The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved two Lysol products as the first to effectively kill the novel coronavirus on surfaces, based on laboratory testing. Paul Hennessy / NurPhoto via Getty Images
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a list of 431 products that are effective at killing viruses when they are on surfaces. Now, a good year for Lysol manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser just got better when the EPA said that two Lysol products are among the products that can kill the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
<p>The two products are Lysol Disinfectant Spray and Lysol Disinfectant Max Cover Mist. In a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-approves-first-surface-disinfectant-products-tested-sars-cov-2-virus" target="_blank">press release</a>, the agency said that the two products were both successful in laboratory testing at preventing the spread of the virus.</p><p>While there are 431 products on the EPA's list of disinfectants that are strong enough to stave off "harder-to-kill" viruses than the novel coronavirus, the two Lysol products are the first to be tested directly against the virus behind the global pandemic and be proven effective, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/health/epa-lysol-disinfectant-covid-19-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>While the EPA plans to test more products against the coronavirus specifically, it has so far only approved the two Lysol products as effective at removing the virus from surfaces.</p>
<p>That doesn't mean you just spray the disinfectant, wipe it away, and the virus is gone. The tests showed it was effective after two minutes, which means spraying it, leaving it, and then vigorously scrubbing are important steps to ensuring the sprays remove the coronavirus.</p><p>Reckitt Benckiser has already seen its profits rise more than 13 percent in the first half of the year as individuals and businesses have prioritized sanitizing surfaces, as <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/07/07/lysol-products-kill-coronavirus-on-surfaces-epa-testing-shows/#19a7571a242f" target="_blank">Forbes</a> reported. The company also made headlines in April when it had to disavow President <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_self">Trump</a>'s claim that a disinfectant inside the body could knock out the virus in one minute.</p><p>"We must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route)," the company said in <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/media-erupt-over-trump-comments-on-disinfectant-heres-what-he-said" target="_blank" title="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/media-erupt-over-trump-comments-on-disinfectant-heres-what-he-said">statement</a> at the time, as Forbes reported.</p>
<p>Now, the company has the distinct advantage of being allowed to advertise on its label that it can kill the novel coronavirus, which is technically named SARS-CoV-2. Before any product can legally advertise that it can kill a particular pathogen, the claim must be authorized by the EPA, according to <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-two-lysol-products-effectively-kill-coronavirus-on-surfaces-epa-20200707-cokk42xibzh7pmeqp35wcnyewm-story.html" target="_blank">The New York Daily News</a>.</p><p>"In the face of the pandemic, Lysol continues to work with a wide range of scientific and health experts to educate the public on the importance of hygiene," said Rahul Kadyan, executive vice president of Reckitt Benckiser in North America, as CNN reported.</p><p>"Hygiene is both the foundation of health and essential in preventing the spread of illness causing germs," said Kadyan <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/epa-approves-lysol-disinfectant-spray-for-use-against-covid-19-301088721.html" target="_blank">in a statement</a>. "The EPA's approval recognizes that using Lysol Disinfectant Spray can help to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on hard, non-porous surfaces."</p>
<p>According to the press release, Lysol is currently testing other products to measure their efficacy against the coronavirus.</p><p>Other common products on the EPA's disinfectant list include the Scrubbing Bubbles Multi-Purpose Disinfectant, Clorox Bleach Blanqueador and Arm & Hammer Essentials Disinfecting Wipes, though none of them have been tested against the novel coronavirus, as the <a href="https://www.today.com/health/two-lysol-sprays-first-disinfectants-proven-work-against-covid-19-t186106" target="_blank">Today Show</a> reported.</p><p>Along with wiping down surfaces, the CDC continues to ask the public to practice social distancing, wear protective face coverings in public, and wash hands thoroughly and often in order to effectively prevent the spread of COVID-19, as <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/epa-approves-1st-disinfectant-sprays-kill-covid-19/story?id=71647880" target="_blank">ABC News</a> reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Here's How to Clean Your Groceries During the COVID-19 Outbreak ... ›
- EPA Warns Against Fake Coronavirus Cleaners - EcoWatch ›
- What to Do if There's a Disinfectant Shortage in Your Area - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A small boy drinks from a public drinking fountain in the historic Plaza in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Robert Alexander / Getty Images
By Eoin Higgins
President Donald Trump's EPA on Thursday finalized a rule to roll back regulations of a chemical found in rocket fuel that can cause brain damage in infants.
