Trump's Affordable Clean Energy rule eliminated a provision mandating that utilities move away from coal. VisionsofAmerica /Joe Sohm / Getty Images
A federal court on Tuesday struck down the Trump administration's rollback of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
<p>Trump's Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which was <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-power-plan-trump-epa-2638927020.html" target="_self">finalized</a> by the Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA)</a> in 2019, moved away from imposing national limits on greenhouse gas emissions, instead allowing states to set their own. It also did away with a provision mandating that utilities move away from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a>. The new rule would have reduced electricity emissions by less than half of what would be necessary to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius and, according to the EPA's initial estimate, would have led to between 470 and 1,400 additional <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a> deaths a year by 2030.</p><p>"Despite [EPA Administrator] Andrew Wheeler's frequent protests, the EPA's role is to protect the American people from dangerous pollution and act on the greatest threat to our country: the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>," Sierra Club Chief Climate Council Joanne Spalding said in a <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2021/01/court-vacates-dirty-power-plan-bookending-trump-administration-s-wide-ranging" target="_blank">statement</a>. "The Dirty Power Plan didn't do either of these things and the court rightly vacated it."</p><p>At stake in Tuesday's decision was the meaning of the Clean Air Act. The Trump EPA argued that the law only allows the agency to limit pollution from individual sources, not across an entire sector, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-powerplants/us-court-deals-final-blow-to-trump-epas-clean-power-rule-replacement-idUSKBN29O2BO" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed.</p>
<p>"Because the ACE Rule rests squarely on the erroneous legal premise that the statutory text expressly foreclosed consideration of measures other than those that apply at and to the individual source, we conclude that the EPA fundamentally 'has misconceived the law,' such that its conclusion 'may not stand,'" the three-judge panel <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2021/01/2021.01.19-ACE-Opinion.pdf" target="_blank">ruled</a>.</p><p>Some environmental groups hailed the ruling as a boon to the incoming Biden administration, since they will now have an easier time replacing it, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/19/federal-circuit-court-scraps-trump-administration-power-plant-rules/" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>.</p><p>"Today's decision is the perfect Inauguration Day present for America," Environmental Defense Fund Senior Attorney Ben Levitan said in a <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/dc-circuit-strikes-down-trump-administration-repeal-and-replacement-clean-power-plan" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">statement</a>. "It confirms that the Trump administration's dubious attempt to get rid of commonsense limits on climate pollution from power plants was illegal, it reaffirms that the Clean Air Act and the Endangerment Finding are the law of the land, and it restores the vibrancy of the rule of law. Now we can turn to the critically important work of protecting Americans from climate change and creating new clean energy jobs."</p>
<p>However, the Washington Post reported that the Clean Power Plan also ran into legal challenges. When the Trump administration took office, the plan had been put on hold by the Supreme Court while the court battle continued. In a dissent from part of the ruling Tuesday, Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, said the EPA never had the authority to implement the Clean Power Plan either.</p><p>Columbia Law School Professor Michael Gerrard noted that Walker was a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.</p><p>"[The dissent could be a bad sign for how the Supreme Court might rule if these issues ever go there," he told The Washington Post.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Pruitt Guts the Clean Power Plan: How Weak Will the New EPA ... ›
- It's Official: Trump Administration to Repeal Clean Power Plan ... ›
- 'Deadly' Clean Power Plan Replacement ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Former coal lobbyist and current EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler looks at a pamphlet about Superfund sites at EPA's New York City office on March 4, 2019. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
Former coal lobbyist and current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Andrew Wheeler is expected to announce on Tuesday a rule tobacco consultants devised as an "explicit procedural hurdle" to protecting public health.
<p><br/></p>
<p>The rule — sometimes called the 'Secret Science' rule — will require EPA to give less credence to scientific studies that take into account individuals' medical histories and other data that cannot be made public. Such studies have served as the foundation for a half-century of clean air and clean water protections. </p>
<p>"It's as absurd as it sounds," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said in a statement. Had the rule been in place, the EPA would have been unable to require mercury pollution cuts from coal-fired power plants because it would have been unable to show how mercury impairs brain development. It could also effectively bar EPA from relying on foundational research — including findings that lead paint dust harms children and that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a> causes premature deaths — when existing public health protections come up for renewal. </p>
<p>"The people pushing it are claiming it's in the interest of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a>, but the entire independent science world says it's not," Chris Zarba, a former director of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, told The Washington Post. </p>
<p>As reported by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/climate/trump-epa-science.html?searchResultPosition=1&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=105370693&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8qJY58DWP-Gm8kwHc3MMIG57TY-2oSKqhlW6DmWJBvdGWumU4AJcwSlquFCcnZKbIthK9SGP5hEvDIUGcS6X9idFP5Mg&utm_content=105370693&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>:</p><blockquote>"Right now we're in the grips of a serious public health crisis due to a deadly respiratory virus, and there's evidence showing that air pollution exposure increases the risk of worse outcomes," said Dr. Mary Rice, a pulmonary and critical care physician who is chairwoman of the environmental health policy committee at the American Thoracic Society.</blockquote><blockquote>"We would want E.P.A. going forward to make decisions about air quality using all available evidence, not just putting arbitrary limits on what it will consider," she said.