Connect with us

Alaska

Alaska Natives want the US military to clean up its toxic waste

Published

on

Alaska Natives want the US military to clean up its toxic waste


In June 1942, Japan’s invasion of the Aleutian islands in Alaska prompted the U.S. military to activate the Alaska territorial guard, an Army reserve made up of volunteers who wanted to help protect the U.S. So many of the volunteers were from Alaska’s Indigenous peoples — Aleut, Inupiak, Yupik, Tlingit, and many others — that the guard was nicknamed the “Eskimo Scouts.” 

When World War II ended and the reserve force ceased operations in 1947, the U.S. approached the Indigenous Yupik people of Alaska with another ask: Could the Air Force set up “listening posts” on the island of Sivuqaq, also known as St. Lawrence Island, to help with the intelligence gathering needed to win the Cold War?  

Viola Waghiyi, who is Yupik from Sivuqaq, said the answer was a resounding yes. 

Advertisement

“Our grandfathers and fathers volunteered for the Alaska territorial guard,” she said. “We were very patriotic.” 

But that trust was abused, Waghiyi said. The U.S. military eventually abandoned its Air Force and Army bases, leaving the land polluted with toxic chemicals such as fuel, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, that are known as “forever chemicals” because they persist so long in the environment. The contamination was largely due to spilled and leaking fuel from storage tanks and pipes, both above ground and below ground. More chemical waste came from electrical transformers, abandoned metals and 55-gallon drums. 

Now, Waghiyi is the environmental health and justice program director at the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, an organization dedicated to limiting the effects of toxic substances on Alaska’s residents and environment. Last week, the organization filed a complaint to the United Nations special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, in partnership with the U.C. Berkeley Environmental Law Clinic. 

Their complaint calls for the United Nations to investigate how military waste on Sivuqaq continues to violate the rights of the people who live there, such as the right to a clean and healthy environment and Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent to what happens on their land. 

“By exposing the Yupik people of Sivuqaq to polluted drinking water sources, air, and soil, and by contaminating local native foods; by causing pervasive human exposure to hazardous chemicals through multiple routes; by toxifying the broader ecosystem; and by not cleaning up contamination sufficiently to protect human health and the environment, the U.S. Air Force and Army Corps of Engineers violated human rights long recognized in international law,” the complaint says. 

Advertisement

This submission from Alaska is part of a larger, global effort to raise awareness of military toxic waste by the United Nations. The U.N. special rapporteur on toxics and human rights is collecting public input on military activities and toxic waste until April 1. The information collected will be used in a report presented to the U.N. General Assembly in October. 

The two shuttered bases in Sivuqaq, Alaska, are now classified as “formerly used defense,” or FUD, sites, overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and more than $130 million has been spent to remove the contamination. John Budnick, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska, said the cleanup is considered complete but that the agency is reviewing the site every five years “to ensure the selected remedies continue to be protective of human health and the environment.” 

“We have completed the work at Northeast Cape, but additional follow-up actions may result from the monitoring phase of the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program,” he said. The last site visit occurred last July and an updated review report is expected to be released this summer.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, similarly concluded in 2013 that an additional EPA cleanup wouldn’t significantly differ from what the Army Corps of Engineers is doing and declined to place the sites on the EPA’s list of hazardous waste cleanup priorities.

A 2022 study found that so far, federal cleanup efforts have been inadequate. “High levels of persistent organic pollutants and toxic metals continue to leach from the Northeast Cape FUD site despite large-scale remediation that occurred in the early 2000s,” the authors concluded. 

Advertisement

The persisting pollution has garnered the attention of Alaska’s state Dept. of Environmental Conservation which oversees the cleanup of contaminated sites. Stephanie Buss, contaminated sites program manager at the agency, said her office has asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do additional cleanup at Northeast Cape.

“These active contaminated sites have not met closure requirements,” she said. The second former base, Gambell, was classified as completed but still lacks land use controls, she noted. 

