Trump Administration Finalizes Car Rule Which Will Worsen Economy, Public Health
01 April
Insights + Opinion
ROBYN BECK / AFP / Getty Images
By Dave Cooke
So, they finally went and did it — the Trump administration just finalized a rule to undo requirements on manufacturers to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new passenger cars and trucks. Even with the economy at the brink of a recession, they went forward with a policy they know is bad for consumers — their own analysis shows that American drivers are going to spend hundreds of dollars more in fuel as a result of this stupid policy — but they went ahead and did it anyway.
The Rule, by the Numbers
<p>The administration recognizes this is a bad deal for the country — even their own cooked books couldn't make this look like a good idea:</p><ul><li>American drivers will burn an additional 2 billion barrels of oil, resulting in 900 million metric tons of additional global warming emissions;</li><li>Vehicle prices could be reduced by $1,000, but consumers would pay more than $1,400 more in fuel, a net loss and obviously a terrible deal;</li><li>Accounting for miles traveled, the rule results in more premature deaths from air pollution (up to 1600), than offset by the agencies' (optimistic) estimate of less than 800 avoided traffic fatalities;</li><li>The rule cuts automotive revenue by $50 billion dollars, resulting in job losses in the auto sector of 10,000-20,000 in 2030, a number which excludes the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/don-anair/auto-standards-rollback-oil-companies-win-everyone-else-loses" target="_blank">even worse macroeconomic job losses</a> which would accrue;</li><li>The net benefits of the rule are actually negative, resulting in $10-20 billion in net monetized harm to the country, which is actually a worse outcome than most of alternatives the agency considered!</li></ul><p>And on top of all this, the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NSHTA) found time to incorporate special corporate giveaways to the fossil fuel industry, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/don-anair/auto-standards-rollback-oil-companies-win-everyone-else-loses" target="_blank">the only industry slated to benefit from this rule</a> in the first place.</p>The Final Rule Is Not Necessarily Better Than the Proposal
<p>There will likely be a lot of reporting that says that this final rule is better for the environment than the proposal, but this is wrong. On paper, the Trump administration has replaced its proposal to halt required progress entirely after 2020 with a rule that requires 1.5 percent improvement per year, a rate which is of course <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/most-fuel-efficient-cars-a-win-for-consumers-pockets-the-economy-and-climate-but-whats-next" target="_blank">lower than the automakers have averaged now for more than a decade</a>. But paper targets don't matter — what matters is what happens in the real world. And all this rule is doing is maintaining the status quo.</p><p>While ostensibly increasing the requirements of the rule, the Trump administration has also increased flexibilities and credits granted to automakers compared to the proposal, credits which the industry requested and which we've shown <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/congress-is-pushing-back-on-the-trump-fuel-economy-rollback-why-arent-auto-companies" target="_blank">could be as bad as the rollback</a>. Incredibly, they've even granted credits that no automaker asked for, for natural gas vehicles that no one currently sells (of course, that was a handout to the oil industry, just like the rest of this rule). While they didn't grant all automaker requests, they did extend through 2026 the decision to ignore emissions from the electricity powering EVs and increased the number of technologies eligible for credits not captured by standards test procedures (so-called "off-cycle credits") while simultaneously reducing the public scrutiny on those emissions, even though recent data on some of these credits <a href="https://theicct.org/publications/US-2025-off-cycle" target="_blank">calls into question their value</a>.</p><p>Awarding automakers these flexibilities and loopholes makes the miniscule change in stringency completely toothless. Consumers will continue to be railroaded by this change in policy.</p>The Economy Is in a Tenuous Position — This Rule Will Make It Worse
<p>Right now, the economic outlook is uncertain — we are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/26/upshot/coronavirus-millions-unemployment-claims.html" target="_blank">shedding jobs by the millions</a>, and even after we come out of this pandemic, we will <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2020-03-17/coming-coronavirus-recession" target="_blank">likely be dealing with a recession</a>. The administration's policy just compounds that economic pain for consumers by ensuring they pay more at the pump. This is exactly the wrong policy at the worst time — what we need to be doing is helping consumers pay less in fuel so they can put those saving back to work in our local economies.</p><p>Consumers will pay thousands more for fuel as a result of this rule, which hurts the economy and <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/don-anair/auto-standards-rollback-oil-companies-win-everyone-else-loses" target="_blank">negatively impacts job growth</a>. The only people that benefit from the administration's finalized rule are the oil companies.</p>The Safe Rule Is Unsafe
<p>One of the biggest, dumbest points made in the original proposal was that this rule would save lives. But the administration admits now that such claims were total nonsense. Even by their own fuzzy math, the "tens of thousands of lives saved" from the proposal have been reduced to just a few hundred, and now that they've finally bothered to calculate the adverse health impacts, they've found that up to 1600 people would die prematurely thanks to the additional air pollution from this rule (a number that is <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2019/05/FINALGHGREPORT.pdf" target="_blank">likely a significant underestimate</a>).</p><p>We are in the middle of a public health crisis that's devastating our economy, and the administration is finalizing a rule that will undermine both public health and the economy. If that isn't some of the most backwards nonsense ever, I don't know what is.</p>Fighting It out in the Courts
<p>As with <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/trump-has-lost-more-than-90-percent-of-deregulation-court-battles.html" target="_blank">so many of the administration's wrongheaded rollbacks</a>, this one will end up in the courts. There continue to be a mountain of errors in the policy and a number of corners cut to <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebProjectsCurrentBOARD/1FACEE5C03725F268525851F006319BB/$File/EPA-SAB-20-003+.pdf" target="_blank">avoid public scrutiny</a> and <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/an-inside-account-of-trumps-fuel-economy-debacle/606346/" target="_blank">sideline the administration's own experts</a>.</p><p>This policy is bad for consumers, bad for public health, and bad for the environment. And we will continue to fight it in the courts because this country deserves better.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Fuel Efficiency Proposal Is Attack on Global Climate and ... ›
- Trump Expected to Announce Weakened Fuel Efficiency Rules ... ›
- 'This Will Be the Biggest Loss of Clean Water Protection the Country ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump Named ‘Worst President for Our Environment in History' by Nine Green Groups
05 February
Politics
Trump departs the White House for the U.S. Capitol to deliver the State of the Union address in Washington, DC, on Feb. 4, 2020. NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP via Getty Images
As President Donald Trump prepared to give his third State of the Union Address Tuesday night, nine conservation groups considered the state of the nation's environment.
