Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island
1192 Westminster St. Providence RI 02909

info@ejlri.org

(401) 383­7441

Facebook.com/EJLRI

Twitter @EJLeague

3 responses to “Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice and a Just Transition”

  1. green99

    From the OK Earthquake website concerning the wastewater and it’s seismicity:

    “We know that Oklahoma experienced 907 magnitude 3+ earthquakes in 2015, 585 magnitude 3+ earthquakes in 2014 and 109 in 2013.

    While we understand that Oklahoma has historically experienced some level of seismicity, we know that the recent rise in earthquakes cannot be entirely attributed to natural causes. Seismologists have documented the relationship between wastewater disposal and triggered seismic activity. The Oklahoma Geological Survey has determined that the majority of recent earthquakes in central and north-central Oklahoma are very likely triggered by the injection of produced water in disposal wells.”‘

    Has the company that wants to frack documented what’s in the wastewater and where they’re going to dispose of it that’s not in RI?

    If not then be prepared for the possibility of seismic events like in OK and other places as well as flammable (and undrinkable) water.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. green99

    It might be a good idea to thoroughly document the baseline condition of the community. Is methane in anyone’s water? How much seismic activity is there in RI?

    Unfortunately, greed doesn’t care about truth. It just cares about getting what it wants now, buying off who it has to and being unaccountable for the mess that will be remain afterwards.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. cailin rua

    More than a few things caught my eye here this time around. Thanks, green99.

    Here’s one of the first:

    “EJ League has a Board Member who is a weatherization job training specialist, energy auditor, and is working on seeking investors to build a production facility for cellulose to be used in blown-­in insulations and home weatherizations.”

    Sounds good, until one considers the implicathions:

    “Q: We live in an 1840s Greek Revival house that, among other challenges, has no insulation. We’d like to take advantage of our utility company’s energy-efficiency incentive program, which would pay up to 50 percent of the cost of blowing cellulose insulation into walls and ceiling areas. However, the contractor doing the work needs verification from a licensed electrician that the house is free of knob-and-tube wiring before he can begin. Our electrician says that, short of opening up the walls, he can’t certify that the house is completely free of this old wiring. What do we do? ”

    http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/asktoh/question/0,,430694,00.html

    My question, if the building in question has rental units(even if it doesn’t the equation adds up to pretty much the same) and, in fact, has live knob and tube wiring in the walls, will tenants have to be moved out because of lead hazard mitigation requirements in order to remove the knob and tube wiring to make the building code compliant to allow a contractor to “blow in cellulose insulation”? My question, also, is why would someone want to blow cellulose insulation into walls that have been opened up to allow the removal of the knob and tube wiring? Why not use rock wool with a vapor barrier? Aren’t there moisture migration problems to be concerned with if insulation is put into walls without a vapor barrier to prevent moisture migration from the conditioned space?

    But that’s just the first thing. Another one is the issue of “lead abatement”.

    quote from original post:

    “there is a large need to improve housing quality with weatherization, energy efficiency, and improvements in indoor air quality, >>>lead abatement<<<, and other healthy housing requirements."

    "Abatement" is not now a requirement of of the lead hazard mitigation laws in R I except under special circumstances. "Abatement" is a special category where lead hazard mitigation is concerned. Massachusetts has detailed rules(and different laws) for achieving "abatement" which requires the removal of residents from the premises while work is being conducted. Is this something that anyone who is responsible for property built before 1978 can expect to be responsible for in R I in the near future? If the tenants are to be moved out, how much is expected living expenses and lost rents will amount to in such situations? That is in addition to the expenses involved involved in hiring lead hazard control contractors who, essentially, operate monopolies and are prone to price gouging. How will those costs be absorbed and who will absorb them?

    I also have questions about non-profits run by city solicitors who are able to find ways to acquire property abandoned because of sub-prime mortgage interest resets, burdens imposed by newly passed ordinances and state laws that require extensive and expensive repairs and renovations to comply with new mandates that put property under jurisdictions controlled by bureaucracies, some of which have no experience in regulating building construction practices and others set up as other non-profits, themselves unregulated by any elected state authority but who have power over licensing, inspection, and licensing for those who do inspections. Now you add to the equation people who have been incarcerated and probably under probation restrictions who are to be employed by non tax paying non-profits who will compete with the existing pool of people who are currently free enough not to be under the constraints and restrictions of people who may or may not have been incarcerated for reasons that are actually justifiable.

    I just don't see much justice in the "just transitions" you write about. To remove things like knob and tube wiring, removing all lead paint from surfaces to a height of 5' – 3". Removing lead paint from any movable surface in a building, replacing water services, etc., etc., etc. – it's very difficult for me to believe that the moneyed interests in finance have not calculated the financial burdens that have been imposed by legislative mandate. Anyone who has any experience in either real estate or construction could easily add up the costs and come to the inevitable conclusion that if the vast majority of the older housing stock has any value and it is decided is worth the cost of bringing it up to the standards you write about, the tenants you pretend to be so concerned about will have to be relocated, the buildings will have to be gutted(but only if their re-habed costs are economically feasible will such a route be taken) and costs will have to be recouped subsequently. The rest of the old housing stock will just have to be cleared for new "TOD" stack and pack "mixed" use development.

    I remember my old drafting instructor circa 1978 using the expression "solid gold" when describing his layered identical multi floor complexes. Malvina Reynolds has yet to compose a song for that or for the new round of urban removal in store, if one is to take what is written here to heart. How many more foreclosures and bankruptcies are required before social justice is finally achieved? Will there be more than 2 classes afterwards?

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.