Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA), testifies during a House Appropriations Committee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on March 4 in Washington, DC. Wheeler testified about the EPA's fiscal 2021 budget requests. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
By Vijay Limaye
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2018 censoring science proposal aimed to undercut the agency's application of landmark public health science by severely restricting its use in decision making. The proposal was a dangerous disaster that lacked any sound legal basis and threatened to impose draconian and hugely costly restrictions on the types of scientific information eligible for consideration by EPA in implementing laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act. Those laws have delivered major health and economic benefits to the American public over the past 50 years, and that progress was put in direct peril because of this transparent attempt to undercut the evidence-based approach that has made environmental protection so effective in the U.S.
<p>Because Pruitt's 2018 proposal was so <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/were-standing-against-epas-attempt-censor-science" target="_blank">ill-conceived</a>, it generated fierce opposition. The 600,000 public comments submitted to EPA included criticism from scientists and health experts (like doctors and nurses, epidemiologists, and toxicologists) and everyday citizens who understood its potential to fundamentally weaken our nation's public health safeguards by favoring industry-backed pseudoscience over consensus-based, peer-reviewed, established facts. NRDC submitted <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/media-uploads/nrdc_comments_on_pruitt_censoring_science_proposal.pdf" target="_blank">127 pages of comments</a> on the original proposal, outlining its numerous legal and scientific deficiencies—flaws that should've sent the proposal into the trash bin.</p>
<p>Instead, with former coal industry lobbyist <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stop-andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> now running the EPA, the agency Tuesday <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> to expand the scope of the censoring science rule. In a wandering supplemental proposal, EPA reveals that it now intends to greatly expand, not retreat from, its science censorship agenda in key ways:</p><ul><li>Broader definitions: EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">now says</a> that its science censorship rule would apply to any "data and models" used by the agency to craft regulations. This change is a significant expansion of the net cast in the original proposal, which was limited to "dose-response data and models," and it could weaken a wider range of current pollution controls across the country.</li><li>Arbitrary interference: The agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposes</a> to prioritize its consideration of certain scientific studies over others without clear criteria. That's a recipe for bias and chaos in future EPA rulemaking, because there's no clear explanation for how such important decisions will be made or implemented.</li><li>Veto power: The agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">proposes</a> to give the EPA administrator the authority to ignore the rule's restrictions and make exceptions to allow for an unlimited number of handpicked studies to be considered. Moreover, the administrator would not need to provide any robust explanation for such a run-around.</li><li>Retroactive restrictions: EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">now says</a> that it may apply the rule retroactively so that it could throw out the literally tens of thousands of studies that it has relied to craft environmental laws. This radical approach could upend the decades of gains we've made in national clean air and water protections and force us to start from scratch—meanwhile, restrictions on polluters could be significantly relaxed.</li></ul>
<p>Amazingly, nearly two years after it first proposed this idea, the agency still doesn't know what the legal authority it has to implement this fatally-flawed proposal. Instead, it's <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">asking the public</a> to tell it what that is. This is absurd and, I believe, unprecedented. Agencies are supposed to be interpreting the law, not embarking on fanciful crusades and then trying to find a legal justification for their actions.</p><p>It's no secret that the Trump administration <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/trumps-pick-lead-his-new-climate-change-panel-says-co2-has-been-demonized" target="_blank">despises science</a>, whether it's the factual evidence of accelerating climate change or the significant health dangers posed by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/26/us/politics/ap-us-trump-virus-outbreak.html" target="_blank">COVID-19 outbreak</a>. Rather than accept scientific facts and do their jobs, EPA's political leaders prefer to close their eyes and reject established truths. By redoubling its efforts on science censorship and stacking the deck in favor of industry interests, the Trump EPA is putting the health of us all at risk.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/epa-doubles-down-its-attempt-censor-science" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>.</em><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vijay-limaye/epa-doubles-down-its-attempt-censor-science" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a></p>From Your Site Articles
- EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants ... ›
- Trump's Hand-Picked Scientists Rebuke EPA Rollbacks - EcoWatch ›
- EPA Proposal to Restrict Science Panders to Polluters - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Watchdog: White House Blocked Part of Truck Pollution Investigation, Caused Lack of Public Information
06 December 2019
Health + Wellness
Semi trucks travel along I94 on June 21 near Lake forest, Illinois. Scott Olson / Getty Images
The Trump administration pushed through an exemption to clean air rules, effectively freeing heavy polluting, super-cargo trucks from following clean air rules. It rushed the rule without conducting a federally mandated study on how it would impact public health, especially children, said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Inspector General Charles J. Sheehan in a report released yesterday, as the AP reported.
<div id="78247" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="HPS6BR1576661032"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1202644393267793922" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Scathing @EPAoig report: "EPA Failed to Develop Required
Cost and Benefit Analyses and to Assess Air Quality Impact… https://t.co/sBXXN5QwZr</div> — John Walke (@John Walke)<a href="https://twitter.com/JohnDWalke/statuses/1202644393267793922">1575567742.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The gift to the trucking and fuel industry was one of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Scott-Pruitt" target="_self">Scott Pruitt</a>'s last acts as EPA Administrator before he resigned under a cloud of ethics violations in July 2018. He was alleged to have used tax payer money for first-class travel, a security detail that surrounded him 24 hours per day, an inexpensive lease in a lobbyist's apartment, and secretive meetings with executives from the fossil fuel industry, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/pruitt-epa-glider-trucks/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>The EPA inspector general not only faulted the EPA for failing to conduct a mandatory study into <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a> and how it affects children's health, but also the White House budget office for failing to provide requested information, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/pruitt-epa-glider-trucks/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>"The lack of analyses caused the public to not be informed of the proposed rule's benefits, costs, potential alternatives and impacts on children's health during the public comment period," the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/_epaoig_20191205-20-p-0047.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> reads.</p><p>The office "refused to provide ... specific responses or documentation," the inspector general said Thursday, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/pruitt-epa-glider-trucks/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. The office claimed that the information was "particularly sensitive."</p>
<p>"Such actions call into question the quality of EPA rulemaking processes and leave the public and stakeholders without the information necessary to make informed comments on EPA regulatory actions," the inspector general's <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/_epaoig_20191205-20-p-0047.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> warned, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/2c8b935888b013784f26f2266566554d" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>The rule in question pertains to "glider trucks," which are trucks with older engines that do not meet current air pollution rules, but were set to impose emissions standards and production limits in January 2018. Glider trucks are a booming sector of the cargo industry, in which an older diesel engine is refitted with a new big rig body. Emission tests show that glider trucks are far more damaging to people's health than trucks with newer engines, emitting up to several hundred times the amount of certain pollutions, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/2c8b935888b013784f26f2266566554d" target="_blank">AP</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/climate/wheeler-pruitt-glider-truck-reversal.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> reported that EPA scientists found that these older diesel engines can emit up to 55 times more soot than newer trucks.</p><p>The rush to pass the Glider Repeal Rule came after Pruitt met with several executives from Fitzgerald Glider Kits, the largest maker of gliders. Following, the executives welcomed Donald Trump to one of their plants during the 2016 campaign, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/2c8b935888b013784f26f2266566554d" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p>
<p>The EPA watchdog found in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/_epaoig_20191205-20-p-0047.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> that "Administrator Pruitt directed that the Glider Repeal Rule be promulgated as quickly as possible," without conducting the necessary studies required to implement the rule.</p>
<p>Two years ago, an EPA official wrote in an email that the Glider Repeal Rule did not "attempt to provide any of the cost/benefit type analysis" typically required for rules that are considered economically significant, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/pruitt-epa-glider-trucks/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p>
<p>"It is my understanding that such analysis (and data) does not exist; that such analysis will not be produced in the timeframe in which we are working; and that, in any event, if such analysis were ever to be produced, it would most likely not be as 'supportive' of the proposal as OMB and others might like," reads the email.</p>
<p>The inspector general wrote that the agency should return to square one. </p>
<p>"We recommend that the agency identify for the public the substantive change to the proposed rule made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, conduct the required analyses prior to finalizing the repeal, provide the public a means to comment on the analyses supporting the rulemaking, and document the decisions made," the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/_epaoig_20191205-20-p-0047.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> says.</p>
<p>The two Democratic lawmakers who requested the inspector-general's review, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware and Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, said the report showed "the troubling extent to which the Trump EPA went to break the law and abuse the regulatory process in order to benefit individual political benefactors from the glider truck industry," according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/2c8b935888b013784f26f2266566554d" target="_blank">AP</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- EPA Dissolves Program That Studies Effects of Chemical Exposure ... ›
- 'Every Child Born Today Will Be Profoundly Affected by Climate ... ›
- Study Links Air Pollution and Teenage Psychotic Experiences ... ›
- Mapping the US Counties Where Traffic Air Pollution Hurts Children ›
- Even Small Spikes in Air Pollution Can Threaten Children's Mental ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
EPA Watchdog Slams Agency's Chief of Staff Who Refuses to Cooperate With Investigations
07 November 2019
Politics
TexasGOPVote.com / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
The Environmental Protection Agency's top internal watchdog rebuked the department head's chief of staff for "open defiance" in refusing to cooperate with an audit and an investigation into whether he pressured a department scientist to change her congressional testimony, as the New York Times reported.