<p>Their consensus?</p><p>"Donald Trump has been the worst president for our environment in history," the groups wrote in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/trump-worst-president-for-environment-in-history" target="_blank">statement released Tuesday</a>.</p>
<div id="2a229" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="GX0I1W1580915438"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1224875288858808320" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">No matter what we hear during #SOTU tonight, one thing is clear: this administration is the worst for our environme… https://t.co/cge9rAs5Pg</div> — Earthjustice (@Earthjustice)<a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/statuses/1224875288858808320">1580868000.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The statement was written by <a href="https://www.alaskawild.org/" target="_blank">Alaska Wilderness League Action</a>, <a href="https://www.cleanwateraction.org/" target="_blank">Clean Water Action</a>, <a href="https://defenders.org/" target="_blank">Defenders of Wildlife</a>, <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>, <a href="https://www.edfaction.org/" target="_blank">EDF Action</a>, <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a>, <a href="https://www.lcv.org/" target="_blank">League of Conservation Voters</a>, <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> and <a href="https://www.wilderness.org/" target="_blank">The Wilderness Society</a>. The groups said they decided to release the statement out of concern the president would try to "greenwash" his record during his speech.</p><p>The groups wrote:</p><blockquote>"Donald Trump's administration has unleashed an unprecedented assault on our environment and the health of our communities. His policies threaten our climate, air, water, public lands, wildlife, and oceans; no amount of his greenwashing can change the simple fact: Donald Trump has been the worst president for our environment in history. Unfortunately, our children will pay the costs of this president's recklessness. Our organizations have repeatedly fought back against these attacks and we will continue to fight to ensure that our kids don't bear the brunt of the Trump administration's anti-environmental agenda."</blockquote>
<p>As of Dec. 21 of 2019, the Trump administration had attempted to roll back more than 90 environmental rules and regulations, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. Those included:</p><ol><li><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-power-plan-trump-epa-2638927020.html?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3" target="_self">Replacing</a> the Obama-era <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-power-plan" target="_self">Clean Power Plan</a> that limited carbon dioxide emissions from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" target="_self">natural gas</a> plants. The new rule would let states make their own rules and could lead to as many as 1,400 additional <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a> deaths a year by 2030.</li><li><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-california-emissions-standards-2640413062.html" target="_self">Revoking</a> California's waiver to set its own vehicle emissions standards under the Clean Air Act</li><li><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-endangered-species-act-2639796184.html" target="_self">Changing</a> how the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species-act" target="_self">Endangered Species Act</a> is applied to make it harder to protect animals and plants from the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-admin-repeals-protections-for-smaller-streams-and-wetlands-2640338564.html" target="_self">Stripping</a> protections from streams and wetlands that had been protected by the Obama administration</li></ol>
<p>In his speech to a joint session of Congress Tuesday, which came a day before the Senate is set to vote on whether or not to remove him from office following an impeachment trial, Trump talked up his deregulatory efforts as a boon to the U.S. economy.</p><p>"Thanks to our bold regulatory reduction campaign, the United States has become the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world, by far," he said, according to a transcript published by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/politics/state-of-union-transcript.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>However, The New York Times pointed out <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/fact-check-state-of-the-union-02-04" target="_blank">in a separate fact-check</a> that the U.S. became the world's leading oil producer in 2013 and its leading gas producer in 2009, making it impossible to credit Trump's rollbacks.</p><p>Trump's only other mention of environmental policy came when he spoke of his decision to join the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-trillion-trees--2644889576.html" target="_self">One Trillion Trees Initiative</a>, a plan launched by the World Economic Forum to plant, conserve and restore one trillion trees.</p><p>The plan is intended to help fight the climate crisis and restore biodiversity. Capturing carbon in forests, grasslands and wetlands can achieve as much as one third of the emissions reductions needed to meet <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a> goals by 2030, the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/01/restoring-the-earth-1t-org-announced-to-accelerate-nature-restoration-to-tackle-climate-and-biodiversity-crises" target="_blank">initiative pointed out</a>, but such so-called "natural solutions" need to go along with reducing emissions in the energy, heavy industry and finance sectors.</p><p>Trump called the initiative "an ambitious effort to bring together government and private sector to plant new trees in America and all around the world," but did not mention the climate crisis.</p><p>However, The New York Times pointed out that the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion tons of greenhouse gasses in 2019. To plant enough trees to draw all of that down out of the atmosphere would require an area of land about four times the size of California.</p>
<p><em>Correction: An earlier version of this article referred to a New York Times article listing Trump's environmental deregulations as being dated Dec. 20. It has been corrected to reflect the fact that the article was last updated Dec. 21.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- U.S. Air Quality Is Headed the Wrong Way - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Administration Is Restricting How Scientists Conduct Climate ... ›
- Trump's Misleading Speech on His Environmental Record Is a 'True ... ›
- States Sue Trump EPA for Suspending Environmental Regulations During Pandemic - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
One of Our Most Important Environmental Laws Just Turned 50—Cue Trump Attacking It
18 January
Politics
Despite fierce opposition from local homeowners, a section of the SUNOCO Mariner II East Pipeline cuts through a residential neighborhood of Exton, PA. Erik McGregor / LightRocket / Getty Images
By Jeff Turrentine
To celebrate the 50th birthday of one of America's most important environmental laws, President Trump has decided to make a mockery out of it.
