So Trump meets Alaska's governor in his airplane and agrees to push through a goldmine that had been stopped b/c it will devastate salmon habitat. This at a time that orcas are already starving death. Salmon carry entire ecosystems on their backs. Gold over life, literally. https://t.co/QcT2UosP0g
— Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) August 9, 2019
Based on reporting by CNN that only emerged Friday evening, the key developments happened weeks ago after Trump's one-on-one meeting with Dunleavy — who has supported the copper and gold Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay despite the opposition of conservationists, Indigenous groups, salmon fisheries experts, and others.
The EPA told staff scientists that it was no longer opposing a controversial Alaska mining project that could devastate one of the world's most valuable wild salmon fisheries, just one day after President Trump met with Alaska's governor, CNN has learned https://t.co/vJmjAYfSw4 pic.twitter.com/TFGjPxSeAR
— CNN (@CNN) August 9, 2019
CNN reports:
In 2014, the project was halted because an EPA study found that it would cause "complete loss of fish habitat due to elimination, dewatering, and fragmentation of streams, wetlands, and other aquatic resources" in some areas of Bristol Bay. The agency invoked a rarely used provision of the Clean Water Act that works like a veto, effectively banning mining on the site.
"If that mine gets put in, it would ... completely devastate our region," Gayla Hoseth, second chief of the Curyung Tribal Council and a Bristol Bay Native Association director, told CNN. "It would not only kill our resources, but it would kill us culturally."
EPA just lifted a restriction blocking #PebbleMine — which would decimate 3,500+ acres of Alaskan wetlands
— Friends of the Earth (@foe_us) August 5, 2019
"Yet again, the agency charged with protecting our public health and environment is abandoning science to advance the interests of a wealthy few."https://t.co/8aCOe63eCq
When the internal announcement was made by Trump political appointees that the agency was dropping its opposition, which came one day after the Trump-Dunleavy meeting, sources told CNN it came as a "total shock" to some of the top EPA scientists who were planning to oppose the project on environmental grounds. Sources for the story, the news outlet noted, "asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution."
According to CNN:
Four EPA sources with knowledge of the decision told CNN that senior agency officials in Washington summoned scientists and other staffers to an internal videoconference on June 27, the day after the Trump-Dunleavy meeting, to inform them of the agency's reversal. The details of that meeting are not on any official EPA calendar and have not previously been reported.
Those sources said the decision disregards the standard assessment process under the Clean Water Act, cutting scientists out of the process.
The EPA's new position on the project is the latest development in a decade-long battle that has pitted environmentalists, Alaskan Natives and the fishing industry against pro-mining interests in Alaska.
Responding to Klein's tweet, fellow author and activist Bill McKibben — long a colleague of hers at 350.org — expressed similar contempt.
"This is one of the world's most beautiful places, with a thriving salmon run, and now we'll get some ... gold," McKibben tweeted. Trump, he added, is "President Midas."
It’s all so tragic, and criminal. https://t.co/SB02V25G9P
— Bonnie Bates (@bonniebates51) August 10, 2019
After being told that the decision was made, one EPA inside told CNN, "I was dumbfounded. We were basically told we weren't going to examine anything. We were told to get out of the way and just make it happen."
Pebble Mine Threatens One of the Last Great Salmon Rivers https://t.co/QAlbSueeAC @NRDC @DavidSuzukiFDN @ClimateReality @GreenpeaceCA
— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) March 2, 2018
Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.
- EPA Likely to Approve Mine That Threatens Alaska's Largest Salmon Hatchery - EcoWatch ›
- Clean Water Act Rollback: Trump's EPA Limits States’ and Tribes’ Rights to Block Pipelines - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Admin Reverses Obama-Era Restrictions on Pebble Mine Near Alaska's Largest Salmon Nursery - EcoWatch ›
Eye-Catching Designs Made from Recycled Plastic Bottles
The company sells a range of eco-friendly items like leggings, rash guards, and board shorts that are made using recycled post-consumer plastic bottles. There are currently 16 causes represented by distinct marine-life patterns, from whale shark research and invasive lionfish removal to sockeye salmon monitoring and abalone restoration.
One such organization is Get Inspired, a nonprofit that specializes in ocean restoration and environmental education. Get Inspired founder, marine biologist Nancy Caruso, says supporting on-the-ground efforts is one thing that sets Waterlust apart, like their apparel line that supports Get Inspired abalone restoration programs.
"All of us [conservation partners] are doing something," Caruso said. "We're not putting up exhibits and talking about it — although that is important — we're in the field."
Waterlust not only helps its conservation partners financially so they can continue their important work. It also helps them get the word out about what they're doing, whether that's through social media spotlights, photo and video projects, or the informative note card that comes with each piece of apparel.
"They're doing their part for sure, pushing the information out across all of their channels, and I think that's what makes them so interesting," Caruso said.
And then there are the clothes, which speak for themselves.
Advocate Apparel to Start Conversations About Conservation
Waterlust's concept of "advocate apparel" encourages people to see getting dressed every day as an opportunity to not only express their individuality and style, but also to advance the conversation around marine science. By infusing science into clothing, people can visually represent species and ecosystems in need of advocacy — something that, more often than not, leads to a teaching moment.
"When people wear Waterlust gear, it's just a matter of time before somebody asks them about the bright, funky designs," said Waterlust's CEO, Patrick Rynne. "That moment is incredibly special, because it creates an intimate opportunity for the wearer to share what they've learned with another."
The idea for the company came to Rynne when he was a Ph.D. student in marine science.