<p>The EPA's Inspector General Charles Sheehan also criticized EPA Administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Andrew-Wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> for his refusal to take action and address his chief of staff's refusal to cooperate with investigators, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/469307-epa-watchdog-slams-agency-head-as-his-chief-of-staff-refuses-to" target="_blank">according to The Hill</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/_epaoig_7dayletter_11-6-19.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a>, which is stamped Oct. 29, but was released Wednesday is written to Wheeler. It calls Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson's behavior a particularly serious and flagrant problem.</p><p>"To countenance open defiance even in one instance — much less two, both by a senior public official setting precedent for himself and all agency staff — is ruinous," Sheehan concluded in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/_epaoig_7dayletter_11-6-19.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a>, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/climate/epa-watchdog-chief-of-staff.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>.</p>
<p>The missive falls under the category of a "Seven Day Letter," meaning it is a step in the process used to notify Congress of serious impediments to carrying out investigations. Wheeler had to give the letter and any responses he wishes to include to the appropriate congressional committees within seven calendar days.</p><p>The audit of Mr. Jackson stems from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/epa-official-pressured-scientist-on-congressional-testimony-emails-show.html?module=inline" target="_blank">an investigation</a> into emails that showed Jackson trying to pressure scientist Deborah Swackhamer into altering her planned testimony before the House Science Committee. Dr. Swackhamer, for her part, said she had "felt bullied," as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/climate/epa-watchdog-chief-of-staff.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported</a>.</p><p>The investigation is believed to revolve around Jackson's involvement in the firing for former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's scheduler. The scheduler was pressured by Jackson to retroactively delete meetings that Pruitt held that were ethically dubious. She refused since it was a federal crime and was subsequently fired, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/climate/epa-watchdog-chief-of-staff.html" target="_blank">according to the New York Times</a>.</p><p>Sheehan's letter describes the ways Jackson has delayed and avoided and tried to sideline investigators. It also details Sheehan's failed attempts to talk to Wheeler about the investigation and the audit, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/469307-epa-watchdog-slams-agency-head-as-his-chief-of-staff-refuses-to" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>.</p><p>"Since October 21, 2019, neither you nor any agency official has contacted OIG on this urgent matter," Sheehan wrote.</p>
<p>Sheehan contrasts Wheeler's actions with his own words, citing an August 2018 memo that Wheeler wrote to the EPA.</p><p>"<em>Cooperating with the Office of Inspector General to Ensure the US Environmental Protection Agency is Fulfilling the Public's Trust (Attachment A)</em>. There you echo the Act's explicit mandate of full agency cooperation: 'It is imperative and expected that agency personnel provide the OIG with access to personnel ... or other information ... needed by the OIG to accomplish its mission,'" Sheehan wrote in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/_epaoig_7dayletter_11-6-19.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a>. Yet, the letter goes on to detail how Wheeler and, in particular, Jackson have defied exactly what Wheeler said they are supposed to do.</p><p>Sheehan later discusses the importance of cooperation and the need for the Inspector General to gather information without impediment and again draws attention to Wheeler and Jackson's defiance of his own mandate.</p><p>"As it is for the agency itself, information is the oxygen for the Inspector General's office," Sheehan wrote in his <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/_epaoig_7dayletter_11-6-19.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a>. "If information is choked off, we cannot fulfill our congressional charter and produce work of the rigor and quality expected by the American public You reaffirmed in your message to all agency employees that Inspector General access to all information is 'imperative' in 'Fulfilling the Public's Trust.'"</p><p>With the release of the letter yesterday, an EPA spokesman said Wheeler directed Jackson to sit down with the Office of the Inspector General.</p><p>"Today, the Administrator spoke with Acting Inspector General Chuck Sheehan to inform him that Mr. Jackson has agreed to sit for an interview with the O.I.G.'s office," the spokesman, Michael Abboud, said, as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/climate/epa-watchdog-chief-of-staff.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported</a>. "E.P.A. believes that this accommodation resolves the issues identified" in Mr. Sheehan's letter.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 10 Scandals that Ultimately Booted Pruitt - EcoWatch ›
- 10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just ... ›
- Former Coal Lobbyist Andrew Wheeler Confirmed to Head the EPA ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signs the so-called Affordable Clean Energy rule on June 19, replacing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan that would have reduced coal-fired plant carbon emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / Twitter
By Elliott Negin
On July 8, President Trump hosted a White House event to unabashedly tout his truly abysmal environmental record. The following day, coincidentally, marked the one-year anniversary of Andrew Wheeler at the helm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), first as acting administrator and then as administrator after the Senate confirmed him in late February.
