Help Support EcoWatch
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience while browsing it. By clicking 'Got It' you're accepting these terms.
Most recent
Trending
Top Videos
The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Avalanches Kill 21 People in Afghanistan, Death Toll Expected to Rise
In this photo taken on Jan. 14, internally-displaced people warm up around a fire in front of their tent at a refugee camp on the outskirts of Herat. Avalanches, flooding and harsh winter weather killed more than 130 people across Pakistan and Afghanistan in mid January, leaving others stranded by heavy snowfall, officials said on Jan. 14. Photo by HOSHANG HASHIMI / AFP / Getty Images
By Ankita Mukhopadhyay
At least 21 people have died in avalanches that struck the Daykundi province in Afghanistan on Feb. 13, according to Afghanistan's disaster management authority.
Seven people are reportedly missing, while 10 people are injured. About 50 houses have been destroyed by the avalanches.
Ahmed Tameem Azimi, a spokesman of the state ministry for disaster management, said that the 21 people who died were from two families. He also said that the death toll could rise owing to difficult weather conditions.
The Afghanistan Meteorological Department had warned of rainfall, heavy snow and flash flooding for several provinces, including Daykundi, till February 13.
Several main highways and roads have reportedly been closed down in Afghanistan owing to anticipation of avalanches and heavy snowfall.
In the last two months, Afghanistan has received heavy snowfall and torrential rain. According to the AP news agency, the total death toll in January and February is 72.
According to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the National Environmental Protection Agency of Afghanistan, uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions will increase the country's temperature by 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. In 2018, a severe drought affected 2.2 million people in the country.
Reposted with permission from Deutsche Welle.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
More than 1,000 people were told to evacuate their homes when a wildfire ignited in the foothills west of Denver Monday, Colorado Public Radio reported.
<p><br/></p>
<p>The Elephant Butte Fire sparked in Evergreen, Colorado around 2:30 p.m., <a href="https://kdvr.com/news/local/elephant-butte-fire-in-evergreen-what-we-know/" target="_blank">KDVR reported</a>. As of Tuesday morning, it had spread to 50 acres and was zero percent contained, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office tweeted.</p>
<div id="ee717" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c382c3bf5156f3c108c5b46303ead1d1"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1283030707460354051" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Day 2 Update on the #ElephantButteFire Fire is still at 50 acres in size with zero containment. No evacuation order… https://t.co/1BF7UMdl6f</div> — Jeffco Sheriff (@Jeffco Sheriff)<a href="https://twitter.com/jeffcosheriffco/statuses/1283030707460354051">1594733332.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>One of the families forced to evacuate Monday told <a href="https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/07/13/elephant-butte-fire-lincoln-family/" target="_blank">CBS4</a> the land they fled had been in the family for 100 years.</p><p>"It's completely made out of wood. It's a 104-year-old house. I've lived there all my life," teenager Aidan Lincoln told CBS4. "It's been there since before my dad was born. It means a lot to my family."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Right now we’re at 700 homes evacuated in the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ElephantButte?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ElephantButte</a> fire in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Evergreen?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Evergreen</a>. I talked with a 17 year old who was in tears believing his family home has gone up.<br>Latest on <a href="https://twitter.com/CBSDenver?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CBSDenver</a> <a href="https://t.co/EAhaVawPN4">pic.twitter.com/EAhaVawPN4</a></p>— Alan Gionet (@AlanGTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlanGTV/status/1282824359397208067?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 13, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Lincoln feared the family home had caught fire, but the sheriff's office says no homes have been lost. Fire officials also said no one had been injured as of 6:30 p.m. Monday, <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2020/07/13/evergreen-wildfire-elephant-butte-fire/" target="_blank">The Denver Post reported</a>.</p><p>The fire is burning in the Upper Bear Creek Road and Overlook Trail area, according to Evergreen Fire Rescue. The evacuation area initially covered a five-mile radius and around 250 homes but was later increased to cover around 1,000 homes. The Elk Meadow and Alderfer/Three Sisters parks were also both closed because of the blaze.</p>
<div id="e2b09" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e665c6f540754d83a6eb94ba8f6e04fa"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1282818933762875393" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Elk Meadow and Alderfer/Three Sisters Parks are both CLOSED due to the #elephantbuttefire #jeffco @efr_co https://t.co/nyHki32PjB</div> — Jeffco Sheriff (@Jeffco Sheriff)<a href="https://twitter.com/jeffcosheriffco/statuses/1282818933762875393">1594682842.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>There were more than 100 people fighting the fire Monday and at least three air tankers and several helicopters, Colorado Public Radio reported.</p>