"I was surrounded by incredible people that were discovering fascinating things but noticed that often their work wasn't reaching the general public in creative and engaging ways," he said. "That seemed like a missed opportunity with big implications."
Waterlust initially focused on conventional media, like film and photography, to promote ocean science, but the team quickly realized engagement on social media didn't translate to action or even knowledge sharing offscreen.
Rynne also saw the "in one ear, out the other" issue in the classroom — if students didn't repeatedly engage with the topics they learned, they'd quickly forget them.
"We decided that if we truly wanted to achieve our goal of bringing science into people's lives and have it stick, it would need to be through a process that is frequently repeated, fun, and functional," Rynne said. "That's when we thought about clothing."
Support Marine Research and Sustainability in Style
To date, Waterlust has sold tens of thousands of pieces of apparel in over 100 countries, and the interactions its products have sparked have had clear implications for furthering science communication.
For Caruso alone, it's led to opportunities to share her abalone restoration methods with communities far and wide.
"It moves my small little world of what I'm doing here in Orange County, California, across the entire globe," she said. "That's one of the beautiful things about our partnership."
Check out all of the different eco-conscious apparel options available from Waterlust to help promote ocean conservation.
Melissa Smith is an avid writer, scuba diver, backpacker, and all-around outdoor enthusiast. She graduated from the University of Florida with degrees in journalism and sustainable studies. Before joining EcoWatch, Melissa worked as the managing editor of Scuba Diving magazine and the communications manager of The Ocean Agency, a non-profit that's featured in the Emmy award-winning documentary Chasing Coral.
Last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally announced the administration's plan to amend Obama-era vehicle standards for model years 2021 through 2026.
Described by critics as "a disastrous wreck for consumers and the planet," the so-called Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule would freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for automakers at 2020 levels. As Common Dreams reported last week, "the Trump administration's new proposal would also revoke the power of states — most prominently California — to establish their own more stringent fuel efficiency rules."
The Consumer Reports study out Wednesday, Bloomberg noted, "undermines the administration's chief talking points in favor of the move."
"The facts don't back this rule's Orwellian name," David Friedman, vice president of advocacy at Consumer Reports, said in a statement. "The evidence shows that lowering fuel economy and emissions standards won't do anything to improve traffic safety, but it will leave Americans stuck with the bill."
"Instead of making a data-driven decision, the agencies instead seem to have been given a predetermined outcome and tried to make the numbers back it," said Friedman. "They don't."
The Consumer Reports study — titled The Un-SAFE Rule: How a Fuel Economy Rollback Costs Americans Billions in Fuel Savings and Does Not Improve Safety — concludes that the administration's rollback would have sweeping negative consequences.
The group outlines those consequences in a summary for policymakers, detailing how the plan "would result in significant setbacks compared to the current standard in three major categories: (1) increased overall oil consumption and fuel costs for consumers, (2) higher vehicle ownership costs (net present value) for consumers, especially SUV and pickup truck owners, and (3) lower auto sales for automakers and dealers. Further, a rollback could harm, but certainly would not improve, highway safety, contrary to the misleading 'SAFE Rule' title used for the proposal."
A chart from the summary document details the anticipated impacts of four rollback scenarios as well as a plan to strengthen fuel economy standards:
"Whether it's a complete freeze or a partial rollback, weakening Clean Cars standards costs Americans money and increases pollution," said study co-author Shannon Baker-Branstetter, manager of cars and energy policy at Consumer Reports.
"The last thing the federal government should be doing is burdening consumers with more costs, while thwarting progress in the development of cleaner cars," she said.
In terms of the planetary impact, the group's researchers found that "the rollback would increase oil consumption by 320 billion gallons, the equivalent to 20 percent of the country's proven oil reserves," and "increase greenhouse gas emissions by nearly three gigatonnes of CO2, equivalent to almost two years of current emissions from the entire transportation sector."
Under existing federal vehicle standards, consumers are set to save $660 billion — but $460 billion of that savings would be lost over the lifetime of the vehicles if the Trump rollback goes though, according to Consumer Reports. About half of the costs would impact used vehicle buyers and more than 70 percent would fall on light truck drivers.
The summary document further warns that "weakening fuel-economy standards does not improve highway safety and may in fact slightly diminish it," though it acknowledges the projected increase in fatalities is statistically small in terms of annual figures and the rollback's impact on safety "is likely to be difficult to discern from other, more significant factors."
Additionally, Consumer Reports found that the auto industry would be harmed by the rollback, seeing a decrease in sales by more than two million vehicles between model years 2021 and 2035.
Outlining how the industry has responded to the Trump administration's recent moves, Bloomberg reported:
Carmakers have pleaded with administration officials to restart negotiations with California over the standards, arguing the changes could lead to years of uncertainty and a split market, with federal mileage requirements governing most states and California-backed rules applying in states that account for more than a third of U.S. auto sales.
Four major automakers last month said they had reached a compromise with California to voluntarily boost fuel efficiency, a move seen aimed at pressuring the administration to shift course.
Another analysis on the Trump administration's proposed rollback, released Wednesday by the environmental policy group Energy Innovation, found that the plan "would damage the U.S.economy, costing up to $400 billion (real 2018 U.S. dollars, discounted at three percent annually) through 2050 and increasing transportation emissions by up to 10 percent in the year of maximum impact."
With the administration's proposal, the Energy Innovation report concluded, "the only winners are the oil companies, who stand to sell more gasoline at the expense of American consumers, manufacturers, and the environment."
4 Automakers Strike Emissions Deal With California, Steering Clear From Trump's Pro-Pollution Agenda https://t.co/NzX9pmmUa1
— The Progressive (@1Progressivism) July 28, 2019
Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.