<p>The good news, if there is any, is that Wheeler is an Eagle Scout compared to his <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-25/here-s-a-scorecard-of-the-scott-pruitt-investigations-quicktake" target="_blank">ethically challenged</a> predecessor, Scott Pruitt. The bad news is, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/climate/wheeler-epa-pruitt.html" target="_blank">as predicted</a>, Wheeler has been more effective than Pruitt in rolling back and eliminating EPA safeguards.</p><p>My organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists, has compiled a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/state-of-science-trump-era" target="_blank">list</a> of 80 Trump administration attacks on science since taking office, and Wheeler has been the driving force behind many of them. Below are 10 of the more egregious ways he has undermined the EPA's time-honored role to protect public health and the environment so far.</p>
<p><em>This article was produced by </em><a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank"><em>Earth | Food | Life</em></a><em>, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and originally published by </em><a href="https://truthout.org/articles/10-ways-andrew-wheeler-has-decimated-epa-protections-in-just-one-year/" target="_blank"><em>Truthout</em></a><em>.</em></p><p><em>Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a></em><em>.</em></p><p class=""><em></em></p>
1. Sidelined Scientists
<p><span style="background-color: initial;">Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, has taken a number of steps to systematically reduce the role of scientists in the agency's policymaking process. Last fall, for example, he </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/climate/epa-science-adviser.html" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">eliminated</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> the agency's Office of the Science Advisor, which counseled the EPA administrator on research supporting health and environmental standards, and </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/climate/epa-etzel-children-health-program.html" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">placed</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> the head of the EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection on administrative leave. He also </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/climate/epa-disbands-pollution-science-panel.html" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">disbanded</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> a 20-member scientific advisory committee on particulate matter, or soot; </span><a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060102455" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">failed</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> to convene a similar panel on ozone; and </span><a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060102455" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">packed</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> a seven-member advisory committee on air quality standards with industry-friendly participants.</span><span style="background-color: initial;"></span><br></p>2. Proposed to Restrict the Use of Scientific Data
<p>Claiming his intent is to increase "transparency," Wheeler is promoting a rule Pruitt proposed that would dramatically limit the scientific studies the agency considers when developing health standards. If adopted, the rule would restrict the use of scientific studies in EPA decisions if the underlying data are not public and reproducible, which would disqualify many epidemiological and other health studies the EPA relies on to set science-based public safeguards. Given that EPA health standards often rely on studies that contain private patient information, as well as confidential business information that cannot be revealed, the rule would significantly hamper the agency's ability to carry out its mission. Wheeler <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421479-epa-to-pursue-final-science-transparency-rule-in-2019" target="_blank">plans</a> to finalize the rule sometime this year.</p>3. Gutted the Coal Ash Rule
<p>The first major <a href="https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-ash-rule" target="_blank">rule</a> Wheeler signed as acting administrator refuted his claim that he could fulfill President Trump's <a href="https://www.apnews.com/0012648e385d41f481f0af20a90f0666" target="_blank">directive</a> to "clean up the air, clean up the water, and provide regulatory relief" at the same time. By rolling back the Obama-era coal ash rule, Wheeler provided regulatory relief to his old friend the coal industry by weakening environmental protections established in 2015 to clean up coal ash ponds, which are laced with toxic contaminants that leak into groundwater. The move was a <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060083703" target="_blank">top priority</a> for coal baron Bob Murray, owner of Murray Energy, Wheeler's <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/epas-acting-administrator-has-long-lobbying-record-on-issues-before-the-agency/2018/07/05/a591cd40-6a6b-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.07ea8ecca216" target="_blank">most lucrative client</a> when he worked for the Faegre Baker Daniels law firm.</p><p>Coal-fired power plants have been dumping this residue from burning coal into giant, unlined pits for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/07/02/us/ap-us-coal-ash-liability.html" target="_blank">decades</a>. According to the EPA, there are more than <a href="https://www.epa.gov/coalash/frequent-questions-about-2015-coal-ash-disposal-rule#3" target="_blank">1,000 coal ash disposal sites</a> across the country, and a recent <a href="https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news/first-comprehensive-national-study-of-coal-ash-pollution-finds-widespread-groundwater-contamination/" target="_blank">analysis</a> by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project found that 91 percent of the coal plants filing monitoring data required by the 2015 rule are polluting water with unsafe levels of toxic contaminants. Wheeler's EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-first-amendments-coal-ash-disposal-regulations-providing-flexibilities" target="_blank">says</a> the new rule—which extends the deadline for closing some leaking ash ponds and allows states to suspend groundwater monitoring and set their own standards—will save utilities as much as $31 million. But the agency ignored the enormous costs of cancer and neurological and cardiovascular diseases <a href="https://www.psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/coal-ash-hazardous-to-human-health.pdf" target="_blank">linked</a> to coal ash ingredients, which include arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury.</p>4. Recommended Unsafe Levels of Drinking Water Contaminants
<p>Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are used in firefighting foam and a variety of nonstick, cleaning, packaging and other household products, have been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pfas-everyday-products-toxics-guide" target="_blank">linked</a> to thyroid disease and kidney, liver, pancreatic and testicular cancer. According to a recent <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drinking-water-may-contain-pfas-chemicals-in-43-states-according-to-new-study-by-environmental-working-group/" target="_blank">study</a> by the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University, these chemicals threaten the drinking water supplies of an estimated 19 million Americans. A 2018 Union of Concerned Scientists <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/preserving-science-based-safeguards/toxic-threat-pfas-contamination-military-bases" target="_blank">report</a>, meanwhile, found that PFAS water contamination at 130 military bases across the country exceed the 11-parts-per-trillion safety threshold determined by the Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Nearly two-thirds of the sites had contamination that was more than 100 times higher than the safe level.</p><p>In February, Wheeler <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-acting-administrator-announces-first-ever-comprehensive-nationwide-pfas-action-plan" target="_blank">announced</a> the "first-ever nationwide action plan" to regulate PFAS chemicals in water, saying the agency would develop and set a limit for two of the most prevalent PFAS chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid. During the announcement, he <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/epa-pfas-water-plan/index.html" target="_blank">told</a> reporters he believes the agency's voluntary 70-part-per-trillion health-advisory level for the chemicals is "a safe level for drinking water," despite the fact that this level is more than six times higher than what the Disease Registry considers safe.</p><p>While Wheeler slow-walks the EPA's response, members of Congress have introduced at least a <a href="https://saferchemicals.org/2019/05/29/communities-call-on-congress-to-act-on-pfas/" target="_blank">dozen</a> bills to address PFAS contamination, and the <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/450706-senate-vote-requires-military-epa-to-deal-with-harmful-forever" target="_blank">Senate recently passed</a> a defense bill that would require the EPA to set a science-based standard for PFAS in drinking water.</p>5. Rolled Back Clean Water Act Protections
<p>Clearing up a decade-long dispute over the scope of the Clean Water Act, the Obama EPA <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-epa-clean-water-pollution.html" target="_blank">adopted</a> a broad, science-based definition of the law that included protecting intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands that do not have surface water connections to other waterways. A <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=296414" target="_blank">2015 EPA meta-analysis</a> of more than 1,200 peer-reviewed studies concluded that even infrequently flowing small streams and isolated wetlands can affect "the integrity of downstream waters." Trash them and that pollution could wind up in rivers, lakes, reservoirs and estuaries.</p><p>Regardless, Wheeler <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-army-propose-new-waters-united-states-definition" target="_blank">announced</a> plans during a December telephone press briefing to reverse the Obama EPA definition of waters protected by the Clean Water Act, a thinly disguised gift to land developers and the agriculture industry. When asked what wetlands would no longer be protected, Wheeler <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060109323/" target="_blank">replied</a>, "We have not done … a detailed mapping of all the wetlands in the country." Likewise, EPA Office of Water head David Ross—who <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060058019" target="_blank">represented industry clients</a> against the EPA before joining the Trump administration—<a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060109323/" target="_blank">told</a> reporters on the call that the agency had no idea how many streams would be dropped from Clean Water Act protection under the proposal.</p>In fact, Wheeler and Ross were well aware of the damage their new definition would do. At least 18 percent of streams and 51 percent of wetlands across the country would not be covered under their proposed definition, according to an internal 2017 <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/12/11/document_gw_05.pdf" target="_blank">slideshow</a> prepared by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers and <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060109323" target="_blank">obtained by E&E News</a> under the Freedom of Information Act.6. Suppressed an Inconvenient Formaldehyde Report