<div id="ab90e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d20a60932bf9aa3d5c9336d1c31edb57"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1282863366071914496" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Though these images were taken about an hour ago, they give you a different perspective of what the… https://t.co/Rcvn7TtlCQ</div> — Jeffco Sheriff (@Jeffco Sheriff)<a href="https://twitter.com/jeffcosheriffco/statuses/1282863366071914496">1594693435.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Monday's weather made battling the flames more difficult. Firefighters on the ground had to pause in their efforts a little before 7 p.m. Monday because of lightning in the area, and wind pushed the fire up into the treetops of one ridge. There was a little rainfall, but it proved disappointing.</p><p>"Unfortunately the rain didn't help as much as we hoped," the sheriff's office wrote on Twitter, as Colorado Public Radio reported.</p><p>Conditions are expected to be more favorable Tuesday because of a cold front, KDVR reported.</p><p>The immediate cause of the fire is under investigation, according to The Denver Post. However, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a> has helped to increase the size and frequency of wildfires in the Western U.S. Of the more than 40,000 fires that burned from Colorado to California between 1950 and 2017, 61 percent ignited in the last two decades, according to the <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2830/six-trends-to-know-about-fire-season-in-the-western-us/" target="_blank">National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)</a>. At the same time, global temperatures have gotten hotter, encouraging ideal fire conditions like high temperatures and dry air.</p><p>"Those fire conditions all fall under weather and climate," NASA Langley Research Center wildfire expert Amber Soja said. "The weather will change as Earth warms, and we're seeing that happen."</p><p>Before the Elephant Butte Fire ignited, Jefferson County had implemented a burn ban because of hot, dry weather, Colorado Public Radio reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 29 Wildfires Blaze Across the West, Fueled by Drought and Wind ... ›
- Large Wildfires Scorch Forests in Drought-Stricken Southwest ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Accessibility to quality health care has dropped for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance due to unemployment. mixetto / E+ / Getty Images
Accessibility to quality health care has dropped for millions of Americans who lost their health insurance due to unemployment. New research has found that 5.4 million Americans were dropped from their insurance between February and May of this year. In that three-month stretch more Americans lost their coverage than have lost coverage in any entire year, according to The New York Times.
<p>The report was compiled by the advocacy group <a href="https://www.familiesusa.org/" target="_blank">Families USA</a>, which looked at COVID-19's impact on workers under 65. It noted that recent increases in the number of uninsured adults are 39 percent higher than any annual increase ever recorded. The highest previous increase took place over the one-year period from 2008 to 2009, when 3.9 million non-elderly adults became uninsured, according to a Families USA statement.</p><p>In that time frame, at least 22 million Americans lost their jobs or left the workforce. The public health crisis also has stripped roughly 16 million workers and their families from employer-provided health plans, according to the <a href="https://www.epi.org/blog/16-2-million-workers-have-likely-lost-employer-provided-health-insurance-since-the-coronavirus-shock-began/" target="_blank">Economic Policy Institute,</a> as <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-health-insurance-pandemic-families-usa-report-a9617226.html" target="_blank">The Independent</a> reported. However, some of those unemployed were able to join a family member's plan or buy private health insurance.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/new-study-health-insurance-record-losses-coronavirus-pandemic.html" target="_blank">Slate</a> noted, health coverage has long been treated as a luxury, linked to certain kinds of white-collar employment. Now, the coronavirus has made health coverage an amenity fewer can afford.</p><p>"We knew these numbers would be big," said Stan Dorn, who directs the group's National Center for Coverage Innovation and who wrote the study, as The New York Times reported. "This is the worst economic downturn since World War II. It dwarfs the Great Recession. So it's not surprising that we would also see the worst increase in the uninsured."</p><p>The complete picture of how many Americans are uninsured is still murky and will not become clear until mid- to late 2021, when the federal government publishes its health insurance estimates for 2020, according to The New York Times. Families USA is one of several groups putting together comprehensive estimates of just how many people lack insurance.</p>