<p>"Today's decision is illegal, unscientific, and unconscionable," Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) senior strategic director for Health Erik D. Olson <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200618-0" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement. </p>
<p>The decision to deregulate perchlorate in public drinking water was a long time coming and the source of heavy pushback from environmental groups and Democrats. Regulation of the chemical was a carryover from former President Barack Obama's administration.</p>
<div id="f59f4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1b9b2e96a5ac76ace862531819898cf8"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1273692432237019136" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Trump administration finalizes a decision not to impose any limits on perchlorate, a toxic chemical found in rocket… https://t.co/cOgYbpyrW1</div> — Hiroko Tabuchi (@Hiroko Tabuchi)<a href="https://twitter.com/HirokoTabuchi/statuses/1273692432237019136">1592506914.0</a></blockquote></div><p>EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler made the announcement Thursday, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-wont-regulate-rocket-fuel-additive-perchlorate-11592470801" target="_blank">saying</a> the move "fulfills President Trump's promise to pare back burdensome 'one-size-fits-all' overregulation for the American people."</p><p>But, as the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/66438a1121f70d85f324a0e3770a0078" target="_blank" style="">noted</a>, the chemical's danger should not be underestimated to the 16 million Americans under threat of having the contaminant in their drinking water.</p><p>According to AP:</p><blockquote>Perchlorate can damage the development of fetuses and children and cause measurable drops in IQ in newborns, the American Academy of Pediatrics said last August in urging the "strongest possible" federal limits. Studies cited by the doctors' group included one showing that 9 out of 13 breastfeeding infants were ingesting significant levels of the chemical.<br></blockquote><p>The decision came one day before the deadline for the EPA to issue a regulation on the chemical as <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/no-nationwide-drinking-water-standards-for-perchlorate-epa-says" target="_blank">instructed</a> in a 2016 consent decree with the NRDC. Olson expressed frustration with Wheeler's move to deregulate rather than increase controls on perchlorate.</p>
<p>"The Environmental Protection Agency is threatening the health of pregnant moms and young children with toxic chemicals in their drinking water at levels that literally can cause loss of IQ points," said Olson. "Is this what the Environmental Protection Agency has come to?"</p><p>The NRDC plans to challenge the order in court, claiming the consent decree did not allow for deregulating the chemical. </p>
<div id="f95b6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="00ec82f80518f1a4824585b655ce8b51"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1273702483416604672" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">@EPA's decision to not set drinking water standards for perchlorate will land the agency in court, @NRDC warns the… https://t.co/B1vbHnF6np</div> — Amena H. Saiyid آمنہ سیّد (@Amena H. Saiyid آمنہ سیّد)<a href="https://twitter.com/amenasaiyid/statuses/1273702483416604672">1592509310.0</a></blockquote></div><p>In a statement Thursday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, <a href="https://www.carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?id=B5CA8F16-15D1-4724-AF89-D73D10CA3181" target="_blank">said</a> he agreed with the NRDC. </p><p>"EPA has abdicated its responsibility to set federal drinking water standards for a chemical long known to be unsafe, instead leaving it up to states to decide whether or not to protect people from it," said Carper. </p><p>"Even though EPA previously determined that this dangerous chemical needed to be regulated, the agency has now decided to ignore science that it finds inconvenient and reverse its earlier finding," Carper continued. "This is an all too common and disturbing pattern of action for this EPA."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/18/illegal-unscientific-and-unconscionable-despite-risk-brain-damage-infants-trump-epa" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><em></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump EPA Won't Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That ... ›
- EPA's Proposal for Limiting Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water Is ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Weeds dying in a soybean field impacted by dicamba spraying. JJ Gouin / iStock / Getty Images
A federal court overturned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of dicamba Wednesday, meaning the controversial herbicide can no longer be sprayed in the U.S.
<p>The product, originally designed by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a>, is opposed by some farmers and environmental groups because it can drift when sprayed, damaging <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" target="_self">wildlife</a> and other crops.</p><p>"Today's decision is a massive win for farmers and the environment. It is good to be reminded that corporations like Monsanto and the Trump Administration cannot escape the rule of law, particularly at a time of crisis like this," lead counsel George Kimbrell of the <a href="http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=10186" target="_blank">Center for Food Safety</a> told <a href="https://usrtk.org/pesticides/court-orders-epa-approvals-of-bayer-dicamba-herbicide-vacated-says-regulator-understated-the-risks/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know</a>. "Their day of reckoning has arrived."</p>
<p>The Center for Food Safety sued the EPA together with <a href="https://nffc.net/" target="_blank">National Family Farm Coalition</a>, <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> and <a href="http://www.panna.org/" target="_blank">Pesticide Action Network North America</a>. The groups argued that the EPA broke the law when it ruled on the safety of a kind of dicamba designed by Monsanto to be sprayed widely over crops genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide. This method means the dicamba can drift to other, non-resistant crops.</p><p>The herbicide is believed to have damaged 3.6 million acres of soybeans in 2017, and more than 1 million in 2018, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/bayer-s-dicamba-registration-pulled-by-court-on-herbicide-s-risk" target="_blank">Bloomberg News reported</a>.</p><p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the EPA "substantially understated the risks" of the herbicides and also "failed entirely to acknowledge other risks," according to U.S. Right to Know.</p>
<div id="35797" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="77896b9baa08d7fa5905f98e506d5e7f"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1268328882094116872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The court found @EPA refused to estimate the
amount of dicamba damage, characterizing such damage as “potential” an… https://t.co/ev2bah3opD</div> — carey gillam (@carey gillam)<a href="https://twitter.com/careygillam/statuses/1268328882094116872">1591228144.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>One of the risks the EPA failed to acknowledge was the "enormous social cost to farming communities" where the herbicide's use "has turned farmer against farmer, and neighbor against neighbor," the court wrote, according to Bloomberg. A farmer was shot and killed because of a dicamba-related argument in Arkansas in 2016.</p><p>The ruling impacts the dicamba-based herbicide sold by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bayer" target="_self">Bayer</a>, which acquired Monsanto in 2018. It also prohibits the use of BASF's Engenia and Corteva Agriscience's FeXapan, <a href="https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN23B0JA" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>.</p><p>Bayer told Reuters that the ruling impacted a 2018 EPA approval that expires in December and that it is currently at work on a new 2021 approval.</p><p>"Depending upon actions by the EPA and whether the ruling is successfully challenged, we will work quickly to minimize any impact on our customers this season," Bayer said.</p>
<p>The ruling comes around four months after a jury ruled against Bayer and BASF and in favor of a Missouri farmer who said the companies' dicamba products destroyed his peach orchard, according to Bloomberg.</p><p>That was the first of around 140 pending dicamba suits awaiting trial.</p><p>The dicamba suits are not the only suits Bayer inherited when it acquired Monsanto, Reuters pointed out. Wednesday's dicamba decision came days after arguments were heard in an appeal of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/jury-finds-monsanto-liable-in-the-first-roundup-cancer-trial--2595446068.html" target="_self">first</a> case to go to trial over whether or not the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate-based</a> weedkiller <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/roundup" target="_self">Roundup</a> causes cancer.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Bayer and BASF Ordered to Pay $265 Million to U.S. Peach Farmer ... ›
- Trump's EPA Backs Bayer's Appeal in Roundup Verdict Appeal ... ›
- 'Dangerous Drift-Prone Pesticide' Threatens Millions of Acres ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
In a series of major wins for climate campaigners, New York regulators and Cuomo have repeatedly blocked construction of the $1 billion Williams Pipeline. Michael Brochstein / SOPA Images / LightRocket / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
With the nation focused on the coronavirus pandemic and protests against U.S. police brutality that have sprung up across the globe, the Trump administration continues to quietly attack federal policies that protect public health and the environment to limit the legal burdens faced by planet-wrecking fossil fuel companies.
