HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Methane pollution is a health hazard, studies have found, and now an online map can tell you how close that risk is to you.

About 1.5 million people live within a half mile of one or more of the more than 100,000 oil and gas facilities operating in Pennsylvania. Studies show that those people are at greatest risk of the negative health impact of methane exposure, including fetal damage and respiratory ailments.

Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, said the new online map can help people assess the risk they face in their own homes.

"We hope that, armed with this information, they will demand protective safeguards requiring the industry to clean up its act and reduce these serious risks to public health," he said.

In May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized standards to cut methane emissions from new sources, but those standards don't cover the hundreds of thousands of already existing facilities.

According to Patrice Tomcik, a western Pennsylvania field organizer for Moms Clean Air Force, two studies of methane impacts on unborn children have been done in Pennsylvania, including one in Butler County where she lives.

"What it showed," she said, "is that there are adverse birth outcomes that are happening the closer that these moms are to gas development."

The map also shows hospitals and schools that are located within a half-mile radius of oil and gas facilities.

Nationally, people living in 238 counties in 21 states face increased risks of cancer. Schneider said those primarily are gas and oil-producing states, and reducing methane emissions would help.

"That will reduce emissions of these toxic air pollutants like benzene and ethylbenzene and formaldehyde as well," he said, "the ones that are causing these cancer risks."

The EPA has begun the process of formulating new regulations to curb emissions from existing sources.

The map is online at oilandgasthreatmap.com.


get more stories like this via email

Scientists at Purdue University have been experimenting to create adhesives designed to be easier on the environment.

So many products from cellphones and shoes, to furniture and cars all contain adhesives. And because of their petroleum base, there are downsides, as the adhesives may have a strong odor and not be biodegradable when they end up in landfills.

Jonathan Wilker, professor of chemistry at Purdue University, along with his team of chemists found a safer alternative by studying oysters and mussels.

"We take the information we learned from the animals and we create 'biomimetic' adhesives, we call them," Wilker explained. "Surface adhesives that are modeled after biological systems."

Wilker noted like adhesives, sea animals stick to coastal rocks to build their communities. His lab team wanted to make a product just as strong, but also affordable, nontoxic, and sustainably sourced. Wilker's team also had to consider the availability or scale of the materials they started with at the onset of testing.

Research indicates most wood adhesives using petroleum-derived products contain formaldehyde resin. Formaldehyde is already strongly regulated, and more restrictions could be coming in the European market.

Instead, Wilker's formula uses soy oil, mixed with malic acid, a compound which gives apples their tart flavor. He pointed out they have tested it successfully on wood, plastics and metals. Wilker added he is happy to see the interest generated since the findings were published in the journal "Nature," and would like to see more.

"We're looking for partners to help commercialize the technology and actually have an environmental impact," Wilker stressed. "(The) ideal timeline is now; there's no reason to wait. We think we've got it to the point that it's ready to go out."

Future plans for the adhesive are to do further research for possible use in the medical field, as well as for industrial materials and packaging.

Virginia environmental advocates are looking for protections of old-growth forests.

In 2022, President Joe Biden issued an executive order to have old-growth forests across the country inventoried.

A U.S. Forest Service report finds the agency is responsible for more than 24 million acres of old-growth forests. This amounts to only 4% of forests in the U.S. However, around 76% of these lands are unprotected from logging operations.

Sam Evans, national forest and parks program leader for the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the U.S. Forest Service needs to consider which forests should be cut, and which should not.

"The responsibility there is for the Forest Service to figure out what's the healthiest mature forest, what mature forest is on the best track to restore that, and sort of leaving it alone," Evans contended. "Letting it age into 'old' condition. Perhaps there are other mature forests that aren't in good condition, and maybe we can focus on those for timber cutting."

Environmental groups are reluctant to see the trees cut down, since they help stave off climate change. Studies find old-growth forests can store between 41% and 84% of the total carbon stock of all trees. Losing the trees represents a carbon equivalent to one-quarter of the country's annual fossil-fuel emissions.

While forests are being planted in place of any old-growth forests made into timber, Evans noted younger, even-aged forests do not carry all the benefits of an old-growth forest.

"They really don't have a lot of diversity," Evans pointed out. "They're just a lot of trees of the same age, and a lot of shade on the ground. Those forests, those post-logging forests, don't have a huge biodiversity benefit."

He added seeing it come to fruition will require cultural changes on the U.S. Forest Service's part. Earlier this year, the agency held a comment period when more than 92,000 people spoke about different elements to consider in developing a rule regarding climate policies to protect, conserve, and manage the national forests.

The unprecedented attempt to build a wall along the U.S. Mexico border has had devastating effects on wildlife from which they may not recover, according to a New Mexico wildlife expert.

The Trump administration spent an estimated $15 billion constructing more than 400 miles of wall, much of which replaced smaller existing barriers.

Bryan Bird, Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, said construction fragmented wildlife habitats and cut off species' migration routes. Because geography and private land ownership in Texas and Arizona slowed the effort, Bird pointed out much of what was only "vehicle barrier" in New Mexico is now permanent.

"Unfortunately, New Mexico ended up getting the brunt of the border wall construction," Bird explained. "In fact, other than the Bootheel, most of the border between Mexico and New Mexico is walled now."

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, showed wall construction desecrated Indigenous cultural sites, hurt wildlife and destroyed vegetation.

Bird pointed out webcam feeds now are documenting how much more difficult the wall has made it for wildlife to cross the international border, where many species already were imperiled.

"The ocelot, the Mexican gray wolf, the jaguar, the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl," Bird outlined. "All of these species are on the verge of extinction, and this border wall may have been the nail in the coffin."

Multiple erosion and flooding hazards were created by construction of the wall, which he said is already showing signs of deterioration.

"Not only was it incredibly, historically expensive and a burden on taxpayers to build it, but now you've got to maintain it," Bird noted. "And if you do not spend a lot of money maintaining it, it's going to fall down."

The Biden administration has been criticized for flood gates being left open along the border wall, which allowed some illegal immigrants to enter. But the U.S. Border Patrol took responsibility, noting the gates have always been opened during monsoon season to prevent flooding and keep the wall from falling over.