<p>On the first day of January 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed into law the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/4331" target="_blank">National Environmental Policy Act</a> (NEPA). In doing so, he formally acknowledged that the federal government bears a responsibility to "assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings," and moreover that "each generation [serves] as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations." While other important environmental laws of the era were about protecting specific natural resources, such as <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Clean-Water-Act" target="_blank">water</a> or <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/clean-air-act" target="_blank">air</a> or <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/pro-extinction-policies-do-not-sit-well-americans-whatever-their-stripe" target="_blank">biodiversity</a>, NEPA was about establishing a covenant between the American people and its elected officials. Its wording makes clear that the government is "to use all practicable means" to achieve the goal of ensuring a clean, safe environment.</p>
<p>In practice, NEPA is the law that compels the federal government to consider the environmental consequences of any major project that it hopes to undertake. This is where the "practicable means" known as an <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/teaching-legal-docs--what-is-an-environmental-impact-statement-/" target="_blank">environmental impact statement</a> (EIS) comes in. As its name suggests, an EIS is a report, typically a large and thorough one, that examines the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project from all conceivable angles. So well regarded is the concept underlying NEPA — simply put, that governments owe it to their citizens to study the risks of doing something before they do it — that more than 160 nations have adopted similar standards for environmental review, leading many to call NEPA the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/amanda-jahshan/nepa-magna-carta-environmental-law" target="_blank">Magna Carta of environmental law</a>.</p><p>Last week, 50 years and eight days after Nixon signed NEPA into law, Trump announced his intention to shatter this covenant between the government and the governed. His administration is <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/nepa-modernization/" target="_blank">proposing changes</a> to NEPA that would dramatically reduce the length and scope of the environmental review process, let polluting industries "review" themselves, limit input from the American public, exempt many infrastructure projects from review altogether, and — perhaps most disturbingly — allow agencies to ignore the fact that certain projects would contribute to climate change. Any one of the proposed changes would be a cause for concern. Taken together, they add up to <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2020/01/16/479454/5-ways-trumps-latest-anti-environmental-proposal-allow-fossil-fuel-companies-bulldoze-communities/" target="_blank">an unconscionable hollowing-out</a> of NEPA and a wholesale abandonment of the principle at its foundation.</p>
<p>The president's ostensible reason for gutting NEPA is to speed up the process for building out America's infrastructure — think roads, bridges, dams, airports, sewer systems and railroad tracks, but don't forget that the category also includes mines, offshore drilling rigs and oil pipelines. According to the administration, the current review system is too drawn out, too expensive and otherwise so onerous that it's suppressing much-needed construction and holding America back. Our country's infrastructure, President Trump <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/white-house-wants-to-change-rules-to-speed-up-highway-projects-pipelines-drilling/2020/01/08/4e248fda-325a-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html" target="_blank">told reporters last week</a>, "used to be the envy of the world, and now we're like a third-world country. It's really sad." To sell the idea that infrastructure projects are somehow being (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/climate/trump-nepa-environment.html" target="_blank">in his words</a>) "tied up and bogged down by an outrageously slow and burdensome federal approval process," he asserted that "it can take more than 10 years to build just a very simple road. And usually you're not able to even get the permit."</p><p>That would indeed be a serious problem in need of immediate fixing, were it true.</p><p>It is not. But the good news is that if Trump is sincerely interested in discovering the truth, it's right there to be found in his own executive branch! <a href="https://protectnepa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Fact-v-myth-handout.pdf" target="_blank">According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)</a>, the NEPA-created agency that oversees the review process, nearly 95 percent of the more than 50,000 federal projects that are subject to environmental review annually are granted a <a href="https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa-practice/categorical-exclusions.html" target="_blank">categorical exclusion</a> — meaning that they've been deemed so low-risk that they can proceed with only a minimal version of review. Less than 1 percent of all projects are considered risky enough to merit a full-on EIS. And the average amount of time it takes these projects to complete the EIS is less than five years. As to the question of expense, <a href="https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-publications/report/finalreport.pdf" target="_blank">a 2003 NEPA report</a> determined that an EIS typically cost anywhere from $250,000 to $2 million: not chump change, perhaps, but hardly bank-breaking given the contingency budgets of most large-scale infrastructure projects.</p><p>So why, then, would President Trump paint such a misleading picture of NEPA and seek to place new caps on the size and scope of environmental reviews?</p><p>Because polluting industries — the chemical and fossil fuel industries, in particular — want him to. In November an ad hoc group of industry-affiliated organizations <a href="https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/nepa_coalition_letter_11_22_2019.pdf" target="_blank">sent a letter</a> to CEQ Chair Mary Neumayr, asking her to "modernize" NEPA along the very lines that the president proposed just seven weeks later. Among the letter's 34 signatories were some conspicuous names: the American Chemistry Council, the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Gas Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. (Other signatories included groups representing the lumber, mining and fertilizer industries.)</p><p>One portion of the November letter stands out for the masterful way that it couches a genuinely menacing request in the gentlest of language. "NEPA provides important safeguards to ensure that major federal actions and approvals carefully consider environmental impacts," the signatories acknowledge. "We believe however, the scope of NEPA analysis should be focused on information specifically related or consequential to the federal action at hand, as opposed to an overly broad and exhaustive analysis of all issues, without regard to significance."</p><p>How happy those writers must have been, then, to come across this sentence in the Trump administration's proposal: Effects should not be considered significant if they are remote in time, geographically remote, or the product of a lengthy causal chain<em>. </em>Under current NEPA rules, a project's potential for contributing to climate change — the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-climate-change-what-you-need-know" target="_blank">ultimate</a> "product of a lengthy causal chain" — is absolutely worthy of consideration in deciding whether a project warrants review. But this requirement has proved to be a major hindrance to the developers and users of one type of project in particular: oil and gas infrastructure, the pipelines and refineries that transport, store, or process those dirty fossil fuels that, when burned, release the gases that are dangerously warming our world.</p><p>Polluting industries asked for a new, weaker NEPA. And now the Trump administration is trying to give it to them — even if that means reneging on a 50-year-old promise to the American people and endangering future generations all over the world.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/one-our-most-important-environmental-laws-just-turned-50-cue-trump-attacking-it" target="_blank">onEarth</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2644853997#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Green Groups Sue to Stop Trump Admin From Allowing Fracking on ... ›
- Trump Admin Ordered 'Climate Censorship' in Plans to Lease Texas ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event held on Jan. 03 in Miami, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
The Trump administration will continue its assault on the environment when it unveils new regulations on Wednesday that will limit the types of projects that require environmental review and it will no longer require federal agencies to consider impacts on the climate crisis in new infrastructure projects, as Reuters reported.
