this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
228 points (100.0% liked)

News

23387 readers
2440 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The decision comes after a ProPublica investigation revealed that the EPA had found that one of the fuels had a cancer risk more than 1 million times higher than the agency usually considers acceptable.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is planning to withdraw and reconsider its approval for Chevron to produce 18 plastic-based fuels, including some that an internal agency assessment found are highly likely to cause cancer.

In a recent court filing, the federal agency said it "has substantial concerns" that the approval order "may have been made in error." The EPA gave a Chevron refinery in Mississippi the green light to make the chemicals in 2022 under a "climate-friendly" initiative intended to boost alternatives to petroleum, as ProPublica and The Guardian reported last year.

An investigation by ProPublica and The Guardian revealed that the EPA had calculated that one of the chemicals intended to serve as jet fuel was expected to cause cancer in 1 in 4 people exposed over their lifetime.

all 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago

"Burning plastic is a great idea!" --No one who has ever been near burning plastic.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 35 points 1 month ago (3 children)

What sort of mileage would you get on an engine running on CEOs?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Only one way to find out!

[–] kozy138@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Killing them for fuel is too humane a punishment. We should put them in a hamster wheel instead.

[–] Fish@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

Too humane. How about a hamster wheel with electrified nipple clamps attached to the roof. Whenever they slow down, they get electrocuted. Whenever they move too much, their nipples get tugged on.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 25 points 1 month ago

"in error"

Also known as: "Someone higher up took a bribe or inserted personal politics into a government agency and we got caught doing nothing about it. "

[–] Betty_Boopie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Pyrolysis sounds really cool in theory but in practice it's wasteful, produces lower quality fuel that is harder to refine, and contains a ton of benzene.

There's a dude on youtube making one of these in his backyard, basically a speed run to turn his house into a superfund site. I have no idea how people can see burnt plastic as a "green" alternative.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 11 points 1 month ago

The only plus from this approach is that it is using already extracted petroleum products to create energy instead of pulling out new carbon sources from the ground. But like others have said, burning plastics is nasty, and would require a huge proof of concept that the emissions are low and not dangerous. Which I guess they skipped over.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The EPA gave a Chevron refinery in Mississippi the green light to make the chemicals in 2022 under a “climate-friendly” initiative intended to boost alternatives to petroleum

Climate friendly alternative to petrol is burning plastic based fuel? Plastic is made from fuel, yes? This is ludicrous

“Tackling our nation’s climate crisis is a comprehensive and collaborative effort across all of EPA,” said Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Michal Freedhoff.

“Using sound science to streamline the review of more environmentally friendly chemical substitutes will help advance the Agency’s climate goals and protect human health and the environment.”

I don't know much about this persons affiliation but she sounds like every corporate meeting ever, and anytime i see "sound science" i think climate change denier.

Really she's a chemist and that's her expertise so how the F can she be an expert in chemicals and think burning plastic was ok?

Guess we can't expect sanity from any US dept any longer

[–] Blackout@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago

Chevron's Lawyer: "You see, the deaths are a feature, not a flaw. That's what makes this fuel carbon neutral."