<p>The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-final-rule-helps-ensure-us-energy-security-and-limits-misuse-clean-water-0" target="_blank">announced</a> a<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-06/documents/pre-publication_version_of_the_clean_water_act_section_401_certification_rule.pdf" target="_blank"> final rule</a> about the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process for energy infrastructure projects. The rule, first <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/09/egregious-handout-corporate-polluters-trump-epa-moves-accelerate-pipeline-approvals" target="_blank">proposed</a> in August 2019, sets a one-year deadline for permitting decisions and restricts the scope of what state and tribal officials can consider.</p><p>"Donald Trump and his administration are nothing if not vindictive, spiteful, and capricious," Food & Water Action executive director Wenonah Hauter <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/16/major-victory-climate-campaigners-ny-gov-cuomo-rejects-dangerous-williams-pipeline" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Tuesday. "This new rule from the EPA, which seeks to undermine a bedrock environmental law and hamstring the rights of states to protect communities from water contamination and climate change, is just the latest example."</p><p>The Trump administration has completed 66 rollbacks of climate and environmental policies and is pursuing 34 more, which brings the first term total so far to 100, according to a<em> New York Times</em> analysis <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?mtrref=www.google.com&assetType=PAYWALL" target="_blank">updated</a> on May 20. The greatest number of completed and in progress rollbacks relate to air pollution and emissions; 11 are about water.</p><p>Critics slammed the president and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/13/senate-confirms-coal-lobbyist-2-epa-trump-moves-slash-clean-air-rules" target="_blank">a former coal lobbyist</a>, for curbing states' power to protect residents and the planet by rejecting dirty energy projects—and for making yet another assault on national environmental safeguards in the midst of multiple global crises.</p>
<div id="18202" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b88aab098c5666a85c251e01b7a029bf"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1267581093349191680" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">And while attention is elsewhere, another Trump assault on the Clean #Water Act and the ability of states to protec… https://t.co/Utqe7IkGt9</div> — Peter Gleick (@Peter Gleick)<a href="https://twitter.com/PeterGleick/statuses/1267581093349191680">1591049857.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The administration's new rule, Hauter declared, "is a direct response to repeated actions by concerned local communities and responsible state officials in New York and elsewhere to reject dangerous fossil fuel projects that have no business being built where they're not wanted."</p><p>"Like so much of what Trump is pursuing now, this is a targeted strike against environmental justice and racial justice," she said. "It's a fact that people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by the air pollution, water contamination, and climate chaos produced by fossil fuel projects."</p><p>"As we're seeing so clearly now across society," Hauter added, "this president and this administration are at war with justice and well-being—particularly for the communities that lack these fundamentals the most."</p><p>Wheeler <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-final-rule-helps-ensure-us-energy-security-and-limits-misuse-clean-water-0" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Monday that new rule comes in response to an April 2019 <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-energy-infrastructure-economic-growth/" target="_blank">executive order</a> from Trump, and is intended to "curb abuses of the Clean Water Act that have held our nation's energy infrastructure projects hostage, and to put in place clear guidelines that finally give these projects a path forward."</p>
<p>Wheeler also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/climate/trump-clean-water-pipelines.html" target="_blank">reportedly</a> took aim at New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, calling the governor's rejection of the Constitution Pipeline "probably the worst environmental decision by an elected official last year." The canceled pipeline <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2020/02/25/constitution-pipeline-project-ends-as-builder-cites-diminished-return-on-investment/" target="_blank">would have </a>brought fracked gas from Pennsylvania to the New York's Southern Tier.</p><p>In a series of major wins for climate campaigners, New York regulators and Cuomo have also <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2020/05/15/governor-cuomo-rejects-the-williams-pipeline-cleanenergywillwin/" target="_blank">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/16/major-victory-climate-campaigners-ny-gov-cuomo-rejects-dangerous-williams-pipeline" target="_blank">blocked</a> construction of the $1 billion Williams Pipeline. Citing a longtime EPA employee, <em>HuffPost</em> <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/epa-pipeline-water-quality-limiting-states_n_5ed506aec5b617333aa0b93d" target="_blank">explained</a> how the new rule could impact state deliberations over projects including that one:</p><blockquote>Pipelines―like the Williams Pipeline, which aimed to carry gas from the fracking fields of western Pennsylvania to homes in New York City and beyond―"might cross 20, 30, 40 streams, and each stream requires permits," said Mark Ryan, who specialized in Clean Water Act enforcement and permitting during his 24 years as the former EPA regional counsel for the Seattle area.<br><br>"With these very, very complex permits like with pipelines, the states will say, 'OK, we want more information... but we don't want to deny certification, but you have to withdraw the permit application,'" he said. "This new rule says states can't do that."<br></blockquote><blockquote>That means states must either grant or deny permits within 12 months or the EPA will deem the state permit waived. This incentivizes pipeline companies to withhold information states would need to fully assess a projects' impacts on water "to try to force the state to certify the permit," Ryan said.<br></blockquote><p>Ryan told the <em>Times</em> the rule is "a pretty significant retreat from what they were doing the last 40 years" and could be "very vulnerable" to a legal challenge considering past rulings, including a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision. As he put it: "The EPA will have a very hard time convincing the Supreme Court that its current interpretation of the Clean Water Act is correct."</p>
<div id="17b4d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a0d99172630e2eaea81fb529e2c93c87"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1267802127273005056" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">.@epa’s rule change is a blatant attack on states’ rights and flies in the face of decades of Supreme Court rulings… https://t.co/k42d4AgTL5</div> — Environmental Protection Network (@Environmental Protection Network)<a href="https://twitter.com/EnvProtectioNet/statuses/1267802127273005056">1591102556.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Hauter vowed that Food & Water Action "will be pursuing all avenues available—legal, electoral, and otherwise—to ensure that states have the right to reject fossil fuels as they see fit, and support vulnerable communities everywhere seeking to protect themselves from this malicious administration."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's EPA Budget: 5 Critical Programs on His Chopping Block ... ›
- Trump's EPA Limits States' and Tribes' Rights to Block Pipelines ›
- States Sue Trump EPA for Suspending Environmental Regulations ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Clean Water Act Rollback: Trump's EPA Limits States’ and Tribes’ Rights to Block Pipelines
02 June
Politics
Workers clean up a crude oil leak from a pipeline in Minnesota in 2002. JOEY MCLEISTER / Star Tribune via Getty Images
The Trump administration has finalized a rule making it harder for states and tribal communities to block pipelines and other infrastructure projects that threaten waterways.