<p>The changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) could pave the way for projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and other fossil fuel projects that have been held up by the courts because climate impacts were not considered in an environmental review, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported. </p>
<p>The new rule will also limit the scope of projects that need any environmental review. That means that proposed projects can be easily approved and not have to disclose intentions to discharge waste, increase <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" rel="noopener noreferrer">air pollution</a> or clear-cut trees, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The New York Times</a> reported. </p>
<p>The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees how almost 80 percent of government agencies meet their NEPA obligations, will announce that federal agencies will no longer be asked to consider "cumulative" climate change impacts when looking at federal projects, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-nepa/trump-to-overhaul-environmental-review-process-dismiss-climate-impacts-sources-idUSKBN1Z50WW" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported. </p>
<p>Mary B. Neumayr, the president's top environmental adviser, who chairs the CEQ said the changes would allow for faster reviews and is fairer to applicants who must wait an average of 4.5 years to get a final decision on their applications, according to <a href="https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/faster-permitting-wont-harm-environment-top-trump-adviser-says" target="_blank">Bloomberg Environment</a>.</p>
<p>"It's a priority for this administration to have a process that's predictable and transparent and timely, so that we can get to a decision," Neumayr said to <a href="https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/faster-permitting-wont-harm-environment-top-trump-adviser-says" target="_blank">Bloomberg Environment</a>. "It may not always be the decision that the applicant has requested, but it's important that they get a decision."</p>
<p>Yet, that efficiency comes at a cost, according to critics.</p>
<p>"If your process is so efficient that you undercut getting the right information," then "you've lost something," said Brenda Mallory, former CEQ general counsel under the Obama administration, at a Dec. 17, 2019 panel convened by the Environmental Law Institute, as <a href="https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/faster-permitting-wont-harm-environment-top-trump-adviser-says" target="_blank">Bloomberg Environment</a> reported.</p>
<p>In a clever sleight of hand, the CEQ's proposal will not overhaul or replace NEPA. Instead, it will revise the rules that steer how the law is implemented. Once the proposal is released on Wednesday, there will be a 60-day public comment period before the change can go into effect, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>"This proposal is really about trying to remove that barrier of the courts," said Christy Goldfuss, former chair of the CEQ between 2015 and 2017. She added that the Trump proposal would cause lasting damage, as Reuters reported.</p>
<p>Goldfuss said that environmental groups have relied on the courts to follow a requirement created under the Obama administration that forces applications to consider climate impacts. That rule has put a stop to a dozen big polluting projects, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-nepa/trump-to-overhaul-environmental-review-process-dismiss-climate-impacts-sources-idUSKBN1Z50WW" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>If the rule goes through, it will weaken critical safeguards for air, water and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" rel="noopener noreferrer">wildlife</a>. It will also take away a powerful tool that environmental activists have employed to slow down or put a stop to coal and oil expansion, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a> reported. </p>
<p>"It has the potential to distort infrastructure planning by making it easier to ignore predictable futures that could severely degrade the projects," said Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/climate/trump-nepa-climate-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a>. He added that not only will it lead to more pipelines and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, it will also lead put new roads and bridges at risk since sea-level rise will not be considered. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump Penalizes Migrants Fleeing Climate Crisis He Ignores ... ›
- California Burns Because of the Climate Crisis While Trump ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Watchdog: White House Blocked Part of Truck Pollution Investigation, Caused Lack of Public Information
06 December 2019
Health + Wellness
Semi trucks travel along I94 on June 21 near Lake forest, Illinois. Scott Olson / Getty Images
The Trump administration pushed through an exemption to clean air rules, effectively freeing heavy polluting, super-cargo trucks from following clean air rules. It rushed the rule without conducting a federally mandated study on how it would impact public health, especially children, said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Inspector General Charles J. Sheehan in a report released yesterday, as the AP reported.
<div id="78247" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="HPS6BR1576661032"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1202644393267793922" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Scathing @EPAoig report: "EPA Failed to Develop Required
Cost and Benefit Analyses and to Assess Air Quality Impact… https://t.co/sBXXN5QwZr</div> — John Walke (@John Walke)<a href="https://twitter.com/JohnDWalke/statuses/1202644393267793922">1575567742.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The gift to the trucking and fuel industry was one of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Scott-Pruitt" target="_self">Scott Pruitt</a>'s last acts as EPA Administrator before he resigned under a cloud of ethics violations in July 2018. He was alleged to have used tax payer money for first-class travel, a security detail that surrounded him 24 hours per day, an inexpensive lease in a lobbyist's apartment, and secretive meetings with executives from the fossil fuel industry, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/pruitt-epa-glider-trucks/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>The EPA inspector general not only faulted the EPA for failing to conduct a mandatory study into <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a> and how it affects children's health, but also the White House budget office for failing to provide requested information, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/pruitt-epa-glider-trucks/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>"The lack of analyses caused the public to not be informed of the proposed rule's benefits, costs, potential alternatives and impacts on children's health during the public comment period," the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/_epaoig_20191205-20-p-0047.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> reads.</p><p>The office "refused to provide ... specific responses or documentation," the inspector general said Thursday, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/pruitt-epa-glider-trucks/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. The office claimed that the information was "particularly sensitive."</p>
<p>"Such actions call into question the quality of EPA rulemaking processes and leave the public and stakeholders without the information necessary to make informed comments on EPA regulatory actions," the inspector general's <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/_epaoig_20191205-20-p-0047.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> warned, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/2c8b935888b013784f26f2266566554d" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p><p>The rule in question pertains to "glider trucks," which are trucks with older engines that do not meet current air pollution rules, but were set to impose emissions standards and production limits in January 2018. Glider trucks are a booming sector of the cargo industry, in which an older diesel engine is refitted with a new big rig body. Emission tests show that glider trucks are far more damaging to people's health than trucks with newer engines, emitting up to several hundred times the amount of certain pollutions, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/2c8b935888b013784f26f2266566554d" target="_blank">AP</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/climate/wheeler-pruitt-glider-truck-reversal.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> reported that EPA scientists found that these older diesel engines can emit up to 55 times more soot than newer trucks.</p><p>The rush to pass the Glider Repeal Rule came after Pruitt met with several executives from Fitzgerald Glider Kits, the largest maker of gliders. Following, the executives welcomed Donald Trump to one of their plants during the 2016 campaign, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/2c8b935888b013784f26f2266566554d" target="_blank">AP</a> reported.</p>
<p>The EPA watchdog found in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/_epaoig_20191205-20-p-0047.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> that "Administrator Pruitt directed that the Glider Repeal Rule be promulgated as quickly as possible," without conducting the necessary studies required to implement the rule.</p>
<p>Two years ago, an EPA official wrote in an email that the Glider Repeal Rule did not "attempt to provide any of the cost/benefit type analysis" typically required for rules that are considered economically significant, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/pruitt-epa-glider-trucks/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p>
<p>"It is my understanding that such analysis (and data) does not exist; that such analysis will not be produced in the timeframe in which we are working; and that, in any event, if such analysis were ever to be produced, it would most likely not be as 'supportive' of the proposal as OMB and others might like," reads the email.</p>
<p>The inspector general wrote that the agency should return to square one. </p>
<p>"We recommend that the agency identify for the public the substantive change to the proposed rule made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, conduct the required analyses prior to finalizing the repeal, provide the public a means to comment on the analyses supporting the rulemaking, and document the decisions made," the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-12/documents/_epaoig_20191205-20-p-0047.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> says.</p>
<p>The two Democratic lawmakers who requested the inspector-general's review, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware and Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, said the report showed "the troubling extent to which the Trump EPA went to break the law and abuse the regulatory process in order to benefit individual political benefactors from the glider truck industry," according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/2c8b935888b013784f26f2266566554d" target="_blank">AP</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- EPA Dissolves Program That Studies Effects of Chemical Exposure ... ›
- 'Every Child Born Today Will Be Profoundly Affected by Climate ... ›
- Study Links Air Pollution and Teenage Psychotic Experiences ... ›
- Mapping the US Counties Where Traffic Air Pollution Hurts Children ›
- Even Small Spikes in Air Pollution Can Threaten Children's Mental ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Traffic leaves and enters Bristol, which could become the UK's first city to ban diesel vehicles to boost air quality. Ben Birchall / PA Images / Getty Images
Bristol moved one step closer Tuesday to becoming the first city in the UK to ban diesel cars from its city center in an effort to tackle deadly air pollution, BBC News reported.
