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 Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks at a press conference to discuss the agency's Superfund program at EPA's New York City office on March 4, 2019. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the cover of Super Tuesday to put out an update to its plans to limit scientific research in its decision-making on Tuesday evening, as the mass media world had its eyes focused on the election results trickling in.
<p>The proposal, called <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science</a>, is part of the agency's ongoing push to rewrite "the foundation on which public health and environmental rules are crafted," as <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/trump-administration-expands-reach-epa-secret-science-proposal" target="_blank">E&E News</a> reported.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/04/super-tuesday-news-dump-epa-expands-rule-limiting-science-agency-can-use-make-public" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a> reported, the timing of the release was curious. In a <a href="https://twitter.com/rebleber/status/1234996734578683904" target="_blank">tweet</a>, Rebecca Leber from Mother Jones wrote, "an incredible news dump by EPA this evening. After delays, EPA just moved forward its most controversial proposal of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration, limiting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a> and medical data that can be used by the agency. Still far from a final rule but inching closer."</p>
<p>Experts say the move, which would restrict the type of research that can be considered in public health and environmental regulations, is one of the government's most far-reaching restrictions on science, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/climate/trump-science-epa.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>The proposal, which was first put forth in April 2018 by former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, looked to exclude research where all the underlying data was not publicly available, even if that meant data was not shared because it would have violated medical privacy laws. The so-called "secret science" proposal received more than 600,000 comments during the public comment period. Most of them were critical of a proposal that would stop the agency from considering landmark public health research, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/485811-epa-revamp-of-secret-science-rule-will-still-limit-research" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. For example, under the proposal, the EPA would downplay studies that "definitively linked <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a> to premature deaths but relied on the personal health information of thousands of study subjects who had been guaranteed confidentiality," according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/climate/trump-science-epa.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p>
<p>"They're putting in nonscientific criteria to decide what science the agency can use," said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/climate/trump-science-epa.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported. "Now the most important thing is whether the data is public, not the strength of the scientific evidence."</p><p>The new proposal makes a slight alteration. It would not flatly reject studies without publicly available information. Instead, it would create a tiered-system and give lower priority to studies where some of the data, even sensitive medical data, is not made public, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/climate/trump-science-epa.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p>
<p>"In the midst of a public health crisis, Americans deserve a government that relies on the best available science to protect everyone against harm. This proposal does the opposite," said Gina McCarthy, former EPA administrator and now president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200304" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>"Now is not the time to play games with critical medical research that underpins every rule designed to protect us from harmful pollution in our air and in our water," McCarthy added. "This move is even more egregious than the last proposal, which the administration's own hand-picked scientists criticized."</p>
<p>The proposal seems to be in lockstep with the administration's systematic efforts to dismantle environmental regulations and to finalize the rollbacks before this year's election. The effort to dilute scientific-research is particularly beneficial to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> industry, which is often hampered by studies about the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate crisis</a>, air pollution or the safety of drinking water, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/climate/trump-science-epa.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported.</p><p>"These additions and clarifications to the proposed rule will ensure that the science supporting the agency's decisions is transparent and available for independent validation while still maintaining protection of confidential and personally identifiable information," said Andrew Wheeler, the EPA's administrator, as <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/trump-administration-expands-reach-epa-secret-science-proposal" target="_blank">E&E News</a> reported.</p><p>However, observers have a much different take on the intent of the rule.</p><p>"It's increasing the damage of the proposed rule," said Betsy Southerland, former director of EPA's Office of Science and Technology and a member of the Environmental Protection Network, as <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/trump-administration-expands-reach-epa-secret-science-proposal" target="_blank">E&E News</a> reported.</p><p>"Number 1, it expands the scope of the rule, and number 2, by no means does it demonstrate they have a legal authority to do this rulemaking."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Blowing the Cover off the 'Cleanest Air' Illusion of the Trump ... ›
- EPA Proposal to Restrict Science Panders to Polluters - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Traffic seen in Washington, DC in early 2019. Trump's EPA scientific panel criticized rollbacks of Obama-era regulations to reduce car and truck emissions among others. Maria Oswalt / Unsplash
A top science-advisory board staffed with many of the Trump administration's hand-picked appointees rebuked three of Trump's most sweeping rollbacks of environmental regulations as flying in the face of established science, as The New York Times reported.
<p>The Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific Advisory Board, which reviews the scientific integrity of EPA policies, published a <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalBOARD/D87AC6491A9811C1852584CD006F3CC6?OpenDocument" target="_blank">draft letter</a> on the last day of 2019. Three of the four draft reports published say the administration's policies run counter to established science. The advisory board, which Congress established in 1978, criticized rollbacks that would weaken regulations over waterways and wetlands, as well as a rollback of Obama-era regulations to reduce car and truck <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/emissions" rel="noopener noreferrer">emissions</a>. The board also criticized a change that would restrict the type of scientific studies that can be reviews when drafting health regulations, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/epas-scientific-advisers-warn-its-regulatory-rollbacks-clash-with-established-science/2019/12/31/a1994f5a-227b-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Washington Post</a> reported. </p><p>In addressing tailpipe emissions, the draft letter gives a stinging rebuke to the administration's plan. "[T]here are significant weaknesses in the scientific analysis of the proposed rule," the letter says, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p>In addressing waterway regulations, the advisory board draft letter says that the Trump administration's actions decrease protections "for our Nation's waters and [do] not support the objective of restoring and maintaining 'the chemical, physical and biological integrity' of these waters," as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.<br></p>
<p>It also said the rule "neglects established science" by "failing to acknowledge watershed systems," as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/climate/epa-science-panel-trump.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a> reported. </p>
<p>The EPA said it "appreciates and respects the work and advice of the" board, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p>"The reports they posted are draft and will be discussed at their next meeting," EPA spokeswoman Corry Schiermeyer told <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "The final commentary and reports will be developed soon after the public meeting and then sent to the Administrator."</p>
<p>The EPA's decision to release the letters on the last day of the year seemed cagey and suspicious to environmental activists.</p>
<p>"The administration delayed releasing those Science Advisory Board reviews for months, and made them public only today – on New Year's Eve. It's clear that 2019 is ending as it began, with the Trump administration sidelining science and attacking the safeguards that protect American families from pollution," said Vicky Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, in a <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/proposed-epa-loopholes-must-be-withdrawn-after-science-advisors-find-major-flaws" target="_blank">statement</a>. "EPA Administrator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> must immediately withdraw these unlawful proposals that threaten the health and well-being of all Americans."</p>
<p>Legal scholars also noted that when the administration's handpicked scientists are questioning the policies, it might undermine the White House's arguments in the courts. </p>
<p>"The courts basically say if you're going to ignore the advice of your own experts you have to have really good reasons for that," said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law with the Vermont Law School, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/climate/epa-science-panel-trump.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a>. "And not just policy reasons but reasons that go to the merits of what the critiques are saying."</p>
<p>Stephen Hamburg, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund who served on the advisory board for two terms before stepping down at the end of September, told <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/epas-scientific-advisers-warn-its-regulatory-rollbacks-clash-with-established-science/2019/12/31/a1994f5a-227b-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Washington Post</a> that it is noteworthy that a board dominated by Trump's handpicked scientists, who have a reputation for backing industry and advocating for loosening regulations, found serious flaws in several Trump's proposals. </p>
<p>"It really calls the question to what degree these suggested changes are fact-based as opposed to politically motivated," said Hamburg.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Acting EPA Head Wheeler Downplays Climate Crisis at ... ›
- Trump Administration Is Restricting How Scientists Conduct Climate ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Environmental Protection Agency West pictured in DC. Wally Gobetz / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added its weight to back Bayer AG in its appeal against a federal jury verdict that decided its Roundup weed killer causes cancer, according to Bloomberg.
<p>Bayer is looking to overturn a verdict that first awarded a plaintiff $80 million, but was reduced to $25 million by a federal judge, in a suit that claimed the world's most popular <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/herbicides" rel="noopener noreferrer">herbicide</a> caused a man's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The EPA, working with the U.S. Department of Justice, filed papers in court on Friday fully and unequivocally supporting Bayer's claim that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" rel="noopener noreferrer">glyphosate</a>, the active ingredient in Roundup, does not cause cancer, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported. </p>
<p>When the U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria cut the jury reward in the spring, he refused to overturn the jury's findings that Roundup should have been sold with a cancer warning on the label. The EPA, however, said in papers that it had vetted and approved the Roundup warning label issued by Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018 for about $63 billion, and it did not require a cancer warning, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported.</p>
<p>The filings by the EPA and Justice Department said that Monsanto, and subsequently Bayer, could not print a cancer-risk warning on its label because the EPA has the sole authority over warning labels on chemical products and the EPA would not have approved a cancer warning on Roundup labels, according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a>. </p>
<p>"That label, once reviewed and approved by EPA, is controlling," the agency said, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported. "States cannot impose distinct labeling requirements."</p>
<p>In August, the EPA administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Andrew-Wheeler" rel="noopener noreferrer">Andrew Wheeler</a> said his agency would not allow a cancer-risk warning on glyphosate-based herbicides, saying it was tantamount to false labeling since the EPA had deemed it safe, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported. </p>
<p>"EPA has a longstanding position—It's not just this administration which determined that this pesticide does not cause cancer," said Jeffrey Clark, the assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Justice Department in an interview, to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a>. "EPA should be in control. Congress set it up that way."</p>
<p>In its appeal, Bayer alleged that Chhabria made several errors and that the plaintiff's claims are preempted by federal law. Bayer claims that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, it actually would have been misbranding to print a cancer-risk warning on a glyphosate-based product, according to <a href="https://iegpolicy.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com/PL222562/Food--Ag-Policy-Briefing-Bayer-strikes-back-water-directive-CAP-support" target="_blank">IEG Policy Agribusiness</a>. </p>
<p>Bayer is facing a mountain of litigation as there were 42,700 others suing the company over Roundup as of October, according to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>. So far, Bayer has lost three U.S. court cases where plaintiffs have claimed that long-term exposure to Roundup had caused their cancer. The company has postponed two trials in the U.S. while it works with a mediator to try to hammer out a settlement with the plaintiffs, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported. </p>
<p>Legal scholars told <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> that the filing by the EPA and the Justice Department will stand out to the appeals court, and the federal government will often add its opinion when a case is based on the interpretation of a federal statute. </p><p>Bayer said in a statement to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> that it's pleased the EPA "expressed its views in this appeal, which are consistent with the preemption arguments we have made throughout this case."</p>
<p>Aimee Wagstaff, the lawyer for Edwin Hardeman, the plaintiff, emailed a statement to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-21/u-s-epa-supports-bayer-s-appeal-of-roundup-cancer-verdict" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> that said the EPA's filing reflected a desperation move by Bayer that has been rejected by several state and federal judges. "The EPA's brief doesn't change the law," she wrote.</p>
<p>"We are confident the Ninth Circuit will also reject Monsanto's argument and rule in favor of Mr. Hardeman," she added, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported.</p>
<p>The appeals court judges "may not ultimately agree with the side the government is supporting for other reasons," said Ben Feuer, an appellate lawyer in San Francisco, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-backs-bayer-in-weedkiller-court-fight-11576879555" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported, but the agency's brief "is going to be closely parsed and they will engage with it."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Ethics Investigations Opened into Actions of EPA Head Wheeler ... ›
- Trump's EPA Sides With Monsanto, Extends Dicamba 2 More Years ›
- Federal Court Reverses EPA Approval of Crop-Harming Dicamba - EcoWatch ›
- Federal Court Reverses EPA Approval of Crop-Harming Dicamba - EcoWatch ›
- Judge Blocks California From Putting Cancer Warning on Roundup - EcoWatch ›
- Bayer Settles Roundup Cancer Suits for Over $10 Billion - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Truth in Action is a day-long global conversation on the climate crisis and how we solve it. The Climate Reality Project
Former Vice President Al Gore kicked off 24 hours of climate talks in the U.S. and 77 other countries around the world Wednesday night.
<p>The event, <em><a href="https://www.24hoursofreality.org/" target="_blank">24 Hours of Reality: Truth In Action</a>,</em> sponsored by <a href="http://www.climaterealityproject.org/?_ga=2.212564756.1217962129.1574342491-656405086.1574342491" target="_blank">The Climate Reality Project</a>, kicked off at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Wednesday and continues until 6 p.m. Thursday. Anyone who wants to find a climate presentation near them will find all the talks listed by <a href="https://realityhub.climaterealityproject.org/events/truthinaction?utm_source=24hoursofreality.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=24Hours&_ga=2.3945264.1217962129.1574342491-656405086.1574342491" target="_blank">registering for the event for free</a>.</p><p>Presenters trained by <a href="http://www.climaterealityproject.org/?_ga=2.212564756.1217962129.1574342491-656405086.1574342491" target="_blank">The Climate Reality Project</a>, which Al Gore founded, have organized presentations in more than 1,700 locations, including all 50 states and Puerto Rico, as well as sites such as Antarctica and Australia's Great Barrier Reef, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/815ce88a8c614f8993a3b007a784af5b" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>Gore gave the opening climate talk Wednesday night at Vanderbilt University in his hometown of Nashville, where an audience of over 1,000 gave him a standing ovation and offered their loudest applause for Gore's suggestion that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> could be voted out of office next year, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/815ce88a8c614f8993a3b007a784af5b" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>A life-long Democrat, Gore sees the climate crisis as an issue of global urgency that transcends politics.</p><p>"I have optimism and hope, but in all candor, we've got to recognize that this is the most serious challenge that human civilization has ever faced," Gore said on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4k3AzfYuJg" target="_blank">Late Night with Seth Meyers</a>.</p><p>In his speech Wednesday night, he even praised Vanderbilt's College Republicans for calling on the Republican National Committee to change its stance on climate policies, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/815ce88a8c614f8993a3b007a784af5b" target="_blank">AP</a>.</p><p>The presentations are an update to the Academy Award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," highlighting how the climate crisis has accelerated over the last 13 years and what solutions are available from a policy level to a grassroots level that will help humans thwart the mounting threats from the climate crisis, as Gore explained on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4k3AzfYuJg" target="_blank">Late Night with Seth Meyers</a>.</p><p>"It's a mass global event to raise awareness and to motivate people," Gore said to Meyers.</p><p>Gore says that The Climate Reality Project has trained more than 20,000 climate activists, some of whom will be fellow presenters for the talks, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/815ce88a8c614f8993a3b007a784af5b" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>"This year, <a href="https://www.24hoursofreality.org/" target="_blank">24 Hours of Reality</a> is stepping off the screen and directly into town squares, living rooms, schools, places of worship, community centers and other venues around the globe as trained Climate Reality Leaders give presentations about local climate solutions in direct interactions with their communities," said <a href="http://www.climaterealityproject.org/?_ga=2.48958630.1217962129.1574342491-656405086.1574342491" target="_blank">The Climate Reality Project</a> in a <a href="https://www.climaterealityproject.org/press/al-gore-leads-thousands-climate-activists-global-day-grassroots-action-climate-crisis?segment=web_alertbar_24Hours_111319&promo_name=alertbar&promo_creative=AL%20GORE%20LEADS%20THOUSANDS%20OF%20CLIMATE%20ACTIVISTS%20FOR%20GLOBAL%20DAY%20OF%20GRASSROOTS%20ACTION%20ON%20THE%20CLIMATE%20CRISIS&_ga=2.250772358.1217962129.1574342491-656405086.1574342491" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p><p>Agostino Schito, an information technology program manager in Maryland, is one of those presenters. He will give a presentation from 1 to 2 p.m. Thursday in a Baltimore suburb.</p><p>"I'm not a scientist and I'm not a journalist, but I asked myself how I could engage with people who are on the fence or who don't know enough about the subject or what they can do," he said to <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/howard/bs-md-ho-climate-reality-project-20191118-abakksr55naj3onmajznvvy4ku-story.html" target="_blank">The Baltimore Sun</a>. "This starts the conversation."</p><p>Schito immigrated from Italy in the early 1990s and attended Gore's free leadership corps training in Minnesota in August.</p><p>"It was a very intense two days," he said to <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/howard/bs-md-ho-climate-reality-project-20191118-abakksr55naj3onmajznvvy4ku-story.html" target="_blank">The Baltimore Sun</a>. "Al Gore is inspirational, engaging and compelling, and I left feeling excited and ready to take action."</p><p>In Gore's speech at Vanderbilt, he expressed sympathy for migrants at the U.S. southern border, saying they are climate refugees who are hungry and looking to feed their family. He also chided Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, saying he gave "the green light to burn down more of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/amazon-rainforest">Amazon</a>," as the <a href="https://apnews.com/815ce88a8c614f8993a3b007a784af5b" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>He also said there needs to be drastic changes in Washington for policies to shift.</p><p>"We need to really clean house. Change is not happening fast enough unless we change policy," he said, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/815ce88a8c614f8993a3b007a784af5b" target="_blank">AP</a>. Later he added, "To change our policies, we're going to have to change our policy makers."</p>"They put a coal lobbyist in charge of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>, for God's sake. The fact that there is not widespread outrage about that is a symptom of our weakened democracy," Gore said last night, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/815ce88a8c614f8993a3b007a784af5b" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.
From Your Site Articles
- How Absurd! Inconvenient Sequel Doesn't Talk About Animal ... ›
- 7 of the Best Ted Talks About Climate Change - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An EPA sponsored cleanup of the toxic Gowanus Canal dredges a section of the canal of industrial debris on Oct. 28, 2016 in Brooklyn. The Gowanus is a Superfund site from years of industrial waste spilling into the water, and it is listed in GAO's report to be at risk from a climate disaster. Andrew Lichtenstein / Corbis / Getty Images
The climate crisis has put at least 945 designated toxic waste sites at severe risk of disaster from escalating wildfires, floods, rising seas and other climate-related disasters, according to a new study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), as the AP reported.
The country's most contaminated spots that pose an imminent threat to human health or the environment are designated Superfund sites. That means cleaning them up is a national priority. The EPA has identified more than 500 contaminants at Superfund sites, including arsenic, lead and mercury.
<p>However, the GAO found that efforts to secure the toxic waste have weakened as the Trump administration plays down their threat, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/dc5ac3832512435cb863897b5c1a0fe6" target="_blank">AP</a>.<br></p><p>Senate Democrats responded to the <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-73" target="_blank">report</a> in a letter to the EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler demanding an explanation for agency leaders' "failure to embrace addressing climate change as a strategic objective," according to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/18/about-percent-superfund-sites-could-be-hit-by-climate-change-new-government-report-finds/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>.</p>
<p>"We believe that EPA's refusal to implement GAO's recommendations could result in real harm to human health and the environment as the effects of climate change become more frequent and intense," the lawmakers wrote to Wheeler, as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/18/about-percent-superfund-sites-could-be-hit-by-climate-change-new-government-report-finds/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a> reported.</p><p>The GAO <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-73" target="_blank">report</a> looked at 1,571 Superfund sites and found that six out of 10 are vulnerable to extreme weather caused by the climate crisis. The GAO produced an <a href="https://www.gao.gov/multimedia/GAO-20-73/interactive/" target="_blank">interactive map</a> that shows each of the 945 vulnerable sites. It is color-coded to show if the site is threatened by wildfires, hurricanes, storm surge, sea-level rise, or coastal and river flooding, as <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/18/20970979/climate-change-epa-superfund-sites-gao-toxic-pollution" target="_blank">the Verge</a> reported.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-73" target="_blank">study</a> recommended that the EPA start incorporating the climate crisis into its decision making for toxic waste sites and its risk assessments for the Superfund sites.</p><p>The EPA however has continued to deny the climate crisis as a threat to the Superfund sites, according to the GAO <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-73" target="_blank">report</a>. The EPA does not include the climate crisis in its agency-wide policies, which stops the EPA from tackling the risks at contaminated sites as the planet heats up and extreme weather events increase in frequency, duration and intensity, as <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19112019/superfund-flooded-climate-change-toxic-health-risk-sea-level-rise-wildfires-gao-report-epa" target="_blank">Inside Climate News</a> reported.</p><p>The EPA issued a statement that was largely dismissive of the <a href="https://apnews.com/dc5ac3832512435cb863897b5c1a0fe6" target="_blank">report</a>. The statement also managed to avoid mentioning climate change.</p>
<p>"The EPA strongly believes the Superfund program's existing processes and resources adequately ensure that risks and any effects of severe weather events, that may increase in intensity, duration, or frequency, are woven into risk response decisions at non-federal [National Priorities List] sites," EPA Assistant Administrator Peter Wright said in a statement Monday, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/dc5ac3832512435cb863897b5c1a0fe6" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>The GAO decided to look into the safety of Superfund sites after Hurricane Harvey in 2017 brought record rains to Houston and caused one toxic site to spring a leak, as <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/superfund-sites-climate-change-gao-investigation" target="_blank">BuzzFeed News</a> reported. Floodwaters there eroded an "armored cap" that sealed off dioxins and other toxins linked to cancer and nerve damage. In the wake of the storm, officials tested that water sediment. They found that dioxin levels in the sediment were 2,000 times above what the EPA allows, according to the <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/EPA-Dioxin-leaking-from-Waste-Pits-12242409.php" target="_blank">Houston Chronicle.</a></p><p>"We can no longer ignore the fact that the climate crisis is here and it's in our backyard," Sen. Kamala Harris, a California Democrat and one of the members of Congress that pushed GAO to investigate the issue, said in a statement emailed to <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/superfund-climate-change-disaster-risk-report" target="_blank">BuzzFeed News</a>. "This report underscores that protecting our communities requires us to demand that the EPA incorporates climate change into its cleanup plans for current and future Superfund sites."</p><p>The EPA's refusal to take the climate crisis into account has not only angered lawmakers, but also baffled experts.</p><p>"The report raises critical issues that are not being addressed," said Nancy Loeb, director of the Environmental Advocacy Center at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law, who was not involved in the GAO study, to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/18/about-percent-superfund-sites-could-be-hit-by-climate-change-new-government-report-finds/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>. "It's a huge shortcoming not to take climate change into consideration."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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
Disbanded Air Pollution Panel Finds EPA Standards Don’t Protect Public Health
22 October 2019
Insights + Opinion
By Gretchen Goldman
The Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel has released their consensus recommendations to the EPA administrator on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. The group of 20 independent experts, that were disbanded by Administrator Wheeler last October and reconvened last week, hosted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, has now made clear that the current particulate pollution standards don't protect public health and welfare.
<p>The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) — the remaining seven-person committee that is providing science advice to the EPA on the particulate matter standards — <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/49FAF8892AD2D38285258473006D1F4A?OpenDocument" target="_blank">meets this week</a> to discuss their recommendations on whether the current standards are adequate. The letter from the Independent Panel will be the elephant in the room.</p>
<p><em>Gretchen Goldman is the research director at the Center for Science and Democracy.</em><br/></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/particulate-matter-science-experts" rel="noopener noreferrer">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>
The Elephant in the CASAC Meeting
<p>CASAC has already acknowledged that <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/uncharted-territory-the-epas-science-advisors-just-called-out-administrator-wheeler" target="_blank">they don't have the expertise</a> to conduct the review but you know who does? The Independent Panel. The Panel has more than double the experts of CASAC, and importantly, it has multiple experts in each of the necessary scientific disciplines critical to ensure a comprehensive, robust review of the science supporting the standards.</p><p><span style="background-color: initial;">As a result, we should watch whether or not CASAC aligns with the panel in their recommendations on the standards. If CASAC </span>doesn't <span style="background-color: initial;">decide this week to make a similar recommendation as the Independent Panel, they'll have to explain why they disagreed with a larger, more experienced, and more diverse </span><a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/science-and-democracy/pm-panel-meeting-docs/2-ipmrp-biosketches.pdf" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">set of experts</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> on the topic. In any event, the administrator will have access to both CASAC and the </span><a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/science-and-democracy/IPMRP-FINAL-LETTER-ON-DRAFT-PA-191022.pdf" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">Independent Panel's recommendations</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> when he ultimately makes the decision of where to set particulate pollution standards. The panel's recommendations should hold the administrator's feet to the fire.</span></p>The Fine Particulate Matter Standards Don’t Protect Public Health
<p>The standards of greatest interest are the primary PM2.5 standards. These are the standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter) that are designed to protect public health. The panel supported the preliminary conclusions of a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/draft_policy_assessment_for_pm_naaqs_09-05-2019.pdf" target="_blank">Draft EPA Policy Assessment</a> that the current standards aren't requisite to protect public health.</p><p>The letter cited new and consistent epidemiological findings, supported by human and animal studies and other studies with natural experiments, as providing "clear and compelling scientific evidence" for tighter standards. Since the last particulate matter review, several new large-scale epidemiological studies provide powerful evidence that particulate matter is causing adverse health outcomes (such as early death, heart attacks, and respiratory stress) at locations and during time periods with concentrations at or below the level of the current standards.</p><p>They write, "New and compelling evidence that health effects are occurring in areas that already meet or are well below the current standards." Notably, this evidence cuts across different locations with different study populations, different study designs, and different statistical approaches.</p><p>Given the weight of the evidence from new studies across scientific disciplines and consistent with the decision-making process that EPA and its science advisers have used for many years, the panel recommends a particulate matter standard between 8 µg/m3 and 10 µg/m3 for the annual PM2.5 standard (compared to the current standard of 12 µg/m3) and between 25 µg/m3 and 30 µg/m3 for the 24-hour standard (compared to the current standard of 35 µg/m3) to protect public health. These ranges are tighter than those recommended in EPA's Draft Policy Assessment.</p>Keeping the Current Fine Particulate Matter Standards Ignores the Science
<p>The Independent Panel rejected a potential argument for maintaining the current primary PM2.5 standards. The Draft Policy Assessment offered up an alternative rationale that might be used if the agency were to reject the draft assessment's recommendation to strengthen the standards and maintain the current standards. This alternative rationale explains that such a move would require the administrator to be arbitrarily selective in choosing which new studies to accept and which to toss and to disregard new epidemiologic evidence showing effects at lower levels.</p><p>The panel roundly rejected this justification, noting that, "Arguments offered in the draft Policy Assessment for retaining the current standards are not scientifically justified and are specious." This is important because if the administrator fails to strengthen the standards, he'll have to explain (both in court and in the court of public opinion) why he feels such a decision is science-based, as required under the Clean Air Act. And one proposed argument he could use has just been debunked by this expert Panel.</p>Otherwise, the EPA’s Draft Policy Assessment Is Scientifically Sound
<p>While the Independent Panel critiqued some details of the EPA's Draft Policy Assessment, the panel agreed that the draft science and policy assessments were cohesive and robust and the panel commended the "good faith effort" involved in the policy assessment. Specifically, the panel affirmed the use of EPA's causality framework used in the Integrated Science Assessment they reviewed last year and the Policy Assessment's new use of a hybrid modeling technique that allows for better assessment of risk from particulate matter exposure across the country especially in rural areas.</p><p>This diverges from what the seven-member CASAC has said and done around the EPA's assessment of the science and policy. In December, they concluded that the agency's draft science assessment was not a scientific document (it is) and CASAC Chair Dr. Tony Cox has been critical of the agency's causality framework that has been developed with dozens of experts over more than a decade. This view is <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6434/1398" target="_blank">not shared by the scientific community</a>, and now, not shared by the Independent Panel either.</p>Other Particulate Pollution Standards Also May Need Revamping
<p>The Independent Panel decided other particulate standards were also inadequate. On PM10, particulate matter less than 10 micrometers, the panel recommended revising this standard downward given that the PM2.5 component would also be tightened and noted several research and monitoring areas that need further work. On the secondary standards, i.e. the standards designed to protect welfare effects, such as visibility, the panel concluded that the standards should be tightened in order to be more protective.</p>The Panel Condemns the EPA’s Broken Process
<p>The Independent Panel's deliberations, demands for further research, and unanswered questions highlight how <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/wheeler-worsens-particulate-pollution-review-process" target="_blank">broken the EPA process is</a>. In a normal review cycle, the panel would have had the opportunity to talk with agency scientists directly. The EPA staff would then have considered their comments and revised the Integrated Science Assessment in response to the committee and panel's suggestions. But because the administrator disbanded the panel and abbreviated the process, there was no opportunity for such dialogue and refinement of the agency's science assessment before <a href="https://twitter.com/GretchenTG/status/1184207743261036551" target="_blank">policy decisions were discussed</a>. But alas, the panel had to make do with what was available to them and CASAC does too.</p><p>Fortunately for CASAC, an Independent Panel has already done their job, and they are free (and encouraged) to run with it, especially given <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/a-timeline-of-recent-attacks-on-the-epas-science-based-ambient-air-pollution-standards" target="_blank">the long list</a> of ways that EPA Administrator Wheeler has damaged the ambient air pollution review process.</p><p><a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/A2DF51609E3DFC9C85258473006CF120?OpenDocument" target="_blank">Listen</a> and <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/49FAF8892AD2D38285258473006D1F4A?OpenDocument" target="_blank">watch</a> this week as CASAC discusses the same questions that the Independent Panel did last week. If CASAC comes to different conclusions than the larger, more experienced, and more diverse Independent Panel, we should ask why.</p><p>You can raise these questions yourself and demand that the administrator follow the panel's recommendations, by providing written or oral public comments at a <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/A0D0F9D4C6BC36D88525848C00467771?OpenDocument" target="_blank">future CASAC meeting</a> and commenting on the docket for the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/11/2019-19627/release-of-a-draft-document-related-to-the-review-of-the-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for" target="_blank">particulate matter rule-making</a>. I'll be providing public comments this afternoon urging CASAC to follow the advice of the Independent Panel and commenting on the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/a-timeline-of-recent-attacks-on-the-epas-science-based-ambient-air-pollution-standards" target="_blank">EPA's problematic process</a> and drawing attention to that elephant in the room.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Air Pollution Linked to 30,000 U.S. Deaths in One Year - EcoWatch ›
- EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants ... ›
- These Scientists Were Disbanded by the EPA — They Plan to Meet ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
EPA offices in DC. Skyhobo / E+ / Getty Images
A group of 20 scientists charged with reviewing the nation's air quality standards plans to convene and to issue a report on the country's air pollution regulations, even though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disbanded their panel.
<p>In a move that is consistent with the administration's skepticism towards <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/science" rel="noopener noreferrer">science</a> and expertise, the EPA administrator, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" rel="noopener noreferrer">Andrew Wheeler</a>, disbanded the Particulate Matter Review Panel, part of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, in October 2018, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/463225-scientists-booted-from-epa-panel-form-their-own" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p>
<p>When he disbanded the group, Wheeler claimed that the group — made up of some of the nation's top scientists assigned to review the impact of soot and other microscopic air pollutants on human health — took too long to perform its task, according to <a href="https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/scorned-scientists-form-independent-air-panel-to-prod-epa" target="_blank">Bloomberg Environment</a>.</p>
<p>Now, in a seemingly unprecedented maneuver, the scientists will meet in Arlington, Virginia Oct. 10-11, one year after they were disbanded, to issue a report on whether or not the current federal particulate matter standard is sufficient, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-scientists/members-of-disbanded-epa-air-quality-panel-form-independent-group-idUSKBN1WB2W4" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. </p>
<p>The group, which now calls itself the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/meeting-independent-particulate-matter-review-panel" target="_blank">Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel</a> wants to make sure there is a documented record of scientific consensus that reaches the EPA decision-makers.</p>
<p>"I'm proud to say that being disbanded is not an obstacle for our panel," said Chris Frey of North Carolina State University who chairs the panel to the <a href="https://news.ncsu.edu/2019/09/frey-clean-air-q-and-a-2019/" target="_blank">NC State press office</a>. "If anything, being told that we were unilaterally terminated has redoubled my determination to discharge the public service to which I originally agreed."</p>
<p>Even though Wheeler is a former coal-industry lobbyist, Frey is hopeful that he will consider the independent panel's recommendations. </p>
<p>"As a group, this panel has more experts, more breadth, depth and diversity of expertise than the chartered Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee," Frey said, as E&E News <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1061172255" target="_blank">reported</a>.</p>
<p>Like Frey, most of the members of the independent panel come from universities and all are unpaid for serving on the panel. </p>
<p>"This is the first time in the history of EPA where the credibility of the agency's science review process has been so compromised that an independent panel of experts has recognized the need for and will be conducting a comprehensive review," said Chris Zarba, who will help lead the effort and once served as director of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, another board that provides scientific advice to the agency, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/463225-scientists-booted-from-epa-panel-form-their-own" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> will host the panel since it was troubled that the EPA is operating without the scientific expertise it needs to ensure a particulate standard based on the best available science.</p>
<p>"Reconvening a disbanded pollutant review panel breaks new ground," said Gretchen Goldman, a research director at the Union for Concerned Scientists, to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/463225-scientists-booted-from-epa-panel-form-their-own" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "Nothing like this has ever been done before. Indeed, nothing like this has ever been necessary. But we live in unprecedented times."</p>
<div id="70dd6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ZAA8T31576661396"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1177205655138177024" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The meeting will be run as if it is an official EPA meeting. It will be open to the public and media. We will take… https://t.co/QU37uQAhV2</div> — Gretchen Goldman, PhD (@Gretchen Goldman, PhD)<a href="https://twitter.com/GretchenTG/statuses/1177205655138177024">1569502674.0</a></blockquote></div><p><br>The EPA, however, disagrees with the idea that it is without scientific expertise or that it writes regulations without considering science.</p><p>"EPA is committed to scientific integrity and transparency," EPA spokeswoman Corry Schiermeyer said in an emailed statement when asked about the start-up of the independent panel, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-scientists/members-of-disbanded-epa-air-quality-panel-form-independent-group-idUSKBN1WB2W4" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported. "EPA always welcomes comments from the public and it is not uncommon for special interest groups and coalitions to organize, meet and develop comments for submission to the record. EPA will continue to take into consideration these comments that meet our scientific standards."</p><p>Frey, for his part hopes the EPA will consider the independent panel's work.</p><p>"We will place our written report into the docket for this review cycle, which obligates EPA to look at our findings and advice," he said to <a href="https://news.ncsu.edu/2019/09/frey-clean-air-q-and-a-2019/" target="_blank">NC State</a>. "We would like for our findings and advice to be considered by EPA staff as they revise the draft Integrated Science Assessment and draft Policy Assessment into final documents, and by the administrator in making a decision regarding whether to retain or revise the existing standards."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
‘This Is Political Retribution:’ Trump Admin Attacks California’s Environmental Record
27 September 2019
Politics
The Bixby Bridge and Pacific Coast Highway 1 in California. LeoPatrizi / iStock / Getty Images Plus
The Trump administration is escalating its war on California by claiming the state is "failing" to protect its environment.
<p>First, on Monday, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) Administrator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> sent a letter to the state warning that the federal government would hold back highway funds if it did not address a backlog of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a> control plans, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/climate/trump-california-climate-change.html?auth=login-google&login=google&module=inline" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. Then, on Thursday, Wheeler <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1854-epa-letter-to-california/5bea05fe6a916e64e079/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">sent another letter</a> to California Gov. Gavin Newsom giving the state 30 days to respond to a series of concerns about its implementation of water quality regulations, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/climate/trump-california.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported further</a>.</p><p>"[T]he EPA is concerned that California's implementation of federal environmental laws is failing to meet its obligations required under delegated federal programs. The cost of this failure will be paid by those Californians exposed to unhealthy air and degraded water," Wheeler wrote in Thursday's letter.</p><p>The letters <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-california-emissions-standards-2640413062.html" target="_self">come about a week</a> after the administration formally moved to withdraw California's power to set its own vehicle emission standards under the Clean Air Act, a power the state has argued is essential to protecting its air quality.</p>
<p>"We need the extra clean cars to meet the standards set by the federal government," California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said in a press conference last week reported by The New York Times. "If this prevails, millions of people in California will breathe dirty air. There will be more pollution, more asthma, more hospitalizations, more premature deaths."</p><p>California officials say this week's letters are not about the state's environment at all, but are rather further retaliation for the state's opposition to the administration's agenda on issues like immigration and environmental deregulation. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has sued the Trump administration 62 times in federal court, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/epa-tells-california-it-is-failing-to-meet-its-obligations-to-stem-water-pollution/2019/09/26/b3ffca1e-dfac-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. The state has 30 lawsuits pending against the administration over environmental issues alone, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>"There's a common theme in the news coming out of this White House this week. The president is abusing the powers of the presidency and weaponizing government to attack his political opponents," Newsom spokesman Nathan Click said in an email reported by The Washington Post. "This is not about clean air, clean water or helping our state with homelessness. This is political retribution against California, plain and simple."</p><p>Click's remarks were a clear response to a whistleblower complaint that President Donald Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President and Democratic primary candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter ahead of the 2020 election, which has prompted 220 House members to support an impeachment inquiry, according to <a href="https://time.com/5687380/house-support-trump-impeachment-inquiry/" target="_blank">TIME</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">An overarching theme coming out of the White House:<br><br>Trump persistently weaponizing our government to attack political opponents.<br><br>The Director of Natl Intelligence, the DOJ, the EPA...all being used to attack those that stand in his way.<br><br>This is about retaliation. Nothing more. <a href="https://t.co/eF0adb1qt1">https://t.co/eF0adb1qt1</a></p>— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) <a href="https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1177259130957860864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 26, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>In Thursday's letter, Wheeler echoed remarks made by Trump last week that homelessness in California was threatening its environment.</p><p>"If these Democrat liberal politicians don't straighten it out, the federal government will have to come in. We're not going to lose cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and others that are great cities. We're not going to allow that to happen to our cities," Trump said, as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764759005/trump-administration-blames-homeless-for-californias-water-pollution?t=1569572821997" target="_blank">NPR reported</a>.</p><p>Wheeler's letter cites reports of human feces piled on the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco.</p><p>"The EPA is concerned about the potential water quality impacts from pathogens and other contaminants from untreated human waste entering nearby waters," Wheeler wrote. "San Francisco, Los Angeles and the state do not appear to be acting with urgency to mitigate the risks to human health and the environment that may result from the homelessness crisis."</p><p>But environmental and homeless advocates have criticized the president for treating homelessness as a threat primarily to the environment or appearance of certain cities, instead of to the well-being of homeless people themselves.</p><p>"The way to reduce the impacts from homeless encampments is to reduce homelessness," <a href="https://savesfbay.org/" target="_blank">Save the Bay</a> Executive Director David Lewis told NPR.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Our ED <a href="https://twitter.com/davidlewis?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DavidLewis</a> speaks out: "<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> has less standing to complain about <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/pollution?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#pollution</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/homelessness?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#homelessness</a> than pretty much anybody since his administration is actively gutting the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CleanWaterAct?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CleanWaterAct</a> and other environmental laws that protect us all from pollution.” <a href="https://t.co/zCNRgabRDq">https://t.co/zCNRgabRDq</a></p>— Save The Bay (SF) (@saveSFbay) <a href="https://twitter.com/saveSFbay/status/1174773434896637952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Wheeler also accused California of other water quality problems. The Washington Post highlighted two, and explained California's response:</p><blockquote>His examples include a "years-long practice" in San Francisco of discharging more than a billion gallons of combined sewage and storm water annually into San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean without treating it fully for all biological contaminants.<br><br>San Francisco officials said this discharge is being done under a federally approved permit, and 99 percent of it is storm water.<br><br>San Francisco is one of the few major American cities that combine storm water and sewage flows that is not operating under a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/epa-nei-css-consent-decree-tracking-table-050117.pdf" target="_blank">federal consent decree</a>. It is spending billions to upgrade its aging infrastructure, including <a href="https://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=114" target="_blank">$4.8 billion to improve regional and local water systems</a> used by 2.7 million people. It has also launched a 20-year, multibillion-dollar <a href="https://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=116" target="_blank">sewer system upgrade</a>.</blockquote><p>Thursday's letter also called out high amounts of lead and arsenic in California water, but former Obama-era regional EPA head Judith Enck said that other states, like Texas and Louisiana, had more violations.</p><p>"I'm not going to say that enforcement isn't a problem, but there are other states that are far worse than California," Enck told The New York Times. "This an obvious attempt at political intimidation."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Our take on <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a>'s attack on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cleanercars?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#cleanercars</a>: "Trump has married his administration-wide hostility to the environment to his personal vendetta against California." <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EcoWatch</a> <a href="https://t.co/ssv5x2qeDf">https://t.co/ssv5x2qeDf</a></p>— Safe Climate Campaign (@safe_climate) <a href="https://twitter.com/safe_climate/status/1175809579709554689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 22, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump Admin to Officially Revoke California’s Waiver to Set Stricter Emissions Standards
18 September 2019
Politics
Drivers make their way on the US 101 freeway on Aug. 30 in Los Angeles, California. Mario Tama / Getty Images
In its latest move to undermine action on the climate crisis, the Trump administration will formally rescind California's waiver to set stricter auto emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.
<p>Revoking California's waiver is part of a broader effort to roll back Obama-era fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. In a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-fuel-efficiency-proposal-2592345279.html" target="_self">draft proposal</a> released in August of 2018, the administration had promised to replace the Obama-era requirement that cars average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 with a much less ambitious target of around 37 miles per gallon. It also said it would revoke California's ability to set its own standards, so that automakers would not have to build for two national markets.</p><p>But the reduced standards, which would allow nearly six billion tons of carbon dioxide pollution to enter the atmosphere, have been delayed as staff work to justify them scientifically, legally and technically, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/climate/trump-california-emissions-waiver.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR1ofxVLLBwsbVEJjO-S5yw02K1dJpSaA280pVLhVnelhy7UuDmeCiPHiKs" target="_blank">The New York Times explained</a>. So the administration decided to move forward with revoking California's waiver.</p><p>"Trump has married his administration-wide hostility to the environment to his personal vendetta against California," <a href="http://safeclimatecampaign.org/" target="_blank">Safe Climate Campaign</a> Director Dan Becker told The New York Times.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Trump’s attack on California and other states threatens to make America polluted again. It rejects cleaner, less-polluting vehicles in favor of pollution-spewing Trump-mobiles for urban cowboys hauling lattes home from Starbucks. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cleanercars?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#cleanercars</a><a href="https://t.co/cZtxFzXQ7l">https://t.co/cZtxFzXQ7l</a> <a href="https://t.co/Aj9D0gZvsQ">pic.twitter.com/Aj9D0gZvsQ</a></p>— Safe Climate Campaign (@safe_climate) <a href="https://twitter.com/safe_climate/status/1174042939493949443?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 17, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The move is likely to set off a legal battle that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Part of the reason that the administration moved forward with revoking the waiver is so that it would have a chance to defend the decision in the nation's highest court before a potential election loss in 2020. The New York Times explained the stakes of that potential fight:</p><blockquote>Legal experts said that if Mr. Trump's move was ultimately held up by the Supreme Court, it could permanently block states from regulating vehicle greenhouse gas pollution. If it was rejected by the Supreme Court, it would allow states to set separate tailpipe pollution standards from those set by the federal government.<br><br>The outcome could split the United States auto market, with some states adhering to stricter pollution standards than others. For automakers, that would be a nightmare.</blockquote><p>Thirteen states, representing one third of the U.S. auto market, currently follow California's standards.</p><p>For its part, California intends to fight.</p><p>"While the White House has abdicated its responsibility to the rest of the world on cutting emissions and fighting global warming, California has stepped up," Gov. Gavin Newsom told <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/trump-administration-to-revoke-californias-power-to-set-stricter-auto-emissions-standards/2019/09/17/79af2ee0-d97b-11e9-a688-303693fb4b0b_story.html?fbclid=IwAR1rzybX5Twk3EtOrP8M9wmB8YIpS23dO4WGbT-CmdhaW-IzitvMER0QDGY" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. "It's a move that could have devastating consequences for our kids' health and the air we breathe, if California were to roll over. But we will not."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hi, <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a>. Let me break it down in simple terms for you...<br><br>Reducing emissions:<br>-Protects our air & health<br>-Is good for the economy<br>-Allows families to pay less at the pump<br><br>We’re here in the 21st century. Let us know when you decide to join us. <a href="https://t.co/gZzUjXeFxo">https://t.co/gZzUjXeFxo</a></p>— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) <a href="https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1174054203515269121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 17, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The administration was scheduled to announce the new policy Wednesday, but delayed the announcement by at least one day after the news broke Tuesday, The Washington Post reported.</p><p>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) administrator<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self"> Andrew Wheeler</a> gave some sense of what was in store during a speech at the National Automobile Dealers Association on Tuesday.</p><p>"In the very near future, the Trump administration will begin taking the steps necessary to establish one set of national fuel-economy standards," Wheeler said, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/epa-california-obama-waiver-1500336?fbclid=IwAR3uoVNaHqPDQdswcm24E7pes9MAkmQGtN7mwPpi4jhUVJyDKWJyFLZBLwM" target="_blank">POLITICO reported</a>. "We embrace federalism and the role of the states, but federalism does not mean that one state can dictate standards for the nation," Wheeler continued.</p><p>The revoked waiver was also partly retaliation for a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/automakers-emissions-california-trump-2639356453.html" target="_self">deal California struck with four automakers this summer</a>. Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW of North America agreed to emissions standards of 51 miles per gallon by 2026. The EPA and Transport Department criticized the move, and the Justice Department launched an anti-trust investigation into the deal, POLITICO reported.</p><p>"It's clear that the president felt very strongly about this," Thomas J. Pyle, president of pro-fossil fuel think tank the Institute for Energy Research, told The New York Times. "The actions of California and the other auto companies probably firmed up or hardened the president's resolve on this issue, so here we go."</p><p>But environmental experts pointed out that the battle between California and the Trump administration could have global consequences.</p><p>Obama-era EPA air official Janet McCabe told POLITICO that climate change "is a 'y'all come' situation, where we need all the reasonable programs that we can get in place. And this is one of the most reasonable and impactful across the board," she said.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"The evidence shows that lowering fuel economy and emissions standards won't do anything to improve traffic safety" <a href="https://t.co/uRny0DVt1i">https://t.co/uRny0DVt1i</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/BusinessGreen?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BusinessGreen</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1159630441084850178?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Read More
Show Less