<p>The change concerns Section 401 of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-water-act" target="_self">Clean Water Act</a>, which essentially gives states and tribes veto power over projects that would hurt their water quality, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/500480-trump-rule-limits-states-from-blocking" target="_blank">The Hill explained</a>. The changes, announced by the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA) Monday, give states and tribes a one-year deadline for reviewing projects and narrow the scope of what they can consider to only water issues, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/climate/trump-clean-water-pipelines.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. They may no longer block projects because they would contribute to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>.</p><p>"This is a dangerous mistake," director of federal water policy at the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC) Jon Devine said in a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/nrdc/epa-curbs-state-and-tribal-authority-block-projects-harm-waterways?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=tweet&utm_campaign=EJ" target="_blank">statement</a>. "It makes a mockery of this EPA's claimed respect for 'cooperative federalism.'"</p>
<p>In recent years, states have used Section 401 to block a number of high profile <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> projects, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/06/01/epa-limits-states-tribes-ability-protest-pipelines-other-energy-projects/" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>. Last month, New York and New Jersey <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/new-york-rejects-williams-pipeline-2646023924.html" target="_self">blocked permits</a> for the Northeast Supply Enhancement Pipeline, which would have carried fracked <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" target="_self">natural gas</a> from Pennsylvania through both states. New York also blocked the Constitution pipeline that would have also moved gas from Pennsylvania. And Washington state blocked a $680 million <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a> export facility in 2017.</p><p>Climate activists have seen Section 401 as a useful tool for keeping fossil fuels in the ground, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867224980/trump-administration-limits-states-power-to-stop-oil-and-gas-pipelines" target="_blank">NPR explained</a>. But industry groups and the Trump administration have accused states of abusing their veto powers, and President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> issued an executive order in April 2019 mandating federal agencies ease the completion of energy infrastructure projects, according to The Washington Post.</p><p>"Today, we are following through on President Trump's Executive Order to curb abuses of the Clean Water Act that have held our nation's energy infrastructure projects hostage, and to put in place clear guidelines that finally give these projects a path forward," EPA Administrator and former coal lobbyist <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> said in a statement reported by The Hill.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">EPA announced a final rule that will streamline the construction of modern infrastructure projects across the United States, while ensuring our nation’s waterways are protected. <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realdonaldtrump</a> is delivering on another promise! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PromisesMadePromisesKept?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PromisesMadePromisesKept</a> <a href="https://t.co/hFGqKzraO0">https://t.co/hFGqKzraO0</a> <a href="https://t.co/LcrGsm4si8">pic.twitter.com/LcrGsm4si8</a></p>— EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler (@EPAAWheeler) <a href="https://twitter.com/EPAAWheeler/status/1267525012489146370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 1, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Fossil Fuel groups welcomed the change.</p><p>"We hope that EPA's action today will help end the abuse of the section 401 permitting process, which has been used to obstruct projects for reasons that had nothing to do with protecting water quality," National Mining Association President and CEO Rich Nolan told NPR.</p><p>Lawyer, former EPA employee and Clean Water Act expert Mark Ryan told The Hill that the changes were a major departure that would put states at a disadvantage.</p><p>"This changes the balance of power that has existed over the last 40 years from the states to the applicants," he said.</p><p>He explained that applicants would be incentivized to run down the clock on states by withholding information. However, he also thought it was unlikely the changes would hold up in court.</p><p>"The new rule will be very vulnerable to a legal challenge; the EPA will have a very hard time convincing the Supreme Court that its current interpretation of the Clean Water Act is correct," he said in a statement emailed to EcoWatch.</p>
<p>And a legal challenge looks likely.</p><p>"We won't stand idly by as they rip away our authority under the law to preserve water quality," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose state has sued the Trump administration <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-fuel-efficiency-rollback-lawsuit-2646114003.html" target="_self">82 times</a>, said in a statement reported by The Washington Post.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Budget Plan: A Push for Even Greater Environmental ... ›
- Trump Pushed for Mining Project That Could Destroy Alaska Salmon ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Pile River flows into the northern end of Lake Iliamna. The lake and its tributaries are the headwaters of the Bristol Bay region, one of the richest salmon fisheries in the world. Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers last week to say that it would not oppose or put a stop to a huge copper and gold mine near the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery, as The Washington Post reported.