<p>The ban, which would prohibit private diesel vehicles from entering the city center between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., was approved by the Bristol City Council Tuesday. If it is approved by the government, it would go into effect by 2021.</p>
<div id="b5b45" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KZ1QOS1576661189"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1191783075807674368" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Cabinet has approved the Outline Business Case for our Clean Air Zone plans this evening. For more information visi… https://t.co/H0y1zgghoH</div> — Bristol City Council (@Bristol City Council)<a href="https://twitter.com/BristolCouncil/statuses/1191783075807674368">1572978202.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"It's hard to overstate how significant a policy intervention this is," BBC Radio Bristol politics reporter Pete Simson said. "This is a first, no other UK city is introducing an outright diesel ban, and it will require the government to introduce new legislation."</p><p>Air pollution in Bristol kills around 300 people a year, <a href="https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristols-controversial-clean-air-plans-3505457" target="_blank">Bristol Live reported</a>, and the city is under a legal obligation to lower its high levels of toxic nitrogen dioxide as quickly as possible to below legal limits. Because of this, efforts to clean the city's air have wide support, but some have raised concerns about the plan's impact on low-income residents.</p><p>The plan will ban private vehicles from the center, but allow taxis and emergency vehicles. Private vehicles will have to pay a fine if they drive into the restricted area, and commercial vehicles will need to pay a fee to access it, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/bristol-becomes-first-uk-city-ban-diesel-cars?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco&fbclid=IwAR2mkGVhtlWRM4LGAeWT2r-eHJtnFMXj6cv1cyE8UDN4zgoRcl66GOtLmvE" target="_blank">The Guardian explained</a>. However, details concerning the amount of fines and which vehicles may be exempt have not been finalized by the "business proposal" passed Tuesday.</p>
<p>The plan would also establish a wider Clean Air Zone (CAZ) according to BBC News. Private vehicles would be allowed to enter this zone free of charge, and diesel trucks, vans, taxis and busses that paid to enter the CAZ could then also enter the more restricted area.</p><p>The plans will be enforced by a license plate recognition system similar to the one used in London for its congestion charge.</p><p>Officials called the combined ban and CAZ a "hybrid" plan, and Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees said it was the "quickest route" to meeting legal requirements and to "tak[ing] care of people on the lowest incomes," according to Bristol Live.</p><p>Bristol isn't the only city in the UK that struggles with air pollution, The Guardian noted. It is one of 36 out of 43 local governments in England and Wales where nitrogen dioxide levels exceed legal limits. UK-wide, nitrogen dioxide leads to around 23,500 early deaths every year. If other sources of air pollution are taken into account, the number rises to 40,000 early UK deaths.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- UK Achieves First Coal-Free Week Since Industrial Revolution ... ›
- England to Ban Sale of Plastic Straws, Stirrers and Cotton Buds by ... ›
- Why the UK Is Wary of American 'Chlorinated Chicken' - EcoWatch ›
- UK Parliament First in World to Declare Climate Emergency ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Paradise Fossil Plant in Kentucky. Coal-fired power plants are a major source of air pollution. TVA / GPA Photo Archive / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
Tweeting that the U.S. has the cleanest air in the world does not make it so. Not only do we rank 10th, but a new study says that after steady improvement during the Obama-era, air pollution has gotten worse while Donald Trump has been president.
<p>The <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w26381" target="_blank">report</a> issued by the <a href="https://www.nber.org/" target="_blank">National Bureau of Economic Research</a> found that fine particle air pollution, known as PM2.5, dropped by 24.2 percent from 2009 to 2016. However, in the following two years, it increased an average of 5.5 percent each year. PM2.5 is particularly concerning because its microscopic size means it can easily enter the respiratory tract and be absorbed into the blood stream.</p>
<div id="b9711" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="SEW5UD1576661261"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1186320822236925952" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NEW: Recent increases in air pollution are estimated to have killed 9,700 Americans in 2018. (The relevant pollutan… https://t.co/Dp1zqDDB4v</div> — Cass Sunstein (@Cass Sunstein)<a href="https://twitter.com/CassSunstein/statuses/1186320822236925952">1571675899.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"The health implications of this increase in PM2.5 between 2016 and 2018 are significant," the <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w26381" target="_blank">study's abstract</a> says. "The increase was associated with 9,700 additional premature deaths in 2018. At conventional valuations, these deaths represent damages of $89 billion."</p><p>The trend toward cleaner air that has now been reversed has several causes, including deregulation of industry, loosening of the Clean Air Act and an increase in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="_self">wildfires</a>. Two economists from Carnegie Mellon University, Karen Clay and Nicholas Muller, performed the study.</p><p>The growth of the U.S. economy coupled with looser regulations has led to an increase in diesel powered trucks and other polluting-emitting vehicles on the roads, as well as boosted manufacturers' carbon emissions, Clay and Muller wrote, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/increased-economic-activity-wildfires-coincide-with-deadly-decline-in-u-s-air-quality/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported.</p><p>"The chemical composition of particulates point to increased use of natural gas and to vehicle miles traveled as likely contributors to the increase" in pollution, the economists wrote, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/increased-economic-activity-wildfires-coincide-with-deadly-decline-in-u-s-air-quality/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported. "We conclude that the effect is due to diesel vehicles as well as some industrial boilers."</p>
<p>Fine particles are worrying since they easily <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4740125/" target="_blank">cause lung damage</a>, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/113/39/10797" target="_blank">collect in the brain</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26963193" target="_blank">send people to the emergency room</a>, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/air-pollution-is-getting-worse-data-show-more-people-are-dying/" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>. The data shows that airborne particles have an association with dementia and cognitive decline. These effects often occur at levels far below the current regulatory threshold.</p><p>The increases in particulate matter were particularly high in the west, especially in California. The authors noted that California experienced a large increase in particulate matter since a large segment of the population was exposed to wildfires and vehicular pollution and the state represented "a large share of the increase in premature mortality," as the non-profit <a href="https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/10/22/new-report-says-air-quality-in-u-s-especially-in-california-is-getting-worse/" target="_blank">StreetsBlog</a> reported.</p><p>"Because of these large increases and the large exposed population in California, we find that nearly 43% of the increase in deaths nationally from 2016 to 2018 occurred in California," the study authors said, as <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/increased-economic-activity-wildfires-coincide-with-deadly-decline-in-u-s-air-quality/" target="_blank">CBS News</a> reported.