<p>"Despite these historic coverage losses, no Covid-19 legislation yet signed into law has made a serious effort to protect comprehensive health insurance," Families USA reported.</p><p>As The New York Times reported, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation has <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/eligibility-for-aca-health-coverage-following-job-loss/" target="_blank" title="">estimated</a> that 27 million Americans have lost coverage in the pandemic. That study took into account family members of the insured. <a href="https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2020/07/changes-in-health-insurance-coverage-due-to-the-covid-19-recession--preliminary-estimates-using-microsimulation.html?cid=xem_other_unpd_ini:quickstrike_dte:20200713_des:coverage%20changes;%20covid" target="_blank" title="">Another analysis,</a> published Monday by the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, projected that by the end of 2020, 10.1 million people will no longer have employer-sponsored health insurance or coverage due to job loss during the pandemic.</p>
<p>Of course, a lot of this was avoidable. As businesses shuttered their doors and unemployment rates rose precipitously in March, the Trump administration refused to reopen the Affordable Care Act's federal exchanges — which are only open to new signups during a small six-week window at the end of each year — to allow Americans to buy coverage to protect themselves during the coming pandemic, as Slate reported.</p><p>The portions of the country that have the highest rates of uninsured, according to the Families USA study, are states that refused federal help in expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare, as Slate reported.</p>
<p>"In the 37 states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, 23 percent of laid off workers became uninsured," the study found. "The percentage was nearly double that — 43 percent — in the 13 states that did not expand Medicaid, which include Texas, Florida and North Carolina."</p><p>While 80 percent of people who lost employer-provided health insurance during the coronavirus pandemic are eligible for free coverage, accessing it is a challenge since many people may not know they qualify for Medicaid or they cannot afford the premiums from their COBRA plan.</p><p>"Helping people keep their insurance through a public health crisis surprisingly has not gotten much attention," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/us/politics/coronavirus-health-insurance-trump.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "This is the first recession in which the ACA is there as a safety net, but it's an imperfect safety net."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump Plans to End Federal Funding for COVID-19 Testing Sites ... ›
- 'Unfathomable Cruelty': Trump Admin Asks Supreme Court to ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Sponsored
Heat waves are most dangerous for older people and those with health problems. Global Jet / Flickr / CC by 2.0
On hot days in New York City, residents swelter when they're outside and in their homes. The heat is not just uncomfortable. It can be fatal.
<p><br/></p>
<iframe style="border: none" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/15116324/height/45/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/" height="45" width="100%" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>"Extreme heat is actually the deadliest extreme weather event we face in New York City," says Jainey Bavishi of the Mayor's Office of Recovery and Resiliency.</p><p>Heat waves are most dangerous for older people and those with health problems. Low-income residents are also vulnerable: They may not have air conditioning, and their neighborhoods tend to have more pavement and fewer trees, which makes them hotter.</p><p>So the city has <a target="_blank" href="https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/nyc-coolroofs">taken steps</a> to cool these areas by painting roofs with a coating that reflects sunlight.</p>
<p>"We've already painted 10 million square feet of rooftops white in New York City and we're concentrating those coatings in the most heat-vulnerable areas," Bavishi says.</p><p>The city is also working to ensure residents remain safe during a heat wave. It's providing air conditioners to tens of thousands of elderly, low-income residents, and it runs a program that pairs volunteers with vulnerable people – "just to make sure that the residents of our communities that are most likely to be impacted by the hot temperatures are being checked in on and staying safe," Bavishi says.</p><p>So from rooftops to living rooms, the city is working to protect residents as temperatures heat up.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/new-york-city-paints-rooftops-white-to-help-residents-stay-cool/" target="_blank">Yale Climate Connections</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Extreme Heat-Stressed Locations Could Increase by 80% - EcoWatch ›
- African Americans Are Disproportionately Exposed to Extreme Heat ... ›
- Extreme Heat Is Killing Americans While Government Neglect ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Nearly 250 U.S. oil and gas companies are expected to file for bankruptcy by the end of next year. Joshua Doubek / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 3.0
Fracking companies are going bankrupt at a rapid pace, often with taxpayer-funded bonuses for executives, leaving harm for communities, taxpayers, and workers, the New York Time reports.