<p>Last August, Wheeler disingenuously told a Senate committee that the EPA was holding up the release of a report on the risk of cancer from formaldehyde to confirm its veracity. "I am sure we will release it," he <a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/f/afffe2f0-6008-4c2a-af13-87d1cb26d6be/7564C79E99E118F3853D747150119932.spw-080118.pdf" target="_blank">said</a>, "but I need to make sure that the science in the report is still accurate."</p><p>In fact, the report—which concluded that formaldehyde can cause leukemia and nose and throat cancer—was completed by EPA scientists a year before Wheeler testified, according to <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pruitt%20Letter%20formaldehyde%20assessment.pdf" target="_blank">a Senate investigation</a>, and their conclusion was hardly a surprise. Both the World Health Organization's <a href="https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono100F-29.pdf" target="_blank">International Agency for Research on Cancer</a> and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services <a href="https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2011/june10/" target="_blank">National Toxicology Program</a> have already classified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.</p><p>The EPA's review process normally takes <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/climate/epa-mercury-emissions.html" target="_blank">60 to 90 days</a>. The formaldehyde report has been in limbo for at least a year and a half, a blatant giveaway to the <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/toxic-influence-how-a-che_b_8307272" target="_blank">American Chemistry Council</a>, the U.S. chemical industry's premier trade association, which has <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sowing-uncertainty-about-science-formaldehyde-decades" target="_blank">blocked tighter restrictions</a> on formaldehyde for decades.</p>7. Ignored EPA Scientists’ Advice to Ban Asbestos
<p>Instead of <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/815-e-p-a-memos-on-asbestos/12c87a96be998db10048/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">heeding the advice</a> of agency scientists and lawyers to follow the example of <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y5x2k32p" target="_blank">55 other countries</a> and ban asbestos completely, the EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-strengthens-regulation-asbestos-close-loophole-and-protect-consumers" target="_blank">announced</a> in April that it would tighten restrictions on asbestos—not ban it—despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its dangers. Manufacturers will be able to continue to use the substance if they obtain EPA approval.</p><p>Asbestos has not been produced in the United States <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluation-asbestos-0" target="_blank">since 2002</a>, but is still imported for use in a wide range of commercial and consumer products, including auto brake components, roofing, vinyl floor tile, fire-resistant clothing, and cement pipes, sheets and shingles. One of the deadliest known carcinogens, asbestos kills <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180416005884/en/ADAO-Announces-New-Findings-Show-Asbestos-Related-Deaths" target="_blank">nearly 40,000</a> Americans annually, mainly from lung cancer.</p>8. Weakened the Mercury Emissions Rule
<p>In late December, the EPA proposed to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/climate/mercury-coal-pollution-regulations.html" target="_blank">significantly weaken</a> a rule restricting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by recalculating its costs and benefits. The Obama EPA, which issued the rule in 2011, estimated it would cost utilities <a href="https://www.epa.gov/mats/regulatory-actions-final-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards-mats-power-plants" target="_blank">$7.4 billion to $9.6 billion</a> annually to install pollution controls and lead to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/mats/healthier-americans#impacts" target="_blank">$37 billion to $90 billion</a> in health benefits by reducing not only mercury, a potent neurotoxin, but also sulfur dioxide and soot, thus preventing 130,000 asthma attacks, 4,700 heart attacks, and as many as 11,000 premature deaths. The Wheeler EPA ignored the "co-benefits" of limiting sulfur dioxide and soot, and flagrantly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/climate/mercury-coal-pollution-regulations.html" target="_blank">lowballed</a> the health benefits of curbing mercury alone at only $4 million to $6 million annually.</p><p>Most utilities have already complied with the mercury rule at <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y5885qy4" target="_blank">a fraction of the estimated cost</a>, but health advocates fear that this new, industry-friendly accounting method, which makes it appear that the cost to polluters far outweigh the rule's benefits, will <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/28/epa-make-it-harder-tighten-mercury-rules-future/?utm_term=.84be4559d80d" target="_blank">set a precedent</a> for the EPA to sabotage an array of other public health protections.</p>9. Slammed Vehicle Emission Rules Into Reverse
<p>Last August, the EPA and the Transportation Department <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/08/02/trump-epa-fuel-economy-standards/887683002/" target="_blank">issued</a> a proposal to freeze vehicle tailpipe pollution and fuel efficiency standards, rolling back a 2012 Obama-era rule requiring automakers to boost passenger vehicle fuel economy to a fleetwide average of 54 miles per gallon by 2025. In a Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/make-cars-great-again-1533170415" target="_blank">opinion piece</a> titled "Make Cars Great Again" published a few days before the two agencies announced their proposal, Wheeler and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao charged that the Obama-era standards—the first to limit vehicle carbon emissions—are too burdensome for automakers and "raised the cost and decreased the supply of newer, safer vehicles."</p><p>Parroting the Trump administration's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/climate/trump-fuel-economy.html?module=inline" target="_blank">line of reasoning</a>, Wheeler and Chao argued that fuel-efficient cars—which weigh less than gas-guzzlers—are not as safe, a contention that has been widely <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/climate/trump-fuel-economy.html?module=inline" target="_blank">debunked</a>. In fact, a 2017 <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w23340" target="_blank">study</a> concluded that reducing the average weight of new vehicles could result in fewer traffic fatalities.</p><p>In any case, freezing the standards at 2020 levels would be hard on the planet, not to mention Americans' wallets, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/new-epa-administrator-same-bad-idea-car-standard-rollbacks-would-be-awful" target="_blank">according to</a> the Union of Concerned Scientists. It would result in an additional 2.2 billion metric tons of global warming emissions by 2040, amounting to 170 million metric tons in 2040 alone—the equivalent of the annual output of 43 average size coal-fired power plants. It also would cost drivers billions of dollars. In 2040 alone, they would have to pay an additional $55 billion to fill their gas tanks. Meanwhile, the design improvements automakers have made so far to meet the standards have already saved drivers more than <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/fuel-economy-ticker?_ga=2.130369487.1908070918.1561988567-899698819.1546975208" target="_blank">$86 billion</a> at the pump since 2012, and off-the-shelf technological fixes, the Union of Concerned Scientists says, would enable automakers to meet the original 2025 target.</p>10. Rescinded the Clean Power Plan
<p>Perhaps Wheeler's most damaging move to date came late last month when he <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/6/19/18684054/climate-change-clean-power-plan-repeal-affordable-emissions" target="_blank">signed</a> a final rule to repeal and replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which would have required coal-fired power plants to dramatically cut their carbon emissions. Yet another gift to the coal industry, Wheeler's so-called Affordable Clean Energy rule grants states the authority to determine emissions standards but sets no targets, leaving them the option to do absolutely nothing.</p>Before Wheeler released the final rule, an April <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafe25" target="_blank">study</a> in the journal Environmental Research Letters found that his draft version would boost carbon emissions in 18 states and the District of Columbia and increase sulfur dioxide emissions in 19 states. The EPA's own <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html?module=inline" target="_blank">analysis</a> of the draft rule, meanwhile, found that the proposal could have led to as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 due to an increase in soot, and as many as 15,000 cases of upper respiratory problems.Reversing Decades of Bipartisan Protections
<p>If Wheeler truly cared about transparency, he would petition the Trump administration to change the name of his agency to "Every Polluter's Ally." In just 12 months, he has killed or weakened dozens of safeguards with the sole intention of bolstering polluting industries' profit margins even after Congress slashed the corporate tax rate. As a result, millions of Americans will be drinking filthier water and breathing dirtier air, and more will suffer from serious diseases, according to his agency's own accounting.</p><p>Wheeler and his predecessor Pruitt have sullied the bipartisan track record of one of the nation's agencies entrusted with protecting public health and safety. So it is little wonder that three former EPA administrators who, notably, served under Republican presidents, recently <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11062019/epa-climate-change-anti-science-rebuke-gop-former-administrators-thomas-whitman-reilly-mccarthy" target="_blank">sounded the alarm</a> on Capitol Hill, urging legislators to step up their oversight of the agency and denouncing its attempts to hamstring science.</p>"There is no doubt in my mind that under the current administration the EPA is retreating from its historic mission to protect our environment and the health of the public from environmental hazards," former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who served under President George W. Bush, stated in her <a href="https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Testimony%20-%20Todd%20Whitman%2020190611.pdf" target="_blank">written testimony</a> for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. "This administration, from the beginning, has made no secret of its intention to essentially dismantle the EPA…. Therefore, I urge this committee, in the strongest possible terms, to exercise Congress's oversight responsibilities over the actions and direction of the EPA."
Read More
Show Less
Government Watchdog: EPA Broke Ethics Rules as It Replaced Academic Advisers With Industry Appointees
16 July 2019
Politics
Trump shakes hands with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after announcing his decision for the U.S. to pull out of the Paris agreement on June 1, 2017. Win McNamee / Getty Images
President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated ethics rules when it replaced academic members of advisory boards with industry appointees, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported Monday.