<p>The Pebble Mine, a vast copper and gold deposit, is worth an estimated $500 billion in natural resources. However, it is in the Bristol Bay region of southwest <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/alaska">Alaska</a>, a resource that brings in $1.5 billion annually and provides a vital food source for thousands of Alaska Native residents who live there, according to <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/alaska-pebble-mine-bristol-bay/" target="_blank">PBS</a>. An effort to build the mine at the heart of the Bristol Bay watershed has been an ongoing fight in Alaska.</p><p>The project was seemingly dead in 2012, but it got a new lease on life with the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration when the Pebble Partnership filed for a permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late 2017. The EPA has raised many concerns about the project, saying that it may result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to "aquatic resources of national importance," as <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/05/28/in-showdown-over-pebble-mine-epa-blinks/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Media</a> reported.</p>
<p>In response, the Army Corps of Engineers announced what that the least damaging way to bring the ore out of the mine would be to take it out around the north side of Lake Iliamna, according to <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/05/28/in-showdown-over-pebble-mine-epa-blinks/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Media</a>.</p><p>Christopher Hladick, the EPA's regional administrator for Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, wrote to the Alaska district engineer, Col. David Hibner, that the agency's serious concerns about the plan continued. He noted that the concerns include the fact that dredging for the open pit mine "may well contribute to the permanent loss of 2,292 acres of wetlands and ... 105.4 miles of streams," as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/05/29/epa-opts-not-delay-controversial-alaska-mine-now/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported.</p><p>The EPA will still have the authority to veto the project, but the latest letter makes it unlikely to do so.</p>
<p>Mark Ryan, a lawyer in private practice who served as regional counsel in EPA Region 10 between 1990 and 2014, told <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/05/29/epa-opts-not-delay-controversial-alaska-mine-now/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> that the EPA's letter appears contradictory.</p><p>"It's a very odd letter," Ryan said. "It points out the mine's very serious environmental damage but then does not invoke EPA's powers to elevate the issue for further discussion."</p><p>"Today's decision ... gives us more reason to believe that there will be no veto," Pebble CEO Tom Collier said in a written statement, as <a href="https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/05/28/in-showdown-over-pebble-mine-epa-blinks/" target="_blank">Alaska Public Media</a> reported. "This is consistent with our observation that (the Corps) and EPA, and the other cooperating agencies, have been working well together to resolve all outstanding issues."</p>
<p>Opponents of the project argue that the mine will damage the salmon, which are critical for the economy, for sustenance and for the region's cultural heritage.</p><p>"There are still many substantive issues with the project proposal that have yet to be resolved," said Daniel Cheyette, the vice president of Bristol Bay Native Corp., whose Alaska Native corporation opposes the mine, which would be the largest in North America, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/05/29/epa-opts-not-delay-controversial-alaska-mine-now/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported.</p>
<p>While the Army Corps of Engineers has said the mine will have minimal impact on the salmon, environmental groups strongly disagree.</p><p>"It's about four times larger than the largest mine the EPA said that it was willing to consider for permitting," said Joel Reynolds of the Natural Resources Defense Council, to <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/alaska-pebble-mine-bristol-bay/" target="_blank">PBS</a>. "The notion that the contaminants can be contained in any reliable fashion in that kind of environment has never been proven, never been tested, and in the judgment of virtually any independent scientist, simply can't be done."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump Pushed for Mining Project That Could Destroy Alaska Salmon ... ›
- The Resource War Over Pebble Mine in Alaska's Bristol Bay ›
- 'The Wrong Mine in the Wrong Place': Former Republican EPA ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Dominion Resources' coal-fired power plant located in central Virginia beside the James River. Edbrown05 / CC BY-SA 2.5
Corporations that flouted environmental regulations and spewed pollutants into the air and dumped them into waterways will not be required to pay the fines they agreed to during the pandemic, according to The Guardian.
<p>The forbearance of payments totals $56 million from ten corporations for a variety of violations across the country, including polluting air and water in already vulnerable communities, like East Chicago, Indiana, according to legal proceedings.</p><p>The companies agreed to settlements with the U.S. government that forced them to pay fines without admitting liability. However, the U.S. Department of Justice advised most of the companies of extensions in letters that were obtained by the government watchdog group <a href="https://www.accountable.us/" target="_blank">Accountable.US</a> via public records requests, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/27/epa-corporation-environmental-fines-decision" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>The Department of Justice said the move is intended to "mitigate the financial impact" of the coronavirus. However, enforcement attorneys who have spent years targeting the companies expressed shock over the blanket policy, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/493216-doj-lets-companies-skip-paying-penalties-during-pandemic" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p><p>"It's unprecedented in how broad it is," said Francis Lyons, a partner with Schiff Hardin LLP who previously worked on environmental enforcement issues at the Justice Department, to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/493216-doj-lets-companies-skip-paying-penalties-during-pandemic" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "I think this policy goes beyond what is necessary under the circumstances."</p>
<p>In one example that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/27/epa-corporation-environmental-fines-decision" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> provided, KP Kauffman, a Denver-based oil and gas company, has spent $200,000 lobbying the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a> in 2019 and 2020. It also hosted a meeting with oil executives and Donald <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump">Trump</a> in 2016. Now, the company has stopped paying the fines it agreed to for allegedly violating air pollution laws when the company emitted smog-forming compounds in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, an area that wasn't meeting smog standards.</p><p>"This is exactly the time to make sure support is flowing to the federal, state and local governments that need a hand with responding to the coronavirus crisis and with the environmental problems that these special interests have caused," said Chris Saeger, director of strategic initiatives at Accountable.US, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/27/epa-corporation-environmental-fines-decision" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>"When we're facing a public health crisis that causes respiratory problems, this is a time to be holding companies to a higher standard of air quality, not a lower one."</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, a number of companies that do not have to pay the fines they agreed to are ones with deep ties to the Trump administration. Dominion Energy in Virginia agreed to pay for a coal ash impoundment that seeped pollutants into the groundwater along the James River. That company has several ties to the administration, including a former top EPA enforcement official and Attorney General William Barr, who leads the Department of Justice.</p><p>Similarly, ArcelorMittal, one of the world's largest steel companies, agreed to pay $5 million for polluting the air in Indiana and Ohio. Its CEO dined with Trump in Davos in January and was part of the president's roundtable in India in February. And Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross is a former employee of ArcelorMittal, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/27/epa-corporation-environmental-fines-decision" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported.</p><p>"This policy cuts off income to the federal government at a time when there's this massive spending by the federal government to keep the economy afloat, so you'd think they'd care about other funds coming in," said Joel Mintz, a former EPA enforcement attorney who later worked as a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Florida, to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/493216-doj-lets-companies-skip-paying-penalties-during-pandemic" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "It kind of sends a message to these companies that you're letting them off the hook."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Cost of Polluter Penalties at 20-Year-Low Under Trump's EPA ... ›
- Penalties Against Polluters Drop 60% Under Trump - EcoWatch ›
- Oil Companies Were Not Held Accountable for 10.8 Million Gallons ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Consumers looking to buy disinfectant sprays and wipes may be out of luck for a while. eldinhoid / Getty Images
By Nancy Schimelpfening
Consumers looking to buy disinfectant sprays and wipes may be out of luck for a while.