<p>Nearly 250 U.S. oil and gas companies are expected to file for bankruptcy by the end of next year — more than went under in the last five years combined — as demand craters due to the pandemic, a global price war, and falling renewable energy prices. These failing companies often neglect well maintenance and plugged well repairs to save money, causing tons of ultra-heat-trapping methane to continue gushing into the atmosphere. </p><p>Shale wells typically cost <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VWkCs-6l9bsnN6Fvt91xrcLcW430FVB4cv_DBN3rtP7m3p_9rV1-WJV7CgK5jW1cvRnF96Lb9mW3-JH6w3lfBlgW1ccv0l7xBKcfW8TfM3y1HKL3xVJqZTJ7rBh--W7P80KP8Fx9XlVl7YHW1_-HM4W49yBCC33jN_6W6hHB-t95SVMdW7xHdDg132FD6W5JzxgB8zc04dW9lm0z52xJznSW1088Bx7q5j4WN2VDzyf-K7GRW54Ss5s8lkH-sW6d2q4b16nZ9DW2fNdzP8Cm3SjW18y-jH4lwvZfN57dVMD9g0YfW4zqtt12dx4VKW7-MDt365lD7KW7WnM-n1bB8z9W1lRR3x3x462YW8YlmwM8wWZKdN2VvV06j0WDRW5Q-kNW5zjNc13dBQ1" target="_blank">$300,000</a> to close — far more than the estimates used by companies, regulators and financial analysts — and an analysis prepared for the Times found companies have failed to reserve sufficient funds, as required by law, to remediate their well sites, leaving taxpayers to foot the cleanup bill. </p>
<p>As a result, early estimates show substantial increases in methane concentrations over Texas and New Mexico oil fields in March and April 2020 compared to the previous year. The Trump administration is seeking to <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VWkCs-6l9bsnN6Fvt91xrcLcW430FVB4cv_DBN3rtP7G3p_9LV1-WJV7CgNjfW6tsRrP86lz1WV24BdG691GxFW3kN5SY57z0j7W8Fz7MQ2Kw_8jW1q753G63Rh18W5k-b-T4xRHhfW5T04893c2TPHW1TvN9-7YpC_-W6dczd13vPCKhW1tcxnz1BZDpTW3LZBZ44vHx98W2DFDmm2Xn_VdW7dZMT935GQSSW1WFcw36SxghNW6h5B924L1WWsW3DgH-r1TC9DzW7lrbKd62HZFvW5KtbhK9ctyG2W1kzwWk7VYyVkW6DPvxt45Dlc3W1794j06gn4-0W8Q_JQn2VC1-LN6n7_wTsGwdFW5vjCzs3KQBVqW1XPNDR7K0mWWW2gSBbp2ZGt4HW3lCd3v7rDyGDW4ksF1k4NF1Rw363l1" target="_blank">effectively eliminate</a> methane leak detection and repair requirements. </p><p>One drilling site, abandoned by Extraction Oil & Gas in Greeley, Colorado, is situated just 700 feet from an elementary school serving the community's fast-growing immigrant population where air pollution monitors recorded 100 periods of elevated levels of toxic benzene over the course of seven months last year. </p>
<p>Those wells were originally planned to lie closer to a more affluent, majority white charter school, but were moved after an outcry from that school's parents. Extraction Oil & Gas paid 18 of its officers and key employees a combined $6.7 million in "retention agreements" last month, three days before it filed for bankruptcy protection. </p><p>Extraction is hardly alone, Chesapeake Energy declared bankruptcy in May after paying $25 million in executive bonuses just weeks before. Diamond Offshore Drilling got a $9.7 million COVID-stimulus tax refund in March and then paid its executives the same amount as cash incentives to remain with the company as it undergoes bankruptcy proceedings. </p>
<p>"It seems outrageous that these executives pay themselves before filing for bankruptcy," Kathy Hipple, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and a finance professor at Bard College told the Times. "These are the same managers who ran these companies into bankruptcy to begin with." </p><p>The recent spate of oil & gas bankruptcies hurts the firms' workers as well, with lawsuits against the companies arising from workers injured and killed on the job put on hold.<span></span></p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/12/climate/oil-fracking-bankruptcy-methane-executive-pay.html?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=91332553&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_GKHS9MprgN7eHWZamF8Vev5zdDh1yAZeo7VDO6qeGZVhuazNzviysghDBRQE8PrEVvDIzbA9KlBYvSViFrSPFF62pGjhnWyij3xUztiV0-JTzDVk&utm_content=91332553&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">New York Times</a><br/></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Plunging Oil Prices Trigger Economic Downturn in Fracking Boom ... ›
- Fracking Boom Bursts in Face of Low Oil Prices - EcoWatch ›
- As Fracking Companies Face Bankruptcy, U.S. Regulators Enable ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Trump introduces EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler during an event to announce changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Jan. 9, 2020 in Washington, DC. The changes would make it easier for federal agencies to approve infrastructure projects without considering climate change. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