<p>The federal watchdog found that, in 2018, the EPA did not gather documents from staff explaining the rationale for appointing new members to two key advisory committees and failed to ensure that all committee members appointed as special government employees met ethics requirements.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">EPA Advisory Committees: Improvements Needed for the Member Appointment Process <a href="https://t.co/m4sjzgKOXU">https://t.co/m4sjzgKOXU</a></p>— U.S. GAO (@USGAO) <a href="https://twitter.com/USGAO/status/1150817331892932613?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>"This report shows that the Trump administration rigged influential advisory boards to favor its polluter backers," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a statement reported by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/climate/epa-advisory-panels-gao-report.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1gkvF0EhPAoVuUlmp4q4KXrYTdDRtZdKLBXiin-jlhPsUbVAA7wDmGNcQ" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>The EPA failed to follow its own process when it appointed 20 new members to the Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in fiscal year 2018, GAO said. EPA staff typically provide rationales for why a person was recommended, but the appointment packets reviewed by the GAO for the two committees did not include those documents.</p><p>Further, the agency is supposed to ensure that board members appointed as special government employees do not have conflicts of interest that would prevent them from giving unbiased advice. But 23 percent of the financial disclosure forms reviewed by the GAO were not signed and dated by ethics officials.</p><p>The composition of some boards also significantly changed during the first year of the Trump administration, the report found. The number of academics on the Scientific Advisory Board fell 27 percent and, on the Board of Scientific Counselors, 45 percent. In contrast, the number of academics on the boards remained stable during the first year of the Obama administration, The New York Times reported.</p><p>The composition changes coincided with a rule by former EPA Administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_self">Scott Pruitt</a> barring anyone who had received EPA funding from sitting on a board. This posed a problem for academics, <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15072019/gao-epa-ethics-reviews-science-advisory-board-industry-consultants-academics-removed-trump-pruitt" target="_blank">InsideClimate News explained</a>, because the EPA funds a lot of environmental research. But the hole left by the academic members was filled by industry-linked scientists and private consultants, the report confirmed.</p><p>"The non-partisan GAO confirms what we've been critical of all along: The Trump Administration is violating its own rules by putting industry officials in charge of crucially important science advisory boards," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and one of the lawmakers who requested the investigation, said, as InsideClimate News reported.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This non-partisan <a href="https://twitter.com/USGAO?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@USGAO</a> report confirms what <a href="https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenWhitehouse</a> and I have suspected all along: <a href="https://twitter.com/EPA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EPA</a> is violating its own rules by putting industry officials in charge of advisory boards - panels that help guide crucial enforcement and regulatory actions across the country <a href="https://t.co/jqM4qj259h">https://t.co/jqM4qj259h</a></p>— Senator Tom Carper (@SenatorCarper) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorCarper/status/1150883666786168836?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Donna Vizian, EPA principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Mission Support, defended the agency's changes to the selection process for the two committees named in the report.</p><p>"Since the membership process was followed with an enhancement to ensure that only the best, most qualified applicants were chosen to serve on the federal advisory committees in question, we deem this finding to be inaccurate and possibly misleading," she wrote in a formal response reported by InsideClimate News.</p><p>The EPA told the GAO that it had replaced the committee membership recommendation grids submitted by staff with in-person briefings, but provided no documentation as proof of the briefings.</p><p>Christopher Zarba, who served as director of the EPA's Science Advisory Board staff office until 2018, disputed the EPA's official account of its new process.</p><p>"This is bullshit. There was no other process. There was no review, no feedback, at least when I was there," Zarba told <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/trump-epa-gao-science-advisors?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc" target="_blank">BuzzFeed News</a>.</p><p>Vizian blamed the unsigned financial disclosure documents on an understaffed ethics office, InsideClimate News reported.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Top-Down Contamination of the EPA || By: Jeff Turrentine <a href="https://t.co/hiaJ9raA1V">https://t.co/hiaJ9raA1V</a></p>— SafetyPin-Daily (@SafetyPinDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/SafetyPinDaily/status/1136097838616776704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
- Top Trump Official for Pipeline Safety Profits from Selling Oil Spill ... ›
- Former Coal Lobbyist Andrew Wheeler Confirmed to Head the EPA ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
On Oct. 4, 2017, the Senate EPW Committee held a hearing on Wehrum's nomination. EPA / YouTube screenshot
So little time, so much damage done. That's the legacy left by Bill Wehrum who spent only one and a half years as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) top air quality official before announcing that he will step down this weekend under the cloud of a federal ethics investigation over possible conflicts of interest. His resignation follows conflicting statement he made to Congress about his industry connections, according to Politico.
<p>Mr. Wehrum worked as a lobbyist and lawyer for the oil, gas and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> industries before joining the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump administration</a>, but did not relinquish ties to his clients. The House Energy and Commerce Committee opened an inquiry into whether he improperly worked to reverse an enforcement action in order to help DTE Energy, a former client. Watchdog groups also said he crossed a line when he gave presentations to former clients and when he worked on policy that affected litigation in which his former firm, Hunton & Williams, was involved, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/climate/bill-wehrum-epa.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported.<br></p><p>"William Wehrum was emblematic of the administration's struggles to remain ethical," said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, in a statement reported by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/26/epas-top-air-policy-official-steps-down-amid-scrutiny-over-possible-ethics-violations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cba7c608f210" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. "While it's a good thing that Wehrum's potential ethics problems will no longer affect the agency, the tone is set at the top, and if the EPA is to clean up the mess started by Scott Pruitt, the Trump administration needs to get serious about policing its ethical failures."</p><p>In his short tenure in the EPA, which started in November 2017, Wehrum has proven himself a nimble deregulator. He was instrumental to shrinking the EPA's reach, rolling back Obama-era rules meant to lower greenhouse gas emissions, slowing fuel-efficiency requirements for cars and trucks, and rewriting the way the EPA calculates costs and benefits to favor the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> energy sector — essentially rewriting the way the agency measures the health consequences of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a>, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/26/epas-top-air-policy-official-steps-down-amid-scrutiny-over-possible-ethics-violations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cba7c608f210" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. He was also the chief architect of the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which eased the path for more coal-fired power plants to open, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/climate/bill-wehrum-epa.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p>
<p>"Mr. Wehrum oversaw the most relentless rollback of clean air, climate and health safeguards in E.P.A.'s history," said John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/climate/bill-wehrum-epa.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported. "E.P.A. strengthened not a single meaningful air quality or climate safeguard during his tenure."</p><p>Environmental activists are pleased to see him leave.</p><p>"Wehrum did more damage to the Clean Air Act than any other person in the last 40 years," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/26/epa-bill-wehrum-1556621" target="_blank">Politico</a> reported. "His legacy will be more premature deaths, more hospital visits and more asthma attacks to our most vulnerable citizens."</p><p>Wehrum's ethical mishaps follow a pattern of behavior from senior Trump administration officials who have resigned while under investigation, including four Cabinet members — EPA Administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Scott Pruitt</a>, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, Interior Secretary <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ryan-zinke">Ryan Zinke</a>, and Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin — along with other senior staffers such as Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator William "Brock" Long.</p><p>Also, the Department of Interior's Office of Inspector General is currently investigating Secretary David Bernhardt and six current or former top appointees for actions similar to Wehrum's — improper dealings with their former employers or clients on department-related business, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/26/epas-top-air-policy-official-steps-down-amid-scrutiny-over-possible-ethics-violations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cba7c608f210" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported.</p><p>As for Wehrum's life after the EPA, one Senate Democrat who asked for an investigation into Wehrum predicted a profitable future with the fossil fuel industry.</p><p>"I can't wait to see where Bill Wehrum lands once he's out the door," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in a statement, as reported by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/26/epas-top-air-policy-official-steps-down-amid-scrutiny-over-possible-ethics-violations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cba7c608f210" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. "What do you bet it's with one of the fossil fuel interests he has served so well as air chief, delivering one big handout after another?"</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Top-Down Contamination of the EPA || By: Jeff Turrentine <a href="https://t.co/hiaJ9raA1V">https://t.co/hiaJ9raA1V</a></p>— SafetyPin-Daily (@SafetyPinDaily) <a href="https://twitter.com/SafetyPinDaily/status/1136097838616776704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
President Donald Trump, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou break ground for a new factory and potential big pollution source on June 28, 2018. Andy Manis / Getty Images
By Jeff Turrentine
When former administrator Scott Pruitt stepped down and Andrew Wheeler took over, few who care about clean air, clean water and climate change actually thought things were going to get dramatically better at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Wheeler, after all, came to the job after working as a coal lobbyist and a legislative aide to one of Congress's most notorious climate deniers. Still, given that he'd actually begun his career as a special assistant in the EPA's Pollution Prevention and Toxics Office, it wasn't outlandish to wonder if Wheeler might represent at least some kind of improvement over his predecessor.