<p><br/></p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank">Healthline</a>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/shortage-of-disinfectant-wipes-and-sprays#The-bottom-line" target="_blank">Healthline</a>.</em></p>
<p>Thanks to the <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/coronavirus-live-updates" target="_blank">COVID-19 pandemic</a>, we've seen a large surge in demand for disinfectants and other <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-cleaning-products-work-to-kill-covid-19" target="_blank">cleaning products</a> over the past few months.</p><p>In an interview with Healthline, <a href="https://www.mtsu.edu/faculty/cliff-welborn" target="_blank">Cliff Welborn</a>, PhD, professor of supply chain management at Middle Tennessee State University, cited statistics from research firm Nielsen indicating that sales of spray disinfectants were up 520 percent over the same time last year.</p><p>In addition, sales of multipurpose cleaners were up almost 250 percent.</p><p>However, Welborn said manufacturers are having a difficult time keeping up with the rise in demand, leading to shortages for consumers.</p>
Why Disinfectants Are in Short Supply
<p>Prior to the pandemic, demand for disinfectants was fairly stable, with only small increases seen during flu season.</p><p>Production facilities were equipped to handle the normally expected demand.</p><p>However, people's fears about the virus sparked panic buying and hoarding.</p><p>"This was not a huge industry before the spike in demand," said Welborn. "There was not a great deal of excess capacity in the production process."</p><p>In addition — according to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/sgrawe/" target="_blank">Scott Grawe</a>, PhD, chair of the department of supply chain management at Iowa State University — companies don't tend to keep a lot of stock on hand. Storing it is expensive and it keeps costs down if they don't stockpile it.</p><p>As a result, manufacturers are struggling to keep up.</p><p>Grawe said an additional problem is that as more disinfectant products become available, suppliers upstream from retailers must decide where to send them first.</p><p>Often, they end up going directly to healthcare facilities and industrial customers first due to their greater need for larger quantities of product.</p>What Manufacturers Are Doing to Remedy the Situation
<p>Grawe said one of the things that manufacturers may be doing to increase the supply of disinfectants is to look for nontraditional suppliers of ingredients.</p><p>For example, quite a few <a href="https://www.distilledspirits.org/distillers-responding-to-covid-19/distilleries-making-hand-sanitizer/" target="_blank">distilleries</a> have stepped in to make hand sanitizer for their local communities.</p><p>Also, manufacturers may be temporarily curtailing their production of more profitable products in order to focus on their customers' increased need for disinfectants.</p><p>Welborn said another strategy manufacturers may be employing is to limit the number of different products they're making. This increases their efficiency and enables them to increase output.</p><p>He also noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expanding its list of approved disinfectants, adding 91 new products in the month of April.</p>How Long Can We Expect Shortages to Exist?
<p>"This is a tough question," said Grawe.</p><p>Firms want to catch up to demand and replenish their inventory, he said.</p><p>However, they're also likely to be cautious that they don't flood the market.</p><p>Demand will at some point return to a steady level, although it's unclear whether it will return to the same level as before or whether there will be a new, elevated "normal," he said.</p><p>As new sectors of the economy open up, there will probably be an increase in demand for disinfectants. This may lead to regional shortages for a period of time.</p><p>Grawe said, however, that he expects supply and demand to balance out after most closed businesses have reopened.</p>What You Can Do in the Meantime
<p><a href="https://ghss.georgetown.edu/people/fischer/" target="_blank">Julie Fischer</a>, PhD, associate research professor of microbiology and immunology at Georgetown University, said as long as you have access to soap and water you can do an effective job at eliminating SARS-CoV-2 from your hands.</p><p>No special soap is needed, she said. Any bar or liquid soap will work.</p><p>Just wash your hands vigorously for 20 seconds.</p><p>If you don't have access to soap and water, hand sanitizers are a good substitute.</p><p>With commercial products being in short supply, Fischer noted that many people have turned to making <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/coronavirus-hand-sanitizer-recipes-risks" target="_blank">homemade hand sanitizers</a> using either isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) or ethanol (liquor) mixed with aloe vera.</p><p>The important thing to keep in mind with many recipes found on the internet, she said, is making certain they yield the correct concentration of alcohol.</p><p>The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/hand-hygiene.html" target="_blank">recommendsTrusted Source</a> a concentration of greater than 60 percent ethanol or 70 percent isopropyl alcohol.</p><p>Many home recipes fall short of these recommendations, Fischer said. You'll want to double check the math on any recipe you use.</p><p>For the disinfection of surfaces within your home, Fischer said diluted household bleach works well.</p><p>Make sure it's household bleach, not a bleach alternative such as color-safe or chlorine-free bleach.</p><p>Dilute it using 1/3 cup of bleach per gallon of water (or 4 teaspoons per quart).</p><p>Allow the bleach solution to sit on the surface for at least 10 minutes and re-wet if it dries out more quickly than that.</p><p>Diluted bleach should be discarded within 24 hours and kept in an opaque container since it degrades and becomes ineffective fairly quickly.</p><p>Fischer said a solution containing at least 70 percent alcohol diluted in water is also a good option for disinfecting surfaces.</p><p>Use a spray bottle to apply it and leave it on the surface for at least 30 seconds before wiping it away to allow time for it to inactivate the virus.</p><p>Fischer cautions that both bleach and alcohol can be drying to your skin, so wear gloves to protect your hands.</p><p>Use these disinfectants in well-ventilated areas.</p><p>Also, you should use only water to dilute bleach. Other cleaning products may interact with it to release dangerous vapors.</p><p>Finally, she added, you should rinse the surfaces afterward with water to remove any remaining residue.</p>The Bottom Line
<p>The COVID-19 pandemic has created a large increase in demand for spray disinfectants and wipes, leading to shortages.</p><p>Although manufacturers are currently struggling to adjust, supply and demand will eventually balance out, probably once businesses have reopened.</p><p>Alternatives to spray disinfectants and wipes — such as good <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/washing-hands" target="_blank">handwashing</a> techniques and bleach or alcohol solutions — can help fill the void until adequate supplies of these products become available again.</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
California, along with eight other states, sued the EPA for suspending enforcement of air and water pollution monitoring and reporting from places like the Shell refinery in Martinez, CA, seen here on April 1, 2004. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
On Wednesday, nine states sued the Trump administration over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to temporarily relax various environmental regulations during the coronavirus pandemic.