</blockquote>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/climate/trump-epa-science.html?searchResultPosition=1&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=105370693&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8qJY58DWP-Gm8kwHc3MMIG57TY-2oSKqhlW6DmWJBvdGWumU4AJcwSlquFCcnZKbIthK9SGP5hEvDIUGcS6X9idFP5Mg&utm_content=105370693&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/01/04/epa-scientific-transparency/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=105370693&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_hW0l4f96fpnvwIwQbGwvHMl0UX4egRCajABI8Wi7lfRIF7QzOnRds0fv5vManQ8locqm9Z-Nt_HuysTdXRKMatPRG7g&utm_content=105370693&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-science-environment-e0c89b49e3ed2408731d49c6f0c88bcb?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=105370693&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8GTGbmC7w4yd6daKHOyK0Epnrj3NMFphHhGK99ZSeOyVV58996wTkEN_8vfYeroAZloXenCIarUTZUvTOHN3Yn6lxj7A&utm_content=105370693&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">AP</a>, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2021/01/04/stories/1063721703?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=105370693&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9Dmv8dCHnlINNver_qluMydevL4PV3sPYmn8vPEXkhg4xBqzPbHsg-AgAAIf-eFKud76nNGP2fhH8_-Uw51Posswb8Sg&utm_content=105370693&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">E&E</a>, <a href="https://login.politicopro.com/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fsubscriber.politicopro.com%2Farticle%2F2021%2F01%2Fepa-set-to-release-scientific-transparency-rule-2026812%3Futm_campaign%3DHot%2520News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=105370693&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9QZyI4nCYCCvkP314KHb6Bs_FiWu0JA-WDAXtVs_NceBazW6-rz9CXFcaD7pVvQfylNconVfxHaZ0YJcjAhQmWXns_0Q&utm_content=105370693&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">POLITICO Pro</a></p><p><a href="https://login.politicopro.com/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fsubscriber.politicopro.com%2Farticle%2F2021%2F01%2Fepa-set-to-release-scientific-transparency-rule-2026812%3Futm_campaign%3DHot%2520News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=105370693&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9QZyI4nCYCCvkP314KHb6Bs_FiWu0JA-WDAXtVs_NceBazW6-rz9CXFcaD7pVvQfylNconVfxHaZ0YJcjAhQmWXns_0Q&utm_content=105370693&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"></a><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, sign up for daily </em><a href="https://www.linktrack.live/hot-news-sign-up" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>, and visit their news site, </em><a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Nexus Media News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- EPA Doubles Down on Its Attempt to Censor Science - EcoWatch ›
- 10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just ... ›
- EPA’s ‘Secret Science’ Rule Impacts Public Health ›
- EPA Dismisses Harmful 'Secret Science' Rule ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
person holding green leaf vegetable
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Bringing your own reusable grocery bags when you go shopping is one of the easiest ways to cut down on your plastic consumption — according to the UN Environment Program, up to 5 trillion single-use plastic bags are used globally each year.
The most sustainable option is to use a bag you already have, whether it's an old tote or a laundry basket (thank TikTok for that idea). You can also make your own reusable grocery bags out of T-shirts. But if you'd rather purchase designated reusable grocery bags, here are our recommendations.
<div class="redactor-editor" dir="ltr" placeholder="Start writing..." spellcheck="false"><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p></div>
<h2>Why switch to reusable bags?</h2><p>The <a href="https://www.unep.org/interactive/beat-plastic-pollution/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">UN says</a> people produce 300 million tons of plastic waste each year, and about 60% of the plastic produced since the early 1950s has ended up in a landfill or the natural environment.</p><p>Plastic grocery bags are made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE). Technically, this type of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-recycling-myth-2647706452.html" target="_self">plastic can be recycled</a>. However, in practice, plastic bags easily clog recycling machinery, so <a href="https://millerrecycling.com/ldpe-out-of-landfills" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">most municipal recycling centers</a> do not accept this type of material. </p><p>A <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/smm_2015_tables_and_figures_07252018_fnl_508_0.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">study by the EPA</a> showed that only about 6% of the LDPE generated in 2015 was recycled. Other types of plastic, by comparison, were recycled at 18% and 10% rates.</p><div class="redactor-editor" dir="ltr" placeholder="Start writing..." spellcheck="false"></div><p>Although some grocery stores offer plastic bag recycling, the easiest way to get around this is to refuse plastic bags in the first place. Many cities have instituted <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-york-plastic-bag-ban-begins-2645319695.html" target="_self">plastic bag bans</a>, but more often than not, it's up to individuals to choose to make the switch to reusable grocery bags in their day-to-day lives.</p><p><em><em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/about-ecowatch-2641507575.html?rebelltitem=47#rebelltitem47" target="_self">Melissa Smith</a> is an avid writer, scuba diver, backpacker, and all-around outdoor enthusiast. She graduated from the University of Florida with degrees in journalism and sustainable studies. Before joining EcoWatch, Melissa worked as the managing editor of Scuba Diving magazine and the communications manager of The Ocean Agency, a non-profit that's featured in the Emmy award-winning documentary Chasing Coral.</em></em></p><em><em><br></em><ul class="ee-ul"></ul></em>
Best Overall: ChicoBag Reusable Grocery Bag
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTIxNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTMyMDQ2N30.RTnT_sQQbH0ucKu_QvfyFIhavWHa_acNOMrOxiHVsGE/img.jpg?width=980" id="63ab1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e127ef0807a470e3b1d33edd96a646c6" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />ChicoBag
<p>Standard reusable grocery bags — foldable cloth "green bags" that typically have company logos on them — are bulky, can't be machine washed, and tend to break down after a number of uses. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/ChicoBag-Original-Reusable-Shopping-Grocery/dp/B006WA9LRA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ChicoBag reusable grocery bags</a> solve these problems and more. They hold up to 25 pounds each, can be tossed in the wash, and stuff down into a tiny attached pouch that you can easily keep in your purse or the center console of your car until you need them.</p><p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 4.8 out of 5 stars with over 1,000 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why buy: </strong>Machine washable; Certified B Corp; Climate Neutral Certified; Supports 1% For the Planet; Fair Labor Association member
$24
Most Convenient For Shopping: Lotus Trolley Bags
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTIyNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NDc2NjkxNH0.tdZukrUtxoElloqocyeKnjFia8vFu7oIKd1vFfil0Mo/img.jpg?width=980" id="37f6c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cbb1cc8bb094a1a4d7c09f497ebcbf25" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />Lotus Sustainables
<p>If you prefer bigger reusable grocery bags that add convenience to your shopping experience, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Trolley-COOLER-Reusable-Grocery-Eco-friendly/dp/B07WTLWF4Z?th=1" target="_blank">Lotus Trolley Bags</a> may be perfect for you. These bags fold flat and nestle in your cart so that you can sort items while you shop. There's a large insulated cooler bag, as well as two standard reusable shopping bags and a bag with pockets for wine bottles and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/brown-eggs-healthier-than-white-eggs-2314254330.html" target="_self">egg cartons</a>. Each can hold up to 50 pounds and has double-stitched seams for added durability.</p><p><strong>Customer rating: </strong>4.6 out of 5 stars with over 3,000 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why buy:</strong> Machine washable; Removable rod for non-cart use; Supports 1% for the Planet
$50
Most Popular: BAGGU Standard Reusable Shopping Bag
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTI1Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MDY5MTgxM30.weLONkbrGfiRaU-3AjOFfuaO9hVTrvxeSiGhBfg4kMg/img.jpg?width=980" id="ba8f6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="deea1a99acc91840e54d35dad7ae9dbf" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />BAGGU
<p>For another versatile option, try the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07N4D829J?tag=ecowatch-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">Baggu Standard Reusable Shopping Bag</a>. This product is modeled after a conventional <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/thailand-plastic-bag-ban-2643538829.html" target="_self">plastic grocery bag</a> but is made with 40% recycled ripstop fabric. Baggu reusable bags can carry up to 50 pounds but stuff down into a five-inch internal pocket for carrying.</p><p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 4.7 out of 5 stars with over 50 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why buy:</strong> Machine washable; Made with 40% recycled materials; Ethically manufactured; Packaging made from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified material
$12
Best Handmade Bag: Ecodunia Canvas Tote Bag
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTI1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTc2NzgwMn0.WY9Zby2RhohlKTOT3nahq38hGn4TATd1jHehxs76btw/img.jpg?width=980" id="5ca43" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ffff86b74fdce3945022712198b15de2" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />Ecodunia
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ecodunia-Canvas-Tote-Women-Eco-Conscious/dp/B08LY82NYW/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Ecodunia&qid=1613051665&sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ecodunia's reusable bags</a> have a sturdier feel than most products on this list. The canvas used to make each bag is produced from 100% renewable resources and natural cotton, plus they have long handles for comfortable carrying over your shoulder. Ecodunia's fun prints will likely make you want to use these bags for more than carting groceries, but they're great for a weekend trip to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/farmers-markets-coronavirus-safety-2645581711.html" target="_self">farmers market</a>.</p><p><strong>Customer rating:</strong> 5 out of 5 stars with under 5 Amazon reviews</p><p><strong>Why buy: </strong>Made from natural cotton; Machine washable; Handmade; Provides dignified work for communities in Kenya </p>
$38
Best Tote Bag: Simple Ecology Tote Bundle
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTI1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MzY0MDE5Nn0.Y9qxNgfCSoO6SowBXX7KbQLWhzPDn2m5mYU5IFT-mG4/img.jpg?width=980" id="38328" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d6ff115df9ceaa39fe785a318c015307" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />Simple Ecology
<p>Another canvas bag option comes from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Ecology-Reusable-Shopping-Certified/dp/B086Z7XQ79?ref_=ast_sto_dp" target="_blank">Simple Ecology</a>. This brand's eco-friendly grocery bags are made with Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) certified cotton and feature pop-out sleeves for more fragile goods and double-stitched seams for extra reinforcement. The large size has about the same capacity as a grocer's paper bag. Simple Ecology also has a reusable bag <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N6AUMBG/ref=sspa_dk_detail_2?psc=1&pd_rd_i=B01N6AUMBG&pd_rd_w=MA3ZS&pf_rd_p=cbc856ed-1371-4f23-b89d-d3fb30edf66d&pd_rd_wg=hVunQ&pf_rd_r=G6RTQ1Z5DKEY325MAJZ9&pd_rd_r=5d298b3a-1be7-4ebd-a9e1-d5d672a40497&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExMzc4RVAxWjNLOTdCJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNTc0NTAwMzBDMjFYOVJPTUpWSCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNjYyOTM4M0s4Vk81SVBPS1NFSyZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2RldGFpbF90aGVtYXRpYyZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=" target="_blank">starter kit</a> that comes with a tote and several reusable produce bags.</p> <p><strong>Customer Rating: </strong>4.6 out of 5 stars with over 900 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why Buy:</strong> GOTS certified; Machine washable; Biodegradable; Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certified packaging when purchased from manufacturer
$33
Best Bulk Bags: BagPodz Reusable Shopping Bags
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTI2NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjk3MTE3Mn0.9zdJfkEbue1iq8Xywwk89-qt0Zcv9wvrDqFUUSzelcE/img.jpg?width=980" id="85dd2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1fa8fd5a709a4d14d797ce4c796efa86" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="400" data-height="400" />BagPodz
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/BagPodz-Reusable-Bag-Storage-System/dp/B00QJ9PBBY" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">BagPodz Reusable Shopping Bags</a> are all about convenience. You can get a pack of five or 10 bags, all of which fit in a low-profile "pod" that can be stored for use on the go. When at the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vancouvers-grocery-store-plastic-bags-2638807121.html" target="_self">grocery store</a>, the pod clips to your cart and has an easy-dispense pocket for when it's time to check out. After use, just stuff them back into the pod. BagPodz reusable bags are made with Bluesign® certified materials, which means they're manufactured sustainably.</p> <p><strong>Customer Rating:</strong> 4.8 out of 5 stars with over 2,000 Amazon reviews</p><strong>Why Buy: </strong>Machine washable; Made with Bluesign certified material
$35
Read More
Show Less
A resident of Springdale, Pennsylvania looks out her front window at the smoke stack of the Cheswick coal-fired power plant on Oct. 27, 2017. Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator and former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler acted Monday to lock in status quo industrial soot pollution limits for another five years, disregarding the emerging scientific link between air pollution and numerous health harms, including increased COVID-19 death rates.
<p>Ultrafine industrial soot, known as PM2.5, is especially harmful to human health because the particles, 1/30 the width of a human hair, can enter into the lungs and bloodstream. Public health experts and environmental justice advocates slammed the move. Industrial pollution like PM2.5 is heavily concentrated in poor communities and communities of color, and the status quo is "an artificially high standard that is supportive of industry," Bridgette Murray, who lives in Houston's Pleasantville neighborhood, near a massive shipping channel, several petrochemical plants, and heavy truck traffic, told The Washington Post. </p>
<p>Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, EPA scientists found strengthening PM2.5 standards could save more than 10,000 American lives per year. "This flies in the face of good science and good public health. It is outrageous," Dominique Browning, co-founder and the head of Moms Clean Air Force, told the Post. "It just basically sends a message of not caring about people." The coal industry cheered the move. President-elect Biden could reassess and strengthen the standards after taking office.</p>
<p>As reported by <a href="https://apnews.com/article/environment-2a4954da5a3d8e1cdd4a7e4ae20bd1b5?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=102252068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--xUAi-3NVxGPWw_uQXRBoQ_8inFSanQlqxhUPz9ATmpKi6HPUhLpXJkxuqMj85WdaRv8fJVlUTpTKe2KOZ2OhxKKfe4w&utm_content=102252068&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Associated Press</a><em>:</em></p><blockquote>The tougher air standards called for by many scientists in and out of the federal government "could have been a huge blow to the coal industry," Douglas Buffington, West Virginia's senior deputy attorney general, told reporters.</blockquote><blockquote>Wheeler's decision leaves unchanged limits for what is broadly called "fine particulate matter" – the tiny bits of soot we breathe in unseen from tailpipes, wildfires, factory and power plant smokestacks, and other sources.</blockquote><blockquote>EPA scientists have estimated exposure at current limits causes the early deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually from heart disease and lung cancer, as well as causing other health problems.</blockquote><blockquote>"Their callous disregard for the lives of people and imperiled wildlife, just to save the nation's biggest fossil fuel polluters a few bucks, is sickening," Robert Ukeiley, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity advocacy group, said of the EPA's move.</blockquote>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong><br/></p><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/07/trump-air-pollution/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=102252068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9bqbTKlmaPIbbXGNoB4hI_Q8_ZuARjg7mB2E5nlBNJoR08sl6w4IKPdk8Dsy2pxBdYLOq7IV7C41rCVF8As43HAzCDQw&utm_content=102252068&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/climate/trump-epa-soot-covid.html?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=102252068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_cGb7LNSLzeqVBtAzkEQCbIyT5AmDuQ1R4zCgyL6ZxCNm_UUZH1p2tpxfa7vTkf7Rao1iR25CcuHAlU2MZxzUBMaMy7w&utm_content=102252068&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-epa-soot/trump-administration-declines-to-tighten-u-s-soot-pollution-standard-source-idUSKBN28H294?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=102252068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8KdCOgfYl1bPWHBXWNMblptR8p5GmgJYqrEwq3Mfa--jUoKg0q28VCY9kAVowbZ0w9fxSpCna4yq4azW_STP0hBk8pyg&utm_content=102252068&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, <a href="https://login.politicopro.com/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fsubscriber.politicopro.com%2Farticle%2F2020%2F12%2Fepa-to-lock-in-no-change-to-national-soot-standard-sources-say-2023192%3Futm_campaign%3DHot%2520News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=102252068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8Md4DEmB0nTNlcx0L2cLmpM7_CcSuGvjmhfWEY8-ZZCmxEk0wLsEP4fPFDtvwSOP85tAraTepJ_EGmTtuE6QHVl_MQzA&utm_content=102252068&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Politico Pro</a>, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2020/12/07/stories/1063720089?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=102252068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Q0UpT-g9eQtQa8A3CGyrjGNu9BxHPp2E-wQYuIhRrWwcpoL7aU0l4l1fF-o-0ONIlxUqslnTOKBAldXE_rfy5mHye3w&utm_content=102252068&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">E&E</a>, <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/MWQQ44nppJjM5nCsGcWyCJVXkGBG4kl9GJN2_Qd3Z5nxGrV3Zsc37CgFg_W4XVqkf3mYJRXW7Yz0y025DNDSW8rFPJ94M0p7BVKr3TM7yXj8wW7_cfrk1zGpCsW7DD-8554TF7bVpx7d53tDZqbW6ZyQGz4KWrt0W2b2JzD8FwYCJW57hrBv86z9jRW30ydmB20-Cd4W5tK_1l23q49NW7RTwC738dBFwW36WHcB2M1pDrVhWZjV1v-6S1W5dhbQR8kMnC1W79hTml31y4XjW5DyBWP5WZs60N5mP3-https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/529044-epa-expected-to-announce-decision-to-not-tighten-soot-standards?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=102252068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9uxTSx3HYGyVT75TQZ3GB16EHQ9SA5NJ__6sXPRmZvIl2gYahpZ4B85v0Bzr4uXv40EQdKPXPfYaBXe3q239Cq2HRhJQ&utm_content=102252068&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Hill</a>, <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/MWQQ44nppJjM5nCsGcWyCJVXkGBG4kl9GJN2_Qd5r3p_9LV1-WJV7CgBwbN8bcGgr6KMgxW2Mj_LT87fdWfW6KZDyZ8XFBqSW7QC9-Z4KhRkBW1t92F53jPlFVW8q_4xv1h716cW6z11W_2dxS_nW4Mn_bl47N0zgN85BrBRmjKP9W5BzT8q8S33J0W90NlvW4WFksWN7hYJyJgYvz_W2PgYMH2k8N-yW6LLwTR3PqYW1N30tsNW1kWfcW7cyGf47Zv1MTW7LcXTJ1VZwtyW5Pr4nC2mCD0WW94tjL_7dmYDxW41Sp3W1Jfj3GW7ZnGDQ5qgVqgW7jSC5545b--SW3Nw7sc4lB-BSW2RtlSc2pQGpPW6-6bb64hr-JzN6tbS0NDzZPGW74bQJY5zHk9JVJRM2557Y9S_34Pj1" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank">Hot News</a>.</em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Dismantles Environmental Protections Under Cover of ... ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- 7 Million More Americans Breathe Unhealthy Air Since Last 'State of ... ›
- Fossil Fuels Kill Nearly 9 Million Annually, More Than Twice Previous Estimate, Study Finds - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A K-State weed specialist researches the impact of dicamba drift on non-resistant soybeans in 2018. K-State Research and Extension / YouTube
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of products containing the weedkiller dicamba for use on cotton and soybeans Tuesday. The EPA announcement means that two products that contain the herbicide found to cause cancer can be registered for five years. It also extended the use of a third product that also has dicamba in it, according to The Hill.
<p>The EPA said that two canceled dicamba herbicides — XtendiMax and Engenia — will now have a five-year registration. The same five-year extension was granted to the herbicide Tavium. The EPA argued that it provides relief to farmers who were unsure how they would treat their dicamba-resistant cotton and soybean crops.</p><p>"With today's decision, farmers now have the certainty they need to make plans for their 2021 growing season," said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-2020-dicamba-registration-decision" target="_blank">statement</a>. "After reviewing substantial amounts of new information, conducting scientific assessments based on the best available science, and carefully considering input from stakeholders we have reached a resolution that is good for our farmers and our environment."</p>
<p>The new rules around the three products are meant to address the concerns of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a 2018 registration of dicamba products, stating that the EPA "substantially understated" some of the risks associated with the chemical's use, as The Hill reported.</p><p>Also, a study earlier this year published in the <em><a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyaa066/5827818?redirectedFrom=fulltext" target="_blank">International Journal of Epidemiology</a></em> found that the chemical was linked to increased rates of liver and bile duct <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>.</p><p>The EPA's new rules seek to mitigate the risk by increasing the required downwind buffer from 110 feet to 240 feet, and up to 310 feet in areas where endangered species are located. States can still impose their own restrictions on the herbicide, but they will have to work with the EPA and file the appropriate requests, according to the EPA's statement.</p>
<p>Lobbying groups for<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-ag" target="_self"> big agriculture</a> and industry insiders welcomed the decision.</p><p>"The economic damage that would result from not being able to use dicamba herbicides would be tremendous," said Ken Fountain, National Cotton Council chairman, as <a href="https://www.agweb.com/article/dicamba-approved-over-top-use-2021-and-beyond" target="_blank">Ag Web</a> reported. "We greatly appreciate EPA's timely issuance of a new five-year label for the critical crop protection product for cotton farmers."</p><p>Environmentalists and consumer advocacy organizations were predictably appalled by the decision that seems to be an end-run around the court's decision.</p>
<p>"Rather than evaluating the significant costs of dicamba drift as the 9th Circuit told them the law required, EPA rushed re-approval as a political prop just before the election, sentencing farmers and the environment to another five years of unacceptable damage," said George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety, according to Ag Web. "Center for Food Safety will most certainly challenge these unlawful approvals."</p><p>Other critics noted the damage already caused by dicamba use.</p><p>"Given EPA-approved versions of dicamba have already damaged millions of U.S. acres of crops and natural areas there's no reason to trust that the agency got it right this time," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement, as The Hill reported.</p><p>"At this point, the EPA has shown such callous indifference to the damage dicamba has caused to farmers and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> alike, and has been so desperate to appease the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticide</a> industry, it has zero credibility when it comes to pesticide safety," Donley added.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- West Texas Vineyards Hit by Herbicide Drift - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Sides With Monsanto, Extends Dicamba 2 More Years ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The 1.4-gigawatt coal-fired Kingston Steam Plant, just outside Kingston, Tennessee on the shore of Watts Bar Lake on March 31, 2019. In 2008, a coal ash pond at the plant collapsed, leading to the largest industrial spill in modern U.S. history and subsequent industry regulations in 2015. Paul Harris / Getty Images
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a rule change on Friday that will allow some coal power plants to ignore a court order to clean up coal ash ponds, which leech toxic materials into soil and groundwater. The rule change will allow some coal ash ponds to stay open for years while others that have no barrier to protect surrounding areas are allowed to stay open indefinitely, according to the AP.
<p>The arsenic-laced sludge that fills coal ash ponds is likely to leak when just a plastic barrier protects it. It is far more likely to pollute nearby soil and water when the pits have a clay barrier, according to researchers, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/521409-epa-may-violate-courts-with-new-rule-extending-life-of-unlined-coal" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p><p>A 2018 order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had forced the EPA to close coal ash ponds that did not have plastic lining and were likely to leak toxic chemicals, making Friday's rule change seem like a blatant move to undermine the court's authority, according to environmental groups who promised to sue to stop the rule change, as The Hill reported.</p>
<p>Environmentalists argue that the rule change is a favor to the coal industry, for which EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler served as a lobbyist prior to joining the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration. The move allows the industry to dump its byproducts inexpensively and irresponsibly.</p><p>"The reason the utilities are arguing to keep the ponds is because they have put in these unlined pits out the back door of the power plant that act as a catchall for their toxic waste," said Lisa Evans, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, as the AP reported. "They don't want to get rid of them because they are cheap."</p>
<p>Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project commissioned a study on coal ash ponds and found that 91 percent of them were leaking toxic chemicals beyond what was permitted by EPA regulations, as The Hill reported. Their study found that heavy metals from the waste was polluting nearby drinking wells and groundwater.</p><p>Coal ash is produced when coal is burned to produce power. It is full of arsenic, mercury, lead and several other hazardous heavy metals. In the U.S., coal plants create nearly 100 million tons annually of ash and other waste, according to the AP.</p><p>"When ponds without lining leak, it's often more aggressive, faster and harder to control," said Evans, as The Hill reported. "Utilities are asking for favors and exemptions and EPA is willing to give them and is willing to rush to provide these exemptions."</p>
<p>The 2018 court decision found that clay lined coal ash ponds, or unlined ponds, are simply dangerous, as the AP reported.</p><p>Evans noted that the Obama-era Resource Conservation and Recovery Act required power plants to close unlined coal-ash ponds by April 2019, but the EPA keeps extending the deadline, as the AP reported.</p><p>By rewriting the rule, coal plants are able to get around the mandates of the 2015 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by simply showing that their coal ash ponds pose no threat to human health.</p><p>"The Trump EPA is flouting the court's decision," said Evans, as the AP reported. "I've never seen anything like this before."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just ... ›
- What a Real Coal Ash Cleanup Looks Like - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump's Latest EPA Rollback Lets Polluters Spew More Lead, Arsenic, Mercury
02 October 2020
Politics
A new Trump administration rollback of EPA regulations could allow plants to emit two to ten times more hazardous air pollutants than before. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has weakened yet another safeguard against air pollution in the midst of a respiratory pandemic.
<p>The agency finalized a rollback Thursday of the Clinton-era "once in, always in" policy that required major polluters like industrial plants and refineries to maintain the highest possible levels of pollution controls as long as they continued to operate, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-airtoxics-idUSKBN26M7EU?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3DnYWkKalEHiFeBQRhFzRZPVWl2Z1Eb_F0rUc9czINsYwTV53qjgwLwDU" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>.</p><p>"This is a lawless action that will undoubtedly increase carcinogens and other deadly pollution in our air," Clinton EPA administrator Carol Browner said in a statement reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/519181-epa-finalizes-rule-allowing-some-major-polluters-to-follow-weaker" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "Taking this action during a global pandemic that preys upon people with existing respiratory ailments further confirms that for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> and the political leadership of the EPA the cruelty is the point."</p>
<p>The agency <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-clean-air-act-2528831006.html" target="_self">first proposed</a> reversing the rule in 2018, according to Reuters. The 1995 policy required that major polluters use maximum achievable control technology standards (MACT) throughout the lifetime of their operations. The new policy will allow these facilities to use less stringent standards after they reduce emissions. The so-called "major sources" that reduce their emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) will be reclassified as "area sources," emitters like gas stations or dry cleaners that emit less than 10 tons of a single pollutant or 25 tons of multiple pollutants each year.</p><p>"This action reduces regulatory burden and provides a level of fairness and flexibility for sources that reduce HAP emissions below major source thresholds and reclassify as area sources," the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/documentation-reclassification-major-sources-area-sources-under" target="_blank">agency explained</a>.</p>
<p>EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler argued that the change would incentivize companies to invest in better technology to reduce emissions.</p><p>"Today's action is an important step to further <a href="https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump" target="_blank">President Trump</a>'s regulatory reform agenda by providing meaningful incentives for investment that prevents hazardous air pollution," he said in a statement reported by The Hill.</p><p>However, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC) senior attorney John Walke said the reversal was entirely unnecessary. He said plants had already installed emission-reduction technology and had been maintaining the requirement that they reduce pollution 95 to 98 percent for decades.</p><p>"It's the triumph of extreme ideology over <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a>, common sense and the law," he told The Hill.</p><p>Walke further said <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/status/1311759616393572356" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">on Twitter</a> that the rollback would allow plants to emit two to ten times more hazardous air pollutants than before. This includes toxins like <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mercury" target="_self">mercury</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead" target="_self">lead</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/arsenic" target="_self">arsenic</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/asbestos" target="_self">asbestos</a> and benzene that can cause <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>, brain damage, fetal damage and premature death.</p>
<p>The EPA itself acknowledged the new policy could cause as many as 1,258 tons of additional pollutants to enter the air every year.</p><p><a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2020/10/sierra-club-vows-fight-repeal-once-always-framework" target="_blank">The Sierra Club</a> pointed out that the change would disproportionately impact low income communities and communities of color that tend to live closer to polluting plants. It comes as scientists <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coronavirus-air-pollution-fatality-2645656760.html" target="_self">warn</a> that exposure to air pollution might increase the risk of dying of the new <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a>, and Black and Hispanic Americans are <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/black--hispanic-americans-coronavirus-2645677258.html" target="_self">contracting and dying</a> of the new virus at higher rates.</p><p>"Despite … the renewed national focus on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/environmental-justice" target="_self">environmental justice</a>, Wheeler is showing there is no level that he will not stoop to in order to placate polluters and carrying out the wishes of his disgraced predecessor, <a href="https://debbiedingell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1315" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt</a>," <a href="https://twitter.com/maryannehitt" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">national director of campaigns for the Sierra Club</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/maryannehitt" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mary Anne Hitt</a> said in a statement. "Sierra Club, however, will continue to fight for the communities Wheeler has chosen to ignore. We will fight this reckless and unlawful rollback, in order to ensure that the American public is safe from dangerous air pollution."</p>The NRDC also <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/status/1311759521929453570" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">promised</a> to fight the change, and the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> told Reuters it would sue to reverse the rollback.
From Your Site Articles
- EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation ... ›
- Trump's Hand-Picked Scientists Rebuke EPA Rollbacks - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Seeks Deadly Air Pollution Loophole for Dirty Trucks ... ›
- Trump's EPA Is Changing Its Math to Make Clean Power Plan ... ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Trump's Clean Air Rollback - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA Hinder Biden Efforts to Address Climate and Pollution ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation, Fewer Environmental Protections
04 September 2020
Politics
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks at the Nixon Library on Sept. 3, 2020. Richard Nixon Foundation / YouTube
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (EPA) Andrew Wheeler gave a speech Thursday where he accused Democratic efforts to stop the climate crisis as actions that have hurt poor and vulnerable communities. He also laid out a vision for a second Trump term, saying it would bring a new wave of deregulation and support for economic development, according to Reuters.
<p>The speech was given to celebrate the agency's 50th anniversary and was streamed live on YouTube. Wheeler took the opportunity to celebrate the Trump administration's rollbacks of environmental protections and promised more to come. He also used his platform to say the agency would focus less on preventive measures that stop pollution, but concentrate on the cleanup of toxic areas, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/fb0ad1ef15443dfdddec52f5081eb094" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Associated Press</a> (AP).</p><p>"We need to make sure we are speaking to people where they live and we're addressing the problems they see on a daily basis," Wheeler told the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-will-roll-back-more-regulations-if-re-elected-epa-chief-says-11599130805" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a> Thursday.</p><p>Wheeler said that a second Trump term would mean the EPA would turn its attention to community revitalization, water quality, permitting reform, Superfund cleanups and pesticide administration, according to Reuters.</p>
<p>"I believe that by focusing EPA toward communities in the coming years, our agency can change the future for people living in this country who have been left behind simply for living in polluted places," he said, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/515055-epa-chief-pushing-for-second-trump-term-outlines-vision-for-agency" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p><p>He argued that the actions that supported development and cleanup were actually designed to help poor communities.</p><p>"This will do more for environmental justice than all the rhetoric in political campaigns," Wheeler claimed, as Reuters reported.</p><p>He also added that in a second term, he would continue rules he implemented that limit what scientific research could be considered in decision-making and another that reevaluates how the agency predicts climate risk, according to The Hill. Both of those rules have been criticized by experts for eschewing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a> and for fuzzy math.</p>
<p>While Wheeler argued that policies meant to mitigate pollution are hurting poor communities, many experts see it differently. They argue that the more than 100 environmental rollbacks that have happened under the Trump administration will increase air and water pollution around the nation's most vulnerable communities, leading to more illness and premature deaths, according to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/03/epa-chief-trump-will-roll-back-more-environmental-rules-if-re-elected.html" target="_blank">CNBC</a>.</p><p>"EPA was founded to protect people — you, me and our families — but the Trump administration has turned it into an agency to protect polluters," said Gina McCarthy, who led the agency during the Obama administration and now is president of the NRDC Action Fund, the political arm of the Natural Resources Defense Council, as the AP reported</p><p>In an attempt at revisionism, Wheeler said it was the Obama administration that hurt poor communities by regulating industry.</p><p>"The Obama-Biden administration only focused on climate change at the expense of the communities here in the United States and the expense of reducing pollution where people live," Wheeler told the Wall Street Journal.</p>
<p>Former EPA officials like McCarthy, both from Republican and Democratic administrations, have banded together to denounce the policies put forth by Trump and Wheeler. Five former EPA administrators issued a joint statement that said, "Actions during the Trump administration have further decreased public confidence in the agency's credibility, undercut its historic dedication to high ethical standards, and affected employee morale," according to the AP.</p><p>"Every one of the actions they have taken, either by weakening or rolling back basic protections, has put environmental justice communities — front-line communities — in greater harm," Mustafa Santiago Ali, a longtime EPA official who now works on environmental justice and climate issues for the National Wildlife Federation, said in an interview, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/03/wheeler-epa-trump-climate/?hpid=hp_national1-8-12_epa-540p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "I have seen no actions that lead me to believe they have any interest in protecting those lives."</p><p>Mike Flynn, who worked at the EPA for nearly four decades before retiring in 2018, told The Washington Post: "The Trump administration has transformed EPA into an agency that's failing to meet the fundamental mission of the agency, protecting public health and environment."</p><p>He added that the staff there "is really demoralized."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just ... ›
- Wheeler Signs Proposal for Pipeline Projects to Bypass Clean Water ... ›
- Trump Admin Weakens Obama-Era Rule to Limit Toxic Waste From ... ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- EPA Chief: Climate Change Is Not Top Priority - EcoWatch ›
- Court Rules EPA Must Release 20,000 Emails Between Wheeler ... ›
- Trump's Latest EPA Rollback Lets Polluters Spew More Lead, Arsenic, Mercury - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Trump looks on as EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks during an event to unveil changes to the National Environmental Policy Act on Jan. 9, 2020 in Washington, DC. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
The Trump administration announced that it would roll back a rule from 2015 that was put in place to limit the amount of toxic chemicals that are in the wastewater of coal plants, according to The Washington Post.
<p>The rule insisted that coal plants invest in newer technologies to treat their wastewater so toxic heavy metals like <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead">lead</a>, selenium and arsenic are not leached into nearby <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a> and streams where they can damage fragile ecosystems and also seep into <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a>, as The Washington Post reported.</p><p>The new <a href="https://www.epa.gov/eg/2020-steam-electric-reconsideration-rule" target="_blank">regulations</a> put forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), which is run by Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the coal industry, allows coal plants to dial back their investment in new technologies; the regulations delay the date that plants needed to be in compliance, and they exempt some coal-fired plants from taking any corrective or pollution-limiting action, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/climate/trump-coal-plants.html" target="_blank">The New York Times.</a></p>
<p>The compliance date is pushed back to 2025 for some plants. The ones exempted from the rule are done so with the expectation that they will be retired by 2028.</p><p>The "effluent limitations" regulations that the EPA rolled out Monday will save the coal industry $140 million, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-coal/u-s-epa-rolls-back-limits-on-waste-water-from-coal-plants-idUSKBN25R2QK" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>"Newer, more affordable pollution control technologies and flexibility on the regulation's phase-in will reduce pollution and save jobs at the same time," said Wheeler, as Reuters reports.</p><p>The Obama administration had said that the 2015 rule would limit 1.4 billion pounds of toxic pollutants from entering U.S. waterways each year. Coal plants use scrubbers to capture mercury, sulfur dioxide and heavy metals that would be emitted through smoke stacks. That rule has been in place since the 1980s, but what to do with those trapped pollutants is a thorny issue. Coal plants had been allowed to dump them into nearby waterways until the 2015 rule took effect, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>And yet, without evidence, the current EPA said it expects the same or even greater pollution reductions because coal plants will supposedly adopt the newer technologies voluntarily. The EPA's math is based on the assumption that 30 percent of coal plants will implement technologies that are beyond the regulations required by the EPA, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/31/trump-toxic-water-pollution-wastewater" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>"It's clear from this rule that a relatively inexpensive treatment technology is available – the one that they made voluntary – that would eliminate the toxic contamination of drinking water supplies and is very affordable. And yet they did not require it," said Betsy Southerland, an Obama EPA water official, to The Guardian. "People should be very concerned."</p>
<p>Environmental activists quickly criticized the rule as a gift to the coal industry and a shortsighted measure that ignored the health of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> and people that live near coal plants, according to The Washington Post.</p><p>Thomas Cmar, an attorney with Earthjustice, told The New York Times that the EPA's actions will allow older, dirtier coal plants to stay alive longer since they do not have to invest in upgrades.</p><p>"There are dozens of water bodies around the country where the local water is significantly impacted by this type of direct dumping of toxic metals from power plants," said Cmar to The Times.</p><p>Cmar said Earthjustice will attempt to stop the rollback in court.</p><p>"Giving coal companies a free pass to dump more toxic heavy metals like mercury and arsenic into our waters is a travesty," Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an email, to The Washington Post. "This shameless handout will allow greater amounts of these dangerous pollutants to be spewed directly into our waterways, threatening public health and pushing hundreds of aquatic endangered species, including salmon, sturgeon and hellbender salamanders, closer to extinction."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Toxic Wake: 10 Ways the EPA Has Made Life More ... ›
- EPA Moves to Overhaul Obama-Era Coal Ash Disposal Rule ... ›
- EPA Delays Toxic Waste Rule for Coal-Fired Power Plants - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation, Fewer Environmental Protections - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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 ›
- EPA to Adopt Big Tobacco's 'Secret Science' Rule - EcoWatch ›
- EPA’s ‘Secret Science’ Rule Impacts Public Health ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
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 ›
- EPA’s ‘Secret Science’ Rule Impacts Public Health ›
- EPA Dismisses Harmful 'Secret Science' Rule ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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 ... ›
- Trump's Latest EPA Rollback Lets Polluters Spew More Lead, Arsenic, Mercury - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Admin Is Rushing Harmful Regulatory Rollbacks as Election Nears - EcoWatch ›
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