<p>Short answer: He doesn't. As hard as it is to picture an EPA less willing to fight for public health and the environment than the one we endured under Pruitt, Wheeler's EPA is emerging as a credible candidate. <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/who-andrew-wheeler-and-why-you-should-be-afraid-him" target="_blank">As some of us suspected</a>, the main difference between the two directors appears to be a matter of style. Whereas Pruitt's brand of corruption was bumbling and often <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/week-63-scott-pruitt-even-sleeps-unethically" target="_blank">transparently self-serving</a>, Wheeler's is polished and insidious. But through their bad-faith actions, both men have been exceptional at perverting the agency's mission and cultivating mistrust among its staff.</p><p>According to emails and other internal EPA documents <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-smog/emails-show-trump-epa-overruled-career-staff-on-wisconsin-air-pollution-idUSKCN1SY2BP" target="_blank">received earlier this month</a> by the Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin as part of a federal public records request, in 2018 Pruitt pressured EPA scientists to overlook their own informed opinions about smog pollution in order to pave the way for a heavily polluting and <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/impact-wisconsin-lcd-plant-may-have-great-lakes-not-crystal-clear" target="_blank">water-guzzling</a> manufacturing plant in southeastern Wisconsin. If built, <a href="https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-says-foxconn-deal-will-help-revive-manufacturing-in/article_120705ef-b3bb-5198-9cf6-fbef92623796.html" target="_blank">the Foxconn flat-screen TV factory</a> could have theoretically added 13,000 jobs to the area, burnishing the reputation of Governor Scott Walker — a friend to the Trump administration — at a crucial political moment in the governor's reelection campaign. (FWIW, Walker lost.)</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTU3MzM0NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzEwMzk1M30.AAULn5U0KU6Cy1t3tOKbH_RfYbLUSjwhqVtFHRgjwhM/img.jpg?width=980" id="a0bae" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="261f2c3f83d76e7e49024daedf01b12e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
EPA Administer Andrew Wheeler (left) and former administrator Scott Pruitt (right) at Wheeler's swearing-in ceremony.
EPA
<p>The emails and other documents reveal that Pruitt sought to waive federal limits on smog pollution in the region, thus sparing Foxconn, a Taiwan-based company, the expense of instituting new pollution controls at its factory. They furthermore reveal that Pruitt expected his agency's experts to come up with data in support of the decision — which many of them felt they simply could not do. In the documents, demoralized scientists complain to one another about the inappropriateness of "[t]aking snippets of information out of context and not telling the whole story" and bemoan "intentional omissions" in studies being publicly released with the EPA's imprimatur. One scientist admits that she is "in disbelief" at being asked to endorse Pruitt's plan; a colleague replies that as an expert in the health effects of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a>, he finds the decision "hard to digest and support." (Interestingly, this week the Trump administration <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-foxconn-indiana-smog-trump-epa-20190516-story.html" target="_blank">appears to be backtracking</a> on the sweetheart deal it offered Foxconn, in part because new data from the EPA show that the smog situation in southeastern Wisconsin is worsening, and that now would not be a good time to add another pollution source.)</p><p>Just one day before <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/climate/epa-pruitt-wisconsin-foxconn.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> published its account of this sordid episode, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/445277-dems-say-epa-head-gave-false-statements-to-congress-on-vehicle" target="_blank">another story broke</a> about mendacity at the EPA — this one concerning the agency's current director, whose testimony before Congress regarding the weakening <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/weakening-car-pollution-rules-may-be-trumps-dumbest-rollback-yet" target="_blank">of Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards</a> is now under question. Defending the rollback to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April, Wheeler tried to downplay the sizable increase in emissions that it would bring. "I have been told by my staff that the CO2 reductions, the impact of the CO2 reductions are pretty similar to what the Obama administration proposal would have received under their — would have gotten under their proposal," he told the committee.</p>
<p>Now these same lawmakers are demanding more information from Wheeler to support that claim. <a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b/c/bcd82315-e25f-4cf5-94d4-227ca461c0ed/B37773917967149BEC4F274A5C1B0E9A.carper-pallone-cars-05-23-19.pdf" target="_blank">In an official letter to Wheeler</a> sent last Thursday, they accuse him of "mak[ing] assertions about the proposal that you must know do not reflect the views of EPA's expert staff," of "repeatedly mischaracteriz[ing] the emissions impact of the proposed rule" and of making public statements that have "deviated from the information that was provided to you and other EPA political appointees" by the agency's scientists and other experts.</p><p>They strongly imply that Wheeler's motivations for misleading Congress and the public are rooted in his desire to please the oil industry. "[It] is hard to discern any other purpose for the proposal," they write, "since no entity in the automotive industry has requested such an extreme rollback of the current vehicle economy and greenhouse gas standards ... The oil industry stands to reap the most benefit from the proposed rollback because Americans will be forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more for gasoline in less efficient cars."</p><p>Taken together, these two developments paint a picture of an EPA where the science-backed opinions of career staff count for far less than the needs of corporate polluters. In March 2018 — before Pruitt <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/trump-watch/scott-pruitt-destroyer-environment-and-master-scandals-resigns-epa" target="_blank">resigned</a> in disgrace — I wrote that there were <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/tale-two-epas" target="_blank">basically two EPAs</a>, a split reflecting "deep tensions within an agency that's currently torn between the best impulses of its hardworking scientists and the worst impulses of its administrator and his industry-coddling cronies." Fifteen months and one administrative shakeup later, the point still stands. Nothing has changed. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/top-down-contamination-epa" target="_blank">onEarth</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
'Finally!': Court Orders EPA to Stop Stalling Potential Ban on Pesticide Tied to Brain Damage in Kids
22 April 2019
Food
American farmers use chlorpyrifos, a pesticide tied to brain and nervous system issues, on crops such as apples, broccoli, corn and strawberries. Stephanie Chapman / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
By Jessica Corbett
In a ruling welcomed by public health advocates, a federal court on Friday ordered the Trump administration to stop stalling a potential ban on a pesticide linked to brain damage in children, giving regulators until mid-July to make a final decision.