<p>The move has been called an implicit "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-worst-president-environment-2645034831.html" target="_self">license to pollute</a>," according to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/497630-9-states-sue-epa-for-suspending-pollution-monitoring-requirements" target="_blank">The Hill</a>, and allegedly violates numerous federal pollution laws as well as the EPA's duty to protect the environment.</p><p>The states' <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/New%20York%20v.%20EPA%20Complaint.Filed_.pdf" target="_blank">complaint</a> challenges a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/oecamemooncovid19implications.pdf" target="_blank">March 26 EPA memo</a> in which the agency put forth a new, relaxed policy. Polluters are allowed, at their sole discretion, to stop monitoring and reporting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air emissions</a> and water pollution levels during the outbreak.</p><p>The memo was produced by the EPA's compliance director, Susan Parker Bodine, three days after she received a request from the American Petroleum Institute to halt pollution enforcement, reported the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/California-sues-EPA-for-suspending-pollution-15268344.php#photo-18445984" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>.</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/oecamemooncovid19implications.pdf" target="_blank">memo</a>, Bodine announced that the new, relaxed policies would be retroactive to March 13, when <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">President Trump</a> declared a state of emergency regarding COVID-19. Due to outbreak-related "potential worker shortages" and "travel and social distancing restrictions," companies could decide for themselves when it would no longer be practical to monitor pollution and report it to federal, state and local agencies, the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/California-sues-EPA-for-suspending-pollution-15268344.php#photo-18445984" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported.</p><p>Bodine said businesses should try to follow reporting and monitoring regulations but that noncompliance would not be penalized if caused by coronavirus, reported the San Francisco Chronicle. She did not indicate how the EPA could learn of any violations or dangerous emissions if reporting isn't required, the news report added.</p>
<p>Similarly, the regulation change is "temporary," but no end date is indicated in the memo. And, while companies are required to document their noncompliance, critics fear the environmental damage will already be done, reported <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/497630-9-states-sue-epa-for-suspending-pollution-monitoring-requirements" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p><p>EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said that the EPA recognized that challenges created by COVID-19 "may directly impact the ability of regulated facilities to meet all federal regulatory requirements," reported the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/California-sues-EPA-for-suspending-pollution-15268344.php#photo-18445984" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>.</p><p>Wheeler also said the agency would still "expect facilities to comply with their obligations under the law" unless, of course, Covid-19 made it "impracticable," reported <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/states-sue-trumps-epa-over-rule-relaxation-during-pandemic-1" target="_blank">Bloomberg Law</a>.</p>
<p>The states' <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/New%20York%20v.%20EPA%20Complaint.Filed_.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a>, filed in New York federal court, alleges that the EPA lacks the legal authority to "effectively waive critical monitoring and reporting obligations" that alert the public to environmental and health hazards, reported <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/states-sue-trumps-epa-over-rule-relaxation-during-pandemic-1" target="_blank">Bloomberg Law</a>. It also argues that the EPA failed to properly weigh the public health impacts the relaxed policy will have amid the coronavirus pandemic, reported <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-epa/nine-u-s-states-sue-epa-for-easing-environmental-enforcement-amid-pandemic-idUSKBN22P36U" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>"Rather than exercising enforcement discretion as authorized by law, EPA issued a broad, open-ended policy that gives regulated parties free rein to self-determine when compliance with federal environmental laws is not practical because of Covid-19," the <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/New%20York%20v.%20EPA%20Complaint.Filed_.pdf" target="_blank">complaint</a> stated.</p><p>The enforcement suspensions will lead to more chemical spills and "likely will result in increased air and water pollution," endangering residents who live nearby, downwind or downstream, the suit added, reported the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/California-sues-EPA-for-suspending-pollution-15268344.php#photo-18445984" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>.</p>
<p>The states also argued that the EPA failed to demonstrate both the need for the drastic change and any rationale for bypassing the traditional notice and comment period required for new rules, reported <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/497630-9-states-sue-epa-for-suspending-pollution-monitoring-requirements" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act both require companies to monitor and report emissions to the EPA, and the agency has therefore exceeded its authorities under both regulations, the complaint says, reported The Hill.</p><p>"The Trump Administration cannot give industries the green light to ignore critical environmental and public health laws, especially during a public health crisis," said New York Attorney General Letitia James, reported <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/states-sue-trumps-epa-over-rule-relaxation-during-pandemic-1" target="_blank">Bloomberg Law</a>.</p><p>California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said, "The Trump Administration is trying to use the current public health crisis to sweep environmental violations under the rug," reported <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/497630-9-states-sue-epa-for-suspending-pollution-monitoring-requirements" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p><p>"What's worse, the Administration is doing so even as evidence grows that communities exposed to air pollution are at increased risk from coronavirus," he added, reported The Hill.</p><p>The EPA would not comment on the litigation, but told The Hill that "the EPA temporary policy is a lawful and proper exercise of the Agency's authority under extraordinary circumstances." In the same statement, the EPA noted, "This is not a nationwide waiver of environmental rules."</p>
<p>The EPA was also sued on April 16 by environmental groups seeking to require the agency to determine when companies stopped complying with environmental laws and to immediately notify the public, reported the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/California-sues-EPA-for-suspending-pollution-15268344.php#photo-18445984" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>.</p><p>The nine states filing the complaint are California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Virginia. The suit alleges that the regulation rollback, if allowed to persist, will force states to try to "fill EPA's enforcement shoes at a time when they are increasingly strapped for resources, or risk the health of our residents," reported the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/California-sues-EPA-for-suspending-pollution-15268344.php#photo-18445984" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'This Will Be the Biggest Loss of Clean Water Protection the Country ... ›
- Trump Dismantles Environmental Protections Under Cover of ... ›
- Trump Named 'Worst President for Our Environment in History' by ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA Curbs State Power to Reject Fossil Fuel Projects ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump EPA Won’t Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That Harms Children’s Development
15 May
Politics
In defiance of a court order, the Trump administration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not regulate perchlorate, a toxic chemical used in rocket fuel that contaminates drinking water and harms the development of fetuses and small children.