“DEC takes community health concerns seriously and will continue to provide oversight of the conditions at its active sites in accordance with the state’s regulatory framework to ensure an appropriate response that protects human health and welfare,” Buss said.

That same 2022 study found that 89 percent of the fish around the Northeast Cape base contained mercury exceeding the levels the EPA deemed appropriate for people who rely on subsistence fishing. “All fish sampled near the FUD site exceeded the EPA’s PCB guidelines for cancer risk for unrestricted human consumption,” the researchers further found. Waghiyi said the contamination displaced 130 people, and has left her friends and family with a lasting legacy of illness. 

“It’s not a matter of if we’ll get cancer, but when,” Waghiyi said. Her father died of cancer. Her mother had a stillborn child. Waghiyi herself is a cancer survivor and has had three miscarriages. 

Advertisement

“We feel that they have turned their back on us,” Waghiyi said of the U.S. military. “We wanted our lands to be turned back in the same condition when they turned over.” 

The U.S. military has a long history of contaminating lands and waters through military training and battles sites, including on Indigenous lands. Citizens of the Navajo Nation in Arizona and  Yakama Nation in Washington continue to raise concerns about the ongoing effects of military nuclear testing on their lands and health. In the Marshall Islands, fishing around certain atolls is discouraged due to high rates of toxicity due to nuclear testing and other military training. On Guam, chemicals from an active Air Force base have contaminated parts of the islandʻs sole-source aquifer that serves 70% of the population. Last year, a federal report found that climate change threatens to unearth even more U.S. military nuclear waste in both the Marshall Islands and Greenland. 

In 2021, the Navy in Hawaiʻi poisoned 90,000 people when jet fuel leached from aging, massive underground storage tanks into the drinking water supply after the Navy ignored years of warning to upgrade the tanks or remove the fuel. The federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars to remove unexploded ordnance from the island of Kahoʻolawe, a former bombing range in Hawaiʻi, but the island is still considered dangerous to walk on because of the risk of more ordnance unearthing due to extensive erosion. 

The complaint filed last week by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics calls for the United Nations to write to U.S. federal and state agencies and call upon them to honor a 1951 agreement between the U.S. government and the Sivuqaq Yupik people that prohibited polluting the land. 

The agreement said that the Sivuqaq Tribes would allow the Air Force to construct surveillance sites to spy on the Soviet Union, but they had four conditions, including allowing Indigenous peoples to continue to hunt, fish and trap where desired and preventing outsiders from killing their game. Finally, the agreement said that “any refuse or garbage will not be dumped in streams or near the beach within the proposed area.” 

Advertisement

“The import of the agreement was clear: The military must not despoil the island; must protect the resources critical to Indigenous Yupik inhabitants’ sustenance; and must leave the island in the condition they found it, which ensured their health and well-being,” the Alaska Community Action on Toxics wrote in their complaint. 

“This is a burden we didn’t create,” Waghiyi said.






Source link

Alaska

Wayne and Wanda: I’m ready to break up with Alaska but facing resistance from everyone

Published

on

Wayne and Wanda: I’m ready to break up with Alaska but facing resistance from everyone


Dear Wanda and Wayne,

I never thought I’d be the person writing this letter, but after this winter, I think I might be done with Alaska. I was born here, grew up here, raised my family here, and never imagined living anywhere else. I defended Alaska to the haters. I rolled my eyes at people who retired to Arizona. I told myself long winters are worth it because summers are the best.

But this winter broke something in me. It was so long, dark, icy and relentless. By the time spring finally arrived, I felt angry that winter took so much out of me and that I spent months feeling trapped by weather, darkness and road conditions. Angry that I’m getting older and still structuring my life around surviving winters instead of enjoying my life. And at the time I’m writing this, this spring has sucked! My heat is still coming on every day. I’m still wearing my puffer jackets!

Part of me wonders if it’s not really about the winter at all. I’m divorced and my two kids are grown and doing their own thing, both staying in Alaska for now. For the first time in my life, nothing is really anchoring me to a place. And if I’m being honest with myself, in addition to feeling trapped by the weather, I’m bored with it here. The dating scene feels impossibly small. Every time I open a dating app, it’s the same people. Half the time I already know them, or know someone who dated them (and broken up with them for a good reason!).

Advertisement

So I’m sketching out plans to move somewhere warmer, bigger and completely unfamiliar. I think I want to know what life feels like somewhere else while I’m still young enough to enjoy it. I really feel this is a moment for a big change.

The problem is that nobody seems supportive. When I bring it up, people act like I’m having a midlife crisis. Friends tell me I’ll regret it. Family members remind me that the kids are here. Other Alaskans give me the usual speech about how the Lower 48 is generic. It’s gotten to the point where I almost don’t talk about it anymore because I’m tired of defending myself.

But all the resistance has me questioning myself and whether moving is a legitimate and logical step, or whether I’m just exhausted from a hard winter and romanticizing a different life. How do you know the difference between running toward something and simply running away?

Wanda says:

You’re asking whether you’re running toward or away from something — essentially if you’re taking a positive step or being reactive. Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Sometimes we leave both because we’re exhausted by what we’ve been carrying, and also because we are moving toward something new at the same time.

Advertisement

Every reason you listed for staying in Alaska has changed. You raised your children here? They’re grown. You had a marriage here? That chapter is closed. You tolerated winters for the sunny payoff? Nailed it: This spring has sucked.

Now you’re primed for a reset, and questioning how you want the near term and future of your life to unfold is not a crisis, it’s taking action. And it’s way more productive than floating along season to season in a fog of monotony, settling for an unfulfilling existence. Your friends and family may genuinely believe they’re protecting you from a mistake, but they’re also protecting their own worldview. Your decision to leave can feel like an implicit criticism of their choices.

But this isn’t a committee decision, and you’re a grown woman capable of major decisions, who absolutely should explore life’s possibilities without defending it to everyone you know. So go explore. Visit places. Rent before you buy. Spend a winter somewhere else. Gather information instead of arguments. And know that no matter where you land, you can always come home again — even if it’s just for a long visit in the middle of summer.

Wayne says:

This isn’t a midlife crisis that can be glossed over with a motorcycle, lip filler, a 20-something boyfriend (who probably went to high school with your kids — yikes), or kicking off your Cowgirl Era with a hat, boots and a two-week Nashville dive bar tour.

Advertisement

This is an existential crisis with your health and happiness at risk. And you’ve faced it thoughtfully, sat with it thoroughly, and are now making the best decisions selfishly. Good for you! You can’t fault your family and friends for also being selfish and wanting you to stay in AK. Of course they don’t want their mom and friend moving far away. But you’ve got to mute that noise and focus on what’s best for you.

Yes, Alaska life is special, but it sure isn’t easy. And we don’t get medals for stubbornly battling through decades of winters. What we do get is some sweet and fleeting summer moments followed by more winters. You know that, and it’s not enough for you anymore.

Most people would totally understand an 18-to-20-year-old Alaska kid taking off to see what else is out there in the world. What, we’re supposed to stop being interested in new experiences once we hit a certain age? And we’re expected to stick around someplace forever just because we’ve always been there?

It’s time for you to go. See what life feels like when you’re not scraping ice off your windshield in May. See how much fun you can have with new people in new places. It’s exciting, it’s living, and you deserve it.

[Wayne and Wanda: Is it the winter blues I can’t shake off, or something more?]

Advertisement

[Wayne and Wanda: Rebuilding my social life after a divorce]

[Wayne and Wanda: My relationship is poised for big steps, and I’m anxious]





Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Here’s Why Alaska Air Shares Popped Higher This Week | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Here’s Why Alaska Air Shares Popped Higher This Week | The Motley Fool


Shares in Alaska Air Group (ALK 1.16%) rose by 12.7% in an excellent week for airline stocks. The move comes as the sector climbs a wall of worry driven by soaring jet fuel prices stemming from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. While the market’s prior concerns are understandable, there’s growing anecdotal evidence suggesting that airlines, including Alaska Air, might emerge from the period in better shape than many expect.

This week’s airline updates

Southwest Airlines (LUV 0.83%) CEO Robert Jordan gave a presentation at the Bernstein 42nd Annual Strategic Decisions Conference, and his remarks surprised the market. It’s no secret that jet fuel prices have soared, and that’s challenging airlines’ profitability. Still, it doesn’t appear to have affected end demand, with Delta Air Lines previously telling investors that strong demand in the first quarter was continuing into the second quarter, even as it raised prices.

Today’s Change

(-1.16%) $-0.54

Advertisement

Current Price

$46.05

That positive trend, with Southwest’s Jordan telling investors that Southwest had participated in seven consecutive fare increases with “no drop off in demand at all.” Jordan went on to note that “I’m becoming increasingly bullish that we will be able to cover these fuel increases with revenue increases,” and also believes that “the industry will retain a much higher percent of the fare increases that would be typical historically.”

Advertisement

What it means to Alaska Air

Given that Alaska competes with Southwest on some routes and is suffering from rising jet fuel prices, the news from Southwest is particularly relevant. For example, in its recent first-quarter earnings report, Alaska’s management said higher fuel costs would impact earnings per share (EPS) by $0.70 in the first quarter and by more than $3 in the second quarter.

Air passengers.

Image source: Getty Images.

These are significant numbers from an airline that analysts expect to report a $0.77-per-share loss in 2026 and then $6.32 in EPS in 2027. However, if Alaska can offset fuel costs with higher prices, then those estimates might need a positive revision.

Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Alaska Air Group, Delta Air Lines, and Southwest Airlines. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

State of Alaska Secures Win in Fight for Transparency Around Oil Development

Published

on

State of Alaska Secures Win in Fight for Transparency Around Oil Development


 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Image-SOM

(Bethel, AK) –Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a favorable opinion for the State of Alaska in ConocoPhillips Alaska v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), agreeing that State laws requiring disclosure of oil well data are not preempted by federal law.

“Alaska relies heavily on our resources and resource development,” said Acting Alaska Attorney General Cori Mills. “We are also stewards of those resources for the citizens of Alaska. Alaska’s law both allows resource development now, and encourages further development and exploration in the future. We’re pleased that the Ninth Circuit recognized that federal law has not overridden Alaska’s balanced approach.”

The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulates oil and gas operations throughout Alaska, including within the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPR–A). Under Alaska law, companies need permits from the AOGCC to drill and must submit well data. The AOGCC is required to keep well data confidential for 24 months.

Advertisement

ConocoPhillips drilled several wells on lease holdings within the NPR–A and submitted data to the AOGCC. When the 24-month period expired, the AOGCC notified ConocoPhillips of the upcoming well data disclosure. ConocoPhillips sued in federal court to stop the disclosure process claiming that the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, the federal law allowing private exploration in the NPR–A, preempted Alaska’s 24-month disclosure law. The federal district court found Alaska law preempted, and the AOGCC sought appellate review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the AOGCC. The federal Production Act does not preempt state law. The Ninth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s holding to the contrary.

“The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is pleased with the court’s decision upholding Alaska law,” said AOGCC Commissioner Jessie Chmielowski in a declaration filed in the litigation court. “Alaska’s balanced approach to well data confidentiality leads to increased exploration activity, not less. Alaska law allows for a two-year confidentiality period on exploration well data to leverage a company’s investment in drilling. Thereafter, making the data public has incentivized exploration on the North Slope. Placing well data in the public record allows competing companies to evaluate different exploration concepts or interpretations based on seismic data that, without well data, are just educated guesses.”

# # #



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending