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
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
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
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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 ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation, Fewer Environmental Protections
04 September
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
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 ›
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
Trending
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
Trending
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