<p>Citing unacceptable health risks for children, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/09/us/epa-citing-risks-to-children-signs-accord-to-limit-insecticide.html" target="_blank">ended</a> household use of <a href="https://earthjustice.org/features/what-you-need-to-know-about-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">chlorpyrifos</a> in 2000. However, farmers can still use the pesticide — which is also tied to <a href="http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/chlorpgen.html" target="_blank">nervous system problems</a> in people and animals — on crops such as apples, broccoli, corn and strawberries.</p>
<p>The unanimous <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/En%20Banc%20Mandamus%20Order.pdf" target="_blank">ruling</a> Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is the latest development in a drawn out court battle between the EPA — which <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/03/30/epa-rejects-own-science-greenlight-brain-damaging-pesticide" target="_blank">blocked</a> a planned agricultural ban on chlorpyrifos in 2017 — and the anti-pesticide, environmental and farmworkers organizations who disagreed with that decision.</p><p>Earthjustice attorney Patti Goldman, who represents the groups fighting to ban the pesticide from foods, commended the court for its ruling in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/court-orders-epa-to-decide-whether-to-ban-brain-damaging-pesticide-from-food" target="_blank">statement </a>Friday.</p><p>"While we are moving forward, the tragedy is that children are being exposed to chlorpyrifos, a pesticide science has long shown is unsafe," she said. "We hope Trump's EPA finally decides to protect the future of countless children and the health of millions of farmworkers."</p><p>Noting that public health advocates have been working to outlaw the pesticide for more than a decade, Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney Mae Wu said, "All the science says EPA must ban."</p>
<div id="d46f5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="U1E5R11576663163"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1119286984625786881" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">2 years after EPA backtracked from its proposal to ban the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos (and almost 12 years a… https://t.co/ucenWGtaqE</div> — Mae Wu (@Mae Wu)<a href="https://twitter.com/MaeNRDC/statuses/1119286984625786881">1555693787.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Kristin Schafer, executive director of the Pesticide Action Network, tweeted, "No more delay, [EPA]."</p>
<div id="09e4f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="71DK2I1576663163"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1119299196245307394" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Yes!! The court granted our petition this morn, & set a deadline for EPA to (finally!) take action on the brain-har… https://t.co/gv59i5aKr9</div> — Kristin Schafer (@Kristin Schafer)<a href="https://twitter.com/KristinAtPAN/statuses/1119299196245307394">1555696698.0</a></blockquote></div><p><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/07/05/finally-victory-people-and-planet-epa-chief-scott-pruitt-resigns" target="_blank">Scandal-ridden</a> former EPA chief Scott Pruitt <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/06/28/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-met-dow-ceo-just-killing-effort-ban-toxic-pesticide" target="_blank">blocked</a> the ban on chlorpyrifos in March of 2017, shortly after he met with the chief executive of Dow Chemical, which has been selling the pesticide for decades and lobbied against restrictions on it.</p><p>The appeals court <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/09/major-victory-public-health-court-orders-trump-epa-ban-pesticide-harms-kids-brains" target="_blank">ruled</a> last August that the EPA had illegally impeded the ban and ordered the agency to finalize its proposal. But then, the EPA requested a rehearing, which the court granted in February.</p><p>Shortly before the rehearing last month, Goldman explained the legal issues behind the case in a short video:</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8ae8aa65b3d572be8e94e92786f075f1"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rcUYTWMgnhU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook, in a <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/04/19/us-court-orders-trump-epa-decide-fate-brain-damaging-pesticide" target="_blank">statement</a> Friday, criticized EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler — who replaced Pruitt — for failing to ban the pesticide and urged him to fulfill the agency's mission to protect human health and the environment.</p><p>"We'll find out in three months if the Trump EPA remains under the tight control of the chemical agriculture industry, or if Administrator Wheeler will finally take his job seriously and ban this brain-damaging pesticide," said Cook. "It's deplorable that Wheeler has defied the court's order for almost nine months, and it's time for him to do his job and protect public health."</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/19/finally-court-orders-epa-stop-stalling-potential-ban-pesticide-tied-brain-damage" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Even 'Moderate' Consumption of Red and Processed Meat ... ›
- Wheeler's EPA Keeps Brain-Damaging Chlorpyrifos in Food ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Oil Execs Brag About Having ‘Direct Access’ to Trump’s Pick for Interior Secretary
25 March 2019
Politics
Acting Secretary David Bernhardt visited Watson Hopper Inc., a manufacturer of rigs and oil drilling equipment in Hobbs, New Mexico on Feb. 6, 2019. Tami A. Heilemann / DOI
Oil executives gathered for a conference laughed about their "unprecedented" access to Trump administration officials, according to a recording obtained by Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting.
In the recording, taken at a June 2017 meeting of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) at a Ritz-Carlton in Southern California, members expressed excitement about one official in particular: David Bernhardt, who had been nominated that April to be deputy secretary at the Department of Interior (DOI). Bernhardt would be confirmed the following month.
"We know him very well, and we have direct access to him, have conversations with him about issues ranging from federal land access to endangered species, to a lot of issues," IPAA political director Dan Naatz said in the recording.
<div id="9fb5c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="35KD8B1576663977"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1109561042030469122" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">A former oil industry lobbyist is next in line to lead @interior.
We got audio of a meeting in which industry exe… https://t.co/P6VKv6txaB</div> — Reveal (@Reveal)<a href="https://twitter.com/reveal/statuses/1109561042030469122">1553374941.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Bernhardt, who once acted as the association's lawyer, has risen even higher since the recording. He <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/zinke-bernhardt-interior-environment-2625021502.html">has been acting as interior secretary</a> since former Secretary <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ryan-zinke" target="_self">Ryan Zinke</a> left amid various ethics investigations and has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/david-bernhardt-interior-secretary-zinke-2628039635.html" target="_self">been nominated</a> by President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> to fill the post permanently. He faces a confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee March 28.<br></p><p>In the recording, IPAA CEO Barry Russell spoke of work Bernhardt had done for the IPAA to lead a legal group challenging endangered species' rules. "Well, the guy that actually headed up that group is now the No. 2 at Interior," he said. "So that's worked out well." As deputy secretary, Bernhardt pushed to weaken endangered species protections by proposing to allow regulators to consider economic factors before listing species.</p><p>As a lobbyist and lawyer, Bernhardt worked on behalf of around 40 clients, 18 of which were involved in energy. He has been referred to as a "walking conflict of interest" and carries a card with him reminding him of all the former clients he must recuse himself from dealing with directly at the DOI. However, a DOI spokesperson said he had not communicated with Naatz or Russell.</p>
<p>"Acting Secretary David Bernhardt has had no communication or contact with either Barry Russell or Dan Naatz," the spokesperson said in a statement reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/435437-oil-execs-boasted-of-unprecedented-access-to-admin-report" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p><p>In the recording, the IPAA didn't just express excitement about Bernhardt. Rather, they were thrilled by the pro-energy culture of the entire Trump team, which, they said, contrasted with the approach taken by the Obama administration.</p><p>"It's really a new thing for us," Russell said. "For example, next week I'm invited to the White House to talk about tax code. Last week we were talking to Secretary Pruitt, and in about two weeks we have a meeting with Secretary Zinke. So we have unprecedented access to people that are in these positions who are trying to help us, which is great."</p>
<p>The laughter came when Russell described a meeting with then-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) head <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_self">Scott Pruitt</a>, who has since resigned amidst various scandals. Here is the exchange, as transcribed by Reveal:<br></p><blockquote>"Scott Pruitt, he came from Oklahoma, and we have a lot of friends in common and I thought that's what we were going to talk about, we did that for about three minutes," Russell said. "And then he started asking very technical questions about methane, about ozone … and if Scott Pruitt thought he was going to go deep nerd …"<br><br>The audience began laughing.<br><br>"And what was really great is there was about four or five EPA staffers there, who were all like, 'Write that down, write that down,' all the way through this,'' Russell continued. "And when we left, I said that was just our overview."<br><br>The audience laughed again.<br><br>"So it's really a new world for us and very, very helpful."</blockquote>
<p>While Pruitt and Zinke have since left the administration, this culture of access has had real environmental consequences. Of five items on a policy wish-list distributed at the meeting, four have been implemented by the DOI, Reveal reported. They are:</p><ol><li>A rollback of rules to protect water from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking/" target="_self">fracking</a> pollution</li><li>A reversal of rules limiting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a> releases by the oil industry</li><li>A reversal of an Obama-era "no net loss" policy requiring oil companies to restore ecosystems as a condition of development permits</li><li>An end to a long-standing policy of fining energy companies whose activities lead to the accidental deaths of migratory birds</li></ol>
<div id="196d5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="GYWNYS1576663977"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1089644370406621184" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Is the #Trump Administration ‘Gaming the #Shutdown’ to Serve Energy and Hunting Special Interests?… https://t.co/LlEywpV8EF</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1089644370406621184">1548626437.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><em>Correction: An earlier version of this article said that David Bernhardt was deputy secretary at the DOI when the recording was taken in June of 2017. The article has been revised to indicate that the recording took place after his nomination in April 2017 and before his confirmation that July.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Continues 'War on America's Oceans' With New Executive ... ›
- Trump's Offshore Drilling Plan Puts 68 National Parks at Risk ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Andrew Wheeler at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Jan. 16. CSPAN / YouTube screenshot
The Senate voted to confirm former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler as official head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Thursday.
