

But concerns over the project in Humboldt County, California, extend far beyond a mere appreciation for beauty. There could be a real impact on the local community, which has long been protected from urban blight by the grove, dubbed “the redwood curtain.” And in terms of the environment, the project would destroy precious old-growth trees and threaten the habitat of a variety of native wildlife, including the endangered marbled murrelet seabird.

There are certain ideas that raise an immediate red flag. Such is the case with the Liberty Quarry, a proposed 155-acre granite mine in Temecula Valley, California.

The proposal itself is alarmingly aggressive. Granite Construction, the corporation pitching it, wants to mine 5 million tons of aggregate over the course of up to 75 years. The quarry pit would be as deep as the Empire State Building and more than one mile long. And workers would blast a total of 100,000 tons of granite a week, working at a pace of up to 24 hours a day, 6 days a week.

But what’s really damning is the swatch of land on which the quarry would be built. Not only is it adjacent to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve—a 4,281-acre San Diego University nature reserve and research station—but it is within the watershed boundary of the Santa Margarita River, the last free-flowing river in the state and the water source for the Marine Corp Base, Camp Pendleton. Add in the fact that several species of wildlife live within its boundaries, that it is less than a mile away from the residents of the community of De Luz, and that is the site of the Pechanga Indians' origin, and you have an area that seems like the last place you’d want to build a massive granite mine.

That said, it’s easy to why a bevy of locals are up in arms about the project, so much so that more than 475 local businesses, non-profits and eco groups (including The Sierra Club) have publicly declared their opposition.

You have to hand it to River Sound Development, the Lehman Brothers subsidiary interested in turning 1,000 acres of Connecticut coastal forest into a lucrative golf course development: Despite staunch opposition to their plan, they will not give up.

In the span of more than five years, the company’s petition to develop the land has been rejected by the Inland Wetlands Commission, and that rejection has been upheld by the Superior and Appelate courts. But rather than turning their attention elsewhere, River Sound decided last September to apply again in the hopes of modifying their original plan and convincing the higher court to throw out the lower court rulings.

The good news? The community and greater public aren’t backing down, either.

The Mount Tom coal plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts poses an interesting ethical quandary. On the one hand, it annually pumps about 1 million tons of toxic CO2 into the increasingly fragile atmosphere. On the other hand, it generates 146 kilowatts of much-needed electricity, keeps about 50 people gainfully employed, and contributes nearly $2 million to the community in taxes.

What’s the best course of action in this case? Shut down the plant and cut electricity, jobs and tax revenue? Or keep it open and contribute to global warming?

A new bill introduced in Massachusetts says the answer should actually be neither. Rather than forcing the state to close the coal plant, its supporters want Mount Tom to switch to renewable energy sources or natural gas. Peter Vickery, one of the bill’s proponents, and the creator of a petition on Change.org, puts the mission simply: “Keep Mount Tom open, but minus the coal.”

This highly sensible tenet is one of many in the so-called Act to Phase-Out Coal Burning in Massachusetts, which also asks for the closure or conversion of all other Bay State coal-burning plants (there are currently two others alive and kicking, one of which is already scheduled for closure). For instance, the deadline it sets for change is 2020—giving plant owners a more-than-reasonable time frame to figure out logistics. And if a plant gets shuttered rather than converted over, it asks for a Community Repowering Fund to help laid-off employees and the local community get back on their feet.

In its attempted sale of the decrepit Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Entergy has had a rough go of it.

As I previously reported, the country's second-largest nuclear power company is hoping to extend the plant's license past its 2012 expiration date so it can peddle the plant to the highest bidder. The attempt comes during a time of some serious setbacks, including the discovery of a collapsing water cooler, contaminated pipes and leaking radioactive tritium—not to mention a landslide Vermont state senate vote to close the plant.

Now comes even more bad news: A couple days ago, still more tritium was discovered in the reactor’s pipelines, some 150 to 200 feet north of the plume previously found to be leaking toxins. According to state and federal officials, this  means one of two things: The radioactive matter has migrated, or (more likely) the plant has a separate leak from the one already uncovered.

Bill Irwin, the state's radiological health chief, responded by voicing concern over the discovery, and the problem was deemed serious enough to warrant the attention of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But (surprise, surprise) Entergy doesn't seem to be fazed in the least. A company spokesperson said there was no evidence of environmental damage and no cause for concern, suggesting this latest setback will not in any way hinder its money-grabbing bid. Which begs the question: Will anything?

Tell Entergy to give up its fight and let the leaking, creaking, toxic Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant die a natural death once and for all.

--

Have a story tip? E-mail us at environmenttips@change.org. Please also follow Change.org's Environment page on Facebook,  Twitter or RSS.

Photo credit: Flickr/nimariel

When it comes to the research of climate scientist Michael Mann, the old adage “stop beating a dead horse” immediately springs to mind.

The latest challenge to Mann’s studies comes from the American Tradition Institute, which has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to cull information on climate science research Mann did while at the University of Virginia. Like others before them, the group is after Mann, who now works for Penn State University, because of his involvement in the hacked e-mails at the heart of the bloated “Climategate” scandal from more than a year ago.

Not surprisingly, like Mann’s other adversaries, the group also has a clear global warming bias.

Its director, for example, was plucked from the Heartland Institute, an Exxon-backed organization that puts on an annual conference hosting hucksters who deny manmade climate change. And the head of its duplicitously titled Environmental Law Center is the author of such tomes as Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed and Power Grab: How Obama's 'Green' Policies Steal Will Your Freedom and Bankrupt America.