The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress said Thursday that the Trump administration's proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cuts are too harsh.
In a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, lawmakers criticized the administration's plan to slash the agency's budget by 31 percent.
Many representatives worried that cuts to EPA programs like Superfund site cleanup and pesticide testing would hurt their home states. "You're going to be the first EPA administrator that has come before this committee in eight years that actually gets more money than they ask for," Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) told Pruitt.
"We heard what we expected to from Scott Pruitt today: old ideas and industry-influenced propaganda," said Green for All's deputy director Michelle Romero.
"It's clear that the Trump administration is all in on destroying vital protections that keep our kids safe and our communities green," Romero continued. "Cutting the Environmental Protection Agency's budget as much as this administration proposes will destroy its ability to enforce our clean air and water laws, or to engage the in the science research required to determine the safety of chemicals in the products we bring into our homes."
"We know that 61 percent of Americans do not support this administration's work on climate and nearly three quarters of Americans think it's a bad idea to cut funding that supports the agency's work," she added. "This will not make America great, it will make America dirty. This does not create jobs, it threatens a future for our kids."
For a deeper dive:
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Malinda Maynor Lowery
Increasingly, Columbus Day is giving people pause.
By Jeff Turrentine
More than 58 million people currently living in the U.S. — 17 percent of the population — are of Latin-American descent. By 2065 that percentage is expected to rise to nearly a quarter. Hardly a monolith, this diverse group includes people with roots in dozens of countries; they or their ancestors might have arrived here at any point between the 1500s and today. They differ culturally, linguistically and politically.
By Tara Lohan
Prigi Arisandi, who founded the environmental group Ecological Observation and Wetlands Conservation, picks through a heap of worn plastic packaging in Mojokerto, Indonesia. Reading the labels, he calls out where the trash originated: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Canada. The logos range from Nestlé to Bob's Red Mill, Starbucks to Dunkin Donuts.
The trash of rich nations has become the burden of poorer countries.