<p>The move is in keeping with other Trump administration decisions not to impose recommended limits on toxic chemicals, such as its decision <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-pesticide-brain-damage-2639273468.html" target="_self">not to ban</a> child-harming pesticide <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" target="_self">chlorpyrifos</a> or <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-asbestos-ban-2636681458.html?rebelltitem=1" target="_self">known-carcinogen asbestos</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/climate/trump-drinking-water-perchlorate.html" target="_blank">The New York Times pointed out</a>.</p><p>"This is all of a piece," University of Maryland law professor Rena Steinzor told The New York Times. "You can draw a line between denial of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/science/" target="_self">science</a> on climate change, denial of science on coronavirus, and denial of science in the drinking water context. It's all the same issue. They're saying 'We don't care what the research says.'"</p>
<p>High concentrations of perchlorate have been found in at least 26 states, usually near military sites because of its use in rocket fuel. It has been shown to hamper the development of fetuses and young children by blocking the thyroid gland's uptake of iodine and therefore interfering with hormone production. The EPA had been ordered by the courts to finalize regulations on the chemical by the end of June. Instead, administrator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> will reverse a 2011 EPA finding that the chemical posed a health risk to between five and 16 million Americans and argue that it is "not in the public interest" to regulate it, two staff members familiar with the issue told The New York Times Thursday.</p><p>"The agency has determined that perchlorate does not occur with a frequency and at levels of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a> concern, and that regulation of perchlorate does not present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems," the draft policy reads, staff members told The New York Times.</p>
<p>Environmental and public health advocates condemned the decision.</p><p>"EPA's cynical decision to defy a court order and the law, and to ignore the science that, as the American Academy of Pediatrics has said, dictates a strong perchlorate standard to protect vulnerable kids, is a deeply disturbing violation of the agency's mission," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC) senior strategic director for health and food Erik Olson <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/erik-d-olson/epa-refuses-protect-children-perchlorate-contaminated-tap-water?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=DrinkWaterPolicy&fbclid=IwAR3NYh52apJk63OrN_zNrvSrrhBs7LSRnzI5eRqAkeCFK4VX-U8dBUzaQio" target="_blank">wrote</a>. "It must be reversed."</p><p>NRDC was behind the lawsuit that led to the court order the EPA is now violating.</p>
<div id="2c7ae" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f8af07123fc507733e36db1ce03cbc03"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1260977337878937602" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: @EPAAWheeler & Trump’s @EPA are choosing NOT to regulate #perchlorate, a dangerous chemical linked to fet… https://t.co/giSKPNIgpJ</div> — NRDC 🌎🏡 (@NRDC 🌎🏡)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/statuses/1260977337878937602">1589475399.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>In response, EPA spokeswoman Andrea Woods told The New York Times that a final decision had not been made and that the EPA would "shortly" send the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget.</p><p>"Any information that is shared or reported now would be premature, inappropriate and would be prejudging the formal rulemaking process," she said.</p><p>In a separate statement released after The New York Times story broke, Wheeler said that perchlorate levels had already been successfully reduced because of joint state and EPA efforts.</p><p>"Because of steps that EPA, states and public water systems have taken to identify, monitor and mitigate perchlorate, the levels have decreased in drinking water," Wheeler said, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/497794-epa-wont-regulate-rocket-fuel-chemical-tied-to-developmental-damage" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>. "This success demonstrates that EPA and states are working together to lead the world in providing safe drinking water to all Americans."</p>
<p>Attempts to regulate perchlorate have been long delayed by opposition from the Department of Defense and the companies that supply it, and the NRDC suit was initially brought against Obama's EPA for dragging its heels on a regulation after determining in 2011 that perchlorate posed a health risk, according to The New York Times.</p><p>But the Trump EPA is going even further by reversing that 2011 decision. NRDC's Olson explained how it is justifying the reversal and why it is such a threat to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/childrens-health" target="_self">children's health</a>:</p><blockquote>To explain why it's revoking its previous finding, EPA now contends its 2008 <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1004X7Q.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006+Thru+2010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C06thru10%5CTxt%5C00000010%5CP1004X7Q.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL" target="_blank">health advisory</a> for perchlorate in drinking water—set at 15 parts per billion or ppb—is far more protective of health than needed. That 15 ppb health advisory was based on a 2005 <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11202/health-implications-of-perchlorate-ingestion" target="_blank">National Academy of Sciences study</a>. Instead, Wheeler now finds a level of 56 ppb would be safe, and perhaps even 90 ppb would be fine. EPA admits that a standard of 56 ppb would allow those kids exposed to perchlorate in drinking water at above this level to have an <em>average</em> IQ loss of two points. People at the lower end of the IQ spectrum could lose far more IQ points. In concluding 56 ppb is safe, the agency would allow an unprecedented level of adverse impact on children's brain development.</blockquote>
<p>Other environmental groups have also spoken out against a 56 ppb standard.</p><p>"The science on perchlorate is very clear: It harms infants and the developing fetus," Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser for children's environmental health at the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a>, said when such a standard was first floated in May of 2019, as The Hill reported. "Perchlorate can cause irreparable damage to both cognitive and physical development. Instead of taking action to lower the levels of this rocket fuel chemical in drinking water, the administration's plan will endanger the health of future generations of kids."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Rocket Fuel Chemical Doesn't Belong in Food Packaging - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Won't Ban Brain-Damaging Pesticide - EcoWatch ›
- EