This is a guest blog post by Ingrid Vila, founder of Cambio and former Chief of Staff of Puerto Rico.
Aside from fiscal and economic perils, the people of Puerto Rico must confront yet another threat: the proposed construction of a 2,100-ton-per-day municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerator in the north coast municipality of Arecibo.
Although this would be the first MSW incinerator on the island, it’s not the first time one has been proposed. Previous attempts to build incinerators in Puerto Rico in the 1980s and early 2000s were defeated because of community and citizen action.
The company behind the Arecibo incinerator, Energy Answers, also built an Albany, New York incinerator that was shut down in the 1990s after black soot from the waste facility ended up on the governor’s front lawn.
The 2010 environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the Puerto Rico government to evaluate the incinerator used incorrect and outdated information on population growth, waste production, recycling objectives, emissions, water sources and health, environmental and economic impacts. Furthermore, the local EIS did not evaluate alternatives, did not adequately consider environmental justice issues and did not analyze sensitive environmental systems, including forests, wetland reserves and habitat for endangered species. The deficiencies of the local EIS were substantial, yet within 30 days it was approved through a process that made a mockery out of public participation.
Local opposition to the incinerator is rooted in the fact that Arecibo communities have suffered from environmental injustice for decades. Arecibo is the site of many polluting industrial activities, including a battery recycling operation, which resulted in Arecibo being declared anon-attainment zone by the US EPA for exceeding limits on lead pollution in the air. Citizens are very aware of the health and environmental risks associated with the toxic ash and the emissions containing mercury, lead, cadmium and dioxins that would be produced by the incinerator, as well as nano-particles not currently regulated by EPA. They know that good health is not what comes out of an incinerator’s chimney.
The incinerator would also require 2.1 million gallons of water a day that is currently recharging aquifers and wetlands. Given Puerto Rico’s present drought – and even with no drought – this would commit water supplies vital to the people and environment of Puerto Rico to the incinerator instead. The incinerator would also crush local initiatives aimed at increasing recycling rates (currently at 14 percent, on average) and adopting job-creating, zero waste practices.
Local mayors are opposed to the project. Municipalities have legal authority over waste collection and disposal on the island. However, thePuerto Rico government signed a contract with Energy Answers that would force municipalities to take their trash to the incinerator. Municipalities have already said they will not comply because of the increased tipping fees and transportation costs (an estimated increase of 38 percent) and because it would affect local recycling efforts. Mayors have already indicated that they will challenge in court any attempt to force them to take their trash to the incinerator. Their frail budgets cannot handle the added costs, but the project is not viable without aguaranteed waste flow from municipalities.
The project has also raised concerns for Congressmen Luis Gutiérrez, Nydia Velázquez and José Serrano, since Energy Answers is asking the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities Services (RUS) for federal financing to build its project. All three have voiced their opposition to the project because of the associated health, environmental and economic impacts. They have written to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack demanding that Energy Answers’ financing request be denied.
RUS recently published a draft EIS for the incinerator that raises many concerns about how the agency is evaluating the project. The RUS’s draft references incorrect information from the 2010 local EIS done by the Puerto Rico government. RUS has not conducted its own studies and is relying on false and outdated information. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that RUS would consider a major municipal wasteincineration project that would contribute almost one million tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere in clear contradiction of Secretary Vilsack’s climate change policy to reduce CO2 emissions. Earthjustice is representing five groups in submitting their comments on the draft EIS; Cambio is an ally in this effort.
An objective analysis of correct and updated data makes it obvious that the Arecibo incinerator is undesirable and not economically viable and would result in negative impacts to human health, the environment and the economy. Sign our petition to RUS and help in this importantfight against the Arecibo incinerator.
This post is part of a series celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month. Earthjustice is serving as a co-presenter at the 2015 Americas Latino Eco Festival, a multicultural event that aims to unite Latino leaders in the environmental movement. The festival will take place October 15 through 17 in Denver, Colorado.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 48 hours to add 242 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.