Wheeler has run the agency since July, when he replaced former administrator Scott Pruitt following a resignation prompted by numerous scandals. As acting administrator, Wheeler has confirmed the fears of environmentalists that he would be a "smarter" threat, pursuing President Donald Trump's deregulatory agenda without the distraction of Pruitt's more obvious corruption.
<p>"Unlike with some nominees, we do not have to speculate about what Mr. Wheeler will do in office," <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF) senior vice president for political affairs Elizabeth Gore told <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/02/28/andrew-wheeler-former-energy-lobbyist-confirmed-nations-top-environmental-official/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c4f1471b6735" target="_blank">The Washington Post in an email</a>. "From his actions as acting administrator for the past eight months, we have clear evidence of his agenda: undermine rules to limit toxic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mercury" target="_self">mercury</a>, allow more smog and water pollution, and roll back protections against the threat of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a>. The senators who voted to entrust Mr. Wheeler with our environment know exactly what he will do with that power."</p><p>The Senate voted to confirm Wheeler 52 to 47, almost entirely on party lines. Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins was the only member of her party to vote against Wheeler's confirmation. </p><p>"I believe that Mr. Wheeler, unlike Scott Pruitt, understands the mission of the EPA and acts in accordance with ethical standards; however, the policies he has supported as Acting Administrator are not in the best interest of our environment and public health, particularly given the threat of climate change to our nation," Collins said in a statement.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="8cb39" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="79NE6B1576661954"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1100823681855619073" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I will vote against Andrew Wheeler’s confirmation to become Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen… https://t.co/gwrlOhoocT</div> — Sen. Susan Collins (@Sen. Susan Collins)<a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/statuses/1100823681855619073">1551291792.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>Some of Wheeler's most controversial acts include <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-fuel-efficiency-proposal-2592345279.html" target="_self">rolling back Obama-era emissions standards</a> for cars and light trucks, replacing Obama's landmark <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan" target="_self">Clean Power Plan</a> with a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-dirty-power-plan-2597804270.html" target="_self">version</a> that would both increase greenhouse gas emissions and cost more than a thousand lives a year due to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-water-act-trump-epa-2622946246.html" target="_self">weakening</a> the protections of the Waters of the United States rule, and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-mercury-air-toxics-standards-2624797110.html" target="_self">allowing coal plants</a> to emit more mercury.<br></p><p>"His actions worsened the air we breathe, jeopardized the water we drink and increased our exposure to toxic chemicals," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> senior director of federal affairs John Bowman said <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/senate-confirms-pro-polluter-andrew-wheeler-epa-chief" target="_blank">in a statement</a>.</p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0979e7839ccd75f35be6672afea49191"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2105756766408617" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div><p>California Air Resources Board leader Mary Nichols, who has negotiated with Wheeler over changes in vehicle emissions standards and whether the EPA would challenge California's waiver under the Clean Air Act to make its own, stricter regulations, said the difference between Pruitt and Wheeler was all style and no substance.<br></p><p>"I have to say that I don't find him materially different than Scott Pruitt in his policies or the mission that he has taken on," Nichols told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/climate/andrew-wheeler-epa-confirmation.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "The only difference really is that he is more polished and more professional to deal with."</p><p>Many Republicans and industry representatives, on the other hand, praised Wheeler's efforts.</p><p>"He's been a very solid follow on to Scott Pruitt." Republican energy lobbyist Michael McKenna told The New York Times. "He's followed through in a fairly aggressive fashion on everything Scott started."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="62edf" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ILEWG81576661955"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1086307255547543552" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Senator Bernie Sanders asked the former coal lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, if he agreed with the scientific consensus t… https://t.co/DfAPhdQ7mz</div> — Greenpeace USA (@Greenpeace USA)<a href="https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa/statuses/1086307255547543552">1547830806.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate that comes from the same chemical family as sarin nerve gas, is used on foods such as strawberries. bluecinema / Getty Images
Health and labor organizations will have to argue again in court that chlorpyrifos, a brain-damaging pesticide, must be banned from all food uses, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. The decision comes four months after Andrew Wheeler's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the court to rehear the case either by the three-judge panel that originally banned chlorpyrifos in 2018, or by a panel of 11 judges.
<p>The court will schedule proceedings that will likely include further briefings and argument.</p><p>"EPA's own scientists have said for more than two years that chlorpyrifos is harmful, particularly to children," said Patti Goldman, the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> managing attorney handling the case. "Any delay to ban this toxic chemical is a tragedy. Chlorpyrifos should be banned based on the agency's own scientific conclusion, and the law."</p><p>Last year, <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/chlorpyrifos%20opinion%208.9.2018.pdf" target="_blank">the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA</a> to finalize its proposed ban on chlorpyrifos based on undisputed findings that the pesticide is unsafe for public health, and particularly <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/childrens-health">harmful to children</a> and farmworkers. That court ruling happened nearly two years after the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump">Trump</a> administration reversed EPA's own proposal to ban this pesticide. </p><p>Chlorpyrifos is a widely-used agricultural pesticide linked to reduced IQ, attention deficit disorder and other developmental damage in children. Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate that comes from the <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=dT4wYTpGDNAC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=chlorpyrifos+sarin+nazi&source=bl&ots=Tg7FxdSV_l&sig=vh5mxcVii7O8L4e73NHWKEkNy8o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij8-HZ_vTTAhVHx1QKHVoBAkAQ6AEIVjAI#v=onepage&q=chlorpyrifos%20sarin%20nazi&f=false" target="_blank">same chemical family</a> as sarin nerve gas, is used on staple foods, such as strawberries, apples, citrus, broccoli and more. Weeks after former EPA boss Scott Pruitt <a href="https://apnews.com/2350d7be5e24469ab445089bf663cdcb" target="_blank">met</a> with the head of the largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, Dow Chemical (now DowDuPont), <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Pruitt</a> falsely claimed in 2017 the science is "<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-03/documents/chlorpyrifos3b_order_denying_panna_and_nrdc27s_petitition_to_revoke_tolerances.pdf" target="_blank">unresolved</a>" and decided EPA would study the issue until 2022.</p><p>First developed by the Nazis for chemical warfare, organophosphates like chlorpyrifos were later repurposed for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">agriculture</a>. <a href="https://earthjustice.org/features/what-you-need-to-know-about-chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">Chlorpyrifos</a> has been banned from home use for about two decades, as it is too toxic to children.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="4b36d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="94XQ2M1576662185"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1055595409798782977" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Entire #Pesticide Class Must Be Banned to Save Children’s Health, Landmark Study Says @children @mamavation… https://t.co/RGU0iCPNFA</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1055595409798782977">1540508532.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less