A report scheduled for release later Tuesday by Congress' non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that the Trump administration undervalues the costs of the climate crisis in order to push deregulation and rollbacks of environmental protections, according to The New York Times.
<p>In one example, the administration estimated the cost of global heating for future generations seven times lower than previous federal estimates. By drastically lowering that number, which is known as the "social cost of the carbon," the administration could manipulate its cost-benefit analyses for deregulating carbon emissions, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/climate/trump-climate-change-carbon-cost.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported.</p><p>Every ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere imposes a cost on the economy, since it increases the likelihood from damage to infrastructure from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise">sea level rise</a>, heat waves or storms. Or, it imposes a health care cost as increased pollution harms public health. However, calculating the cost of those effects is both politically contentious and economically challenging, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>Under estimates from the Obama administration, the social cost of carbon would be approximately $82 per ton of carbon by the year 2050, according to the forthcoming report. The Trump administration, upon entering office in 2017, quickly undid those numbers and changed the math of how the social cost of carbon was calculated. Under their revised system, the damages by 2050 are estimated to cost around $11 per ton of carbon.</p><p>One of the ways the math changed was keeping in line with Trump's narrow worldview. The report found that the administration brought the cost of carbon down by only looking at the effects on the U.S. rather than the global cost.</p><p>Another way it brought down the cost of carbon was by using something called the discount rate, which, according to The New York Times, assumes society should not pay much now to prevent harm from climate change to future generations.</p>
<p>"As a result, the current federal estimates, based on domestic climate damages, are about seven times lower than the prior federal estimates that were based on global damages," the report found.</p><p>The economic costs were supposed to be revised by the National Academy of Sciences, but the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/scientists-epa-panel-air-pollution-2640669910.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">White House disbanded the working group</a> and has no intention of restarting them or revising the economic calculation, as The New York Times reported.</p><p>That refusal to update their calculations means future incarnations of the federal government "may not be well positioned to ensure agencies' future regulatory analyses are using the best available <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a>," according to the GAO report.</p>
<p>Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island and one of eight senators who requested the review, said, "Climate change is a massive threat to our economy. That threat will only grow in years to come, even if we take the action necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change," as The New York Times reported.</p><p>Michael Greenstone, an economist at the University of Chicago, said the Trump administration's calculations were not done in good faith.</p><p>"It was entirely a political act. I don't think anyone pretended that those moves were justified," he said.</p><p>Others see similarities between the Trump administration's handling of the coronavirus and its approach to the climate crisis: deny its reality and then leave the country unprepared for its effects.</p><p>"This really parallels the mismanagement of coronavirus," said Michael K. Dorsey, a limited partner with IberSun, a renewable energy company, and a climate expert, to The New York Times. "There's this belief that by doing this you will have some effect of helping the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> industry. The only thing it does, unfortunately, is undermine the ability of the government to make prudent decisions about moving critical resources to communities that are experiencing the unfolding climate crisis."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Under Trump, EPA Workers Seek Bill of Rights to Allow Them to ... ›
- Trump Adds 'Tasteless Insult to Injury' by Pushing Fossil Fuel ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less