</p><p>However, it is a mistake to point to the spate of wildfires as the culprit. The economists ran the numbers without the devastating fires that engulfed California last November and they found the wildfires do not account for the general decline in air quality and the reversal of the trend in air pollution, according to the Cal <a href="https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/10/22/new-report-says-air-quality-in-u-s-especially-in-california-is-getting-worse/" target="_blank">StreetsBlog</a>.</p><p>The decline in the demand for coal has helped, but it has not been enough to offset the rise in emissions from increased use of natural gas, people driving more, and an increase in trucks crisscrossing the country and idling on city streets, according to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/air-pollution-is-getting-worse-data-show-more-people-are-dying/" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>.</p><p>The study authors say that since our growing understanding of air particulate matter's deleterious effects on human health that the recent wave of rollbacks on environmental regulations is particularly concerning in light of the reversing trend in air quality since 2016, as the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/air-pollution-is-getting-worse-data-show-more-people-are-dying/" target="_blank">Washington Post reported</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Air Pollution Caused 400,000 Early EU Deaths in 2016, Study Finds ... ›
- New Study Links Air Pollution to Dementia - EcoWatch ›
- Even Small Spikes in Air Pollution Can Threaten Children's Mental ... ›
- Air Pollution Reaches the Placenta During Pregnancy, New Study ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Disbanded Air Pollution Panel Finds EPA Standards Don’t Protect Public Health
22 October 2019
Insights + Opinion
By Gretchen Goldman
The Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel has released their consensus recommendations to the EPA administrator on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. The group of 20 independent experts, that were disbanded by Administrator Wheeler last October and reconvened last week, hosted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, has now made clear that the current particulate pollution standards don't protect public health and welfare.
<p>The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) — the remaining seven-person committee that is providing science advice to the EPA on the particulate matter standards — <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/49FAF8892AD2D38285258473006D1F4A?OpenDocument" target="_blank">meets this week</a> to discuss their recommendations on whether the current standards are adequate. The letter from the Independent Panel will be the elephant in the room.</p>
<p><em>Gretchen Goldman is the research director at the Center for Science and Democracy.</em><br/></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/particulate-matter-science-experts" rel="noopener noreferrer">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>
The Elephant in the CASAC Meeting
<p>CASAC has already acknowledged that <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/uncharted-territory-the-epas-science-advisors-just-called-out-administrator-wheeler" target="_blank">they don't have the expertise</a> to conduct the review but you know who does? The Independent Panel. The Panel has more than double the experts of CASAC, and importantly, it has multiple experts in each of the necessary scientific disciplines critical to ensure a comprehensive, robust review of the science supporting the standards.</p><p><span style="background-color: initial;">As a result, we should watch whether or not CASAC aligns with the panel in their recommendations on the standards. If CASAC </span>doesn't <span style="background-color: initial;">decide this week to make a similar recommendation as the Independent Panel, they'll have to explain why they disagreed with a larger, more experienced, and more diverse </span><a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/science-and-democracy/pm-panel-meeting-docs/2-ipmrp-biosketches.pdf" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">set of experts</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> on the topic. In any event, the administrator will have access to both CASAC and the </span><a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/science-and-democracy/IPMRP-FINAL-LETTER-ON-DRAFT-PA-191022.pdf" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">Independent Panel's recommendations</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> when he ultimately makes the decision of where to set particulate pollution standards. The panel's recommendations should hold the administrator's feet to the fire.</span></p>The Fine Particulate Matter Standards Don’t Protect Public Health
<p>The standards of greatest interest are the primary PM2.5 standards. These are the standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter) that are designed to protect public health. The panel supported the preliminary conclusions of a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/draft_policy_assessment_for_pm_naaqs_09-05-2019.pdf" target="_blank">Draft EPA Policy Assessment</a> that the current standards aren't requisite to protect public health.</p><p>The letter cited new and consistent epidemiological findings, supported by human and animal studies and other studies with natural experiments, as providing "clear and compelling scientific evidence" for tighter standards. Since the last particulate matter review, several new large-scale epidemiological studies provide powerful evidence that particulate matter is causing adverse health outcomes (such as early death, heart attacks, and respiratory stress) at locations and during time periods with concentrations at or below the level of the current standards.</p><p>They write, "New and compelling evidence that health effects are occurring in areas that already meet or are well below the current standards." Notably, this evidence cuts across different locations with different study populations, different study designs, and different statistical approaches.</p><p>Given the weight of the evidence from new studies across scientific disciplines and consistent with the decision-making process that EPA and its science advisers have used for many years, the panel recommends a particulate matter standard between 8 µg/m3 and 10 µg/m3 for the annual PM2.5 standard (compared to the current standard of 12 µg/m3) and between 25 µg/m3 and 30 µg/m3 for the 24-hour standard (compared to the current standard of 35 µg/m3) to protect public health. These ranges are tighter than those recommended in EPA's Draft Policy Assessment.</p>Keeping the Current Fine Particulate Matter Standards Ignores the Science
<p>The Independent Panel rejected a potential argument for maintaining the current primary PM2.5 standards. The Draft Policy Assessment offered up an alternative rationale that might be used if the agency were to reject the draft assessment's recommendation to strengthen the standards and maintain the current standards. This alternative rationale explains that such a move would require the administrator to be arbitrarily selective in choosing which new studies to accept and which to toss and to disregard new epidemiologic evidence showing effects at lower levels.</p><p>The panel roundly rejected this justification, noting that, "Arguments offered in the draft Policy Assessment for retaining the current standards are not scientifically justified and are specious." This is important because if the administrator fails to strengthen the standards, he'll have to explain (both in court and in the court of public opinion) why he feels such a decision is science-based, as required under the Clean Air Act. And one proposed argument he could use has just been debunked by this expert Panel.</p>Otherwise, the EPA’s Draft Policy Assessment Is Scientifically Sound
<p>While the Independent Panel critiqued some details of the EPA's Draft Policy Assessment, the panel agreed that the draft science and policy assessments were cohesive and robust and the panel commended the "good faith effort" involved in the policy assessment. Specifically, the panel affirmed the use of EPA's causality framework used in the Integrated Science Assessment they reviewed last year and the Policy Assessment's new use of a hybrid modeling technique that allows for better assessment of risk from particulate matter exposure across the country especially in rural areas.</p><p>This diverges from what the seven-member CASAC has said and done around the EPA's assessment of the science and policy. In December, they concluded that the agency's draft science assessment was not a scientific document (it is) and CASAC Chair Dr. Tony Cox has been critical of the agency's causality framework that has been developed with dozens of experts over more than a decade. This view is <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6434/1398" target="_blank">not shared by the scientific community</a>, and now, not shared by the Independent Panel either.</p>Other Particulate Pollution Standards Also May Need Revamping
<p>The Independent Panel decided other particulate standards were also inadequate. On PM10, particulate matter less than 10 micrometers, the panel recommended revising this standard downward given that the PM2.5 component would also be tightened and noted several research and monitoring areas that need further work. On the secondary standards, i.e. the standards designed to protect welfare effects, such as visibility, the panel concluded that the standards should be tightened in order to be more protective.</p>The Panel Condemns the EPA’s Broken Process
<p>The Independent Panel's deliberations, demands for further research, and unanswered questions highlight how <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/wheeler-worsens-particulate-pollution-review-process" target="_blank">broken the EPA process is</a>. In a normal review cycle, the panel would have had the opportunity to talk with agency scientists directly. The EPA staff would then have considered their comments and revised the Integrated Science Assessment in response to the committee and panel's suggestions. But because the administrator disbanded the panel and abbreviated the process, there was no opportunity for such dialogue and refinement of the agency's science assessment before <a href="https://twitter.com/GretchenTG/status/1184207743261036551" target="_blank">policy decisions were discussed</a>. But alas, the panel had to make do with what was available to them and CASAC does too.</p><p>Fortunately for CASAC, an Independent Panel has already done their job, and they are free (and encouraged) to run with it, especially given <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/a-timeline-of-recent-attacks-on-the-epas-science-based-ambient-air-pollution-standards" target="_blank">the long list</a> of ways that EPA Administrator Wheeler has damaged the ambient air pollution review process.</p><p><a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/A2DF51609E3DFC9C85258473006CF120?OpenDocument" target="_blank">Listen</a> and <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/49FAF8892AD2D38285258473006D1F4A?OpenDocument" target="_blank">watch</a> this week as CASAC discusses the same questions that the Independent Panel did last week. If CASAC comes to different conclusions than the larger, more experienced, and more diverse Independent Panel, we should ask why.</p><p>You can raise these questions yourself and demand that the administrator follow the panel's recommendations, by providing written or oral public comments at a <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCalCASAC/A0D0F9D4C6BC36D88525848C00467771?OpenDocument" target="_blank">future CASAC meeting</a> and commenting on the docket for the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/11/2019-19627/release-of-a-draft-document-related-to-the-review-of-the-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for" target="_blank">particulate matter rule-making</a>. I'll be providing public comments this afternoon urging CASAC to follow the advice of the Independent Panel and commenting on the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/a-timeline-of-recent-attacks-on-the-epas-science-based-ambient-air-pollution-standards" target="_blank">EPA's problematic process</a> and drawing attention to that elephant in the room.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Air Pollution Linked to 30,000 U.S. Deaths in One Year - EcoWatch ›
- EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants ... ›
- These Scientists Were Disbanded by the EPA — They Plan to Meet ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Golden Gate Bridge in California. Sasha Kravchenko / Flickr / CC BY-ND 2.0
By Don Anair
The Trump administration has been on a collision course with California, and it appears that collision is imminent. An administrative action to undermine the authority granted to the state by the Clean Air Act to protect its citizens from vehicle pollution appears to be imminent. This illegal attack is not just harmful for the nation's most populous state—it is an attack on the 13 states and the District of Columbia that follow California's lead and, ultimately, the entire country. The American auto industry and the American public will be worse off as a result.
<p>California's laws to reduce <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">pollution</a> from cars and trucks have long been <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/pruitts-epa-attempts-to-undermine-californias-leadership-on-vehicle-standards" target="_blank">a target of the Trump administration</a>. Along the way various officials have given lip service to a commitment to negotiate with California and the desire to maintain a national program. Yet the administration ended the supposed <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-epa-auto-emissions-talks-20190620-story.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">negotiations</a> despite Congress members from their own party <a href="https://debbiedingell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/190625fueleconomy_epa_dot.pdf" target="_blank">telling them to go back</a> to the negotiating table. There may be no surer sign that the administration negotiated with CA in bad faith than a deal that California and several automakers agreed to weeks ago. Fed up with an intransigent administration proposing actions that will undermine their businesses, BMW, Ford, Honda and VW agreed to a <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-cooke/four-automakers-stand-with-california-against-administration-rollback" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">compromise</a> agreement with California.</p><p>So it comes as little surprise that despite opposition from the regulated industry to a roll back and overwhelming public support for more efficient vehicles, the Trump administration is launching a direct attack on California's long held authority to clean up vehicle pollution.</p>
<p><br/></p><h3><br/></h3>
Trump legal strategy = throwing spaghetti at a wall
<p><br>Successfully attacking California's long held legal authority will be no easy task. The Trump administration has struggled to find a compelling argument for why California, and other states that follow it, cannot protect their citizens from vehicle pollution. They've come up with every excuse in the book and then some to claim California can't do what it has done for decades.</p><p>They have claimed that California does not have an immediate and pressing need to reduce global warming emissions, when <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/killer-heat-in-united-states" target="_blank">extreme heat</a>, wildfires, drought, and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise" target="_self">sea level rise</a> prove that California is at the front lines and needs action now.</p><p>They have claimed that eliminating tailpipe pollution via electrification, a critical step in the state's fight against poor air quality, is somehow equivalent to setting fuel economy standards (it's not).</p><p>They have claimed, incomprehensibly, that it is not possible to meet the zero-emission vehicle requirements of the state's standards when manufacturers are both <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/what-will-it-take-for-automakers-to-meet-californias-ev-requirements-not-as-much-as-you-might-think" target="_blank">ahead of schedule</a> and promising even more options.</p>The states will be fighting this in court … and so will we.
<p>State leadership has been critical to protecting the environment, driving innovation in the auto industry, and bringing new clean car technologies to world from catalytic converters to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/electric-vehicles" target="_self">electric vehicles</a>. California's laboratory for clean air technology and policy innovations has not only led to cleaner air across the U.S. but across the globe. American automakers and technology companies have benefited from this leadership by being at the forefront of global automotive trends.</p><p>Fortunately, the Clean Air Act is crystal clear about the unique authority granted to California to be a leader. Unfortunately, this action by the administration will guarantee years of lawsuits and create enormous uncertainty for the industry at a time when the industry is navigating unprecedented technology disruption – from electric drivetrains to self-driving technology.</p><p>The states will be fighting this injustice in court, and we will be joining them in that fight—the stakes are too high to let this administration, not just ignore its responsibilities to protect this country, but to run roughshod over the longstanding environmental laws that are meant to protect us from such reckless behavior.</p><p><em><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/author/don-anair" target="_blank">Don Anair</a>, research and deputy director of the UCS Clean Vehicles Program, is a vehicle engineer and an expert on diesel pollution, advanced vehicle technologies, and alternative fuels.</em></p><p><em>This story was reposted with permission from our media associate </em><u><em><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/06/trump-administration-goes-after-states-protecting-environment" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></u><span></span></p>From Your Site Articles
- 29 States and Cities Sue to Block Trump's 'Dirty Power' Rule ... ›
- Trump's Misleading Speech on His Environmental Record Is a 'True ... ›
- 17 of World's Largest Car Makers Ask Trump for Compromise on ... ›
- States, Cities and Green Groups Sue to Stop Trump Fuel Efficiency Rollback - EcoWatch ›
- California Passes World's First Clean Trucks Rule - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
eflon / Flickr
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the "once-in always-in" policy for the classification of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
As Reuters pointed out, the move on Thursday is "part of President Donald Trump's effort to roll back federal regulations and was sought by utilities, the petroleum industry and others."
<p>
Environmental groups
<a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2018/180125-0" target="_blank">warned</a> the action will "allow hundreds of U.S. industrial facilities to dramatically increase their emissions of the most <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/toxics">toxic</a> air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act."
</p><p>
Under the EPA's new guidance, sources of hazardous air pollutants previously classified as “major" sources, such as
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a>-fired power plants and factories, can be reclassified as "area" sources when the facility limits its emissions below mandated thresholds.
</p><p>
"Area" sources (such as dry cleaners, gas stations, auto body paint shops) are sources that emit less than 10 tons of a single toxic air pollutant or less than 25 tons of multiple toxic air pollutants in any one year. Notably, “area" sources are subject to less strict pollution control standards than "major" sources.
</p><p>
"This guidance is based on a plain language reading of the statute that is in line with EPA's guidance for other provisions of the Clean Air Act," Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, said in a statement.
</p><p>
"It will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants."
</p><p>
The "once-in always-in" policy, established in 1995, states that once a major facility fails to meet certain emission thresholds, it will permanently be required to comply to those standards, even when such a facility makes changes to reduce their pollution levels below the thresholds.
</p><p>
In a memo, the Trump EPA criticized the policy as "a longstanding disincentive for major sources of pollution to implement voluntary pollution abatement and prevention efforts, or to pursue technological innovations that would reduce emissions."
</p><p>
But the
<a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC) called the decision "among the most dangerous actions that the Trump EPA has taken yet against public health" and intends to fight the decision.
</p><p>
"Rolling back longstanding protections to allow the greatest increase in hazardous air pollutants in our nation's history is unconscionable," John Walke, director of a clean air program for the NRDC, said in a statement.
</p><p>
"This move drastically weakens protective limits on air pollutants like arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxins that cause cancer, brain damage, infertility, developmental problems and even death. And those harmed most would be nearby communities already suffering a legacy of pollution. NRDC will fight this terrible decision to unleash toxic pollutants with every available tool."
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Dave Atkinson / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
This Sunday marks the first anniversary of the Women's March that happened on the day after Donald Trump's inauguration—the largest protest march in our nation's history. The Sierra Club was there that day, and we'll be there this year, too—at a significant moment for women's rights and justice.
<p style="">Some people still ask whether "rights and justice for women" qualifies as an "environmental issue." In their minds, the Sierra Club, as an environmental organization, should stick to a prescribed list of issues that are "environmental" and otherwise mind its own business.</p><p style="">I have two responses to this: one specific and one more general. First, women's rights are absolutely an environmental issue. Among our most basic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/human-rights">human rights</a> are the ability to breathe clean air, drink clean water and live in a healthy environment. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/children-toxic-air-pollution-2490195294.html">Toxic pollution</a> and climate disruption threaten those rights for everyone, but the consequences often fall hardest on women. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, for instance, 80 percent of those left behind in the Lower Ninth Ward were women. For women, exposure to toxic pollution, the risk of sexual violence and the denial of basic reproductive healthcare are not discrete threats; they are a knotted pattern of injustice that must be disentangled and eradicated.</p><p>The more general problem, though, is this notion of "issues." Yes, the Sierra Club tackles social justice and environmental issues, but our work would be meaningless if it were not motivated by something deeper: values.</p><p>Our values are fairly simple. We believe in justice, equality and opportunity for all people. We reject violence and hatred. It's our values that mandate our support of the Women's March. It's our values that demand racial justice. It's our values that tell us we must defend the rights of immigrants and help communities that have been devastated by fossil fuel pollution. As school children recite each morning in their pledge to the flag: "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."</p><p>It's clear that many of our opponents neither share nor respect the same values we do. Attacking women's rights, denying healthcare to millions, cold-heartedly expelling Dreamers and refusing refugees, ignoring climate science, turning their backs on the world, tearing down protections for people and for places—those actions speak to what they do esteem: privilege, self-interest, ignorance and greed.</p><p>When the marching begins this Saturday, the Sierra Club will be there in solidarity with women and everyone else who has come under attack during the past year. We care passionately about clean air, clean water, clean energy, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-lands">public lands</a> and gender equity, because the same basic values underlie them all. It's when all of us who share those values come together that we can make positive change happen.</p><p style="">To find the location of the march nearest you, visit the <a href="http://www.powertothepolls.com/anniversary.html" target="_blank">Women's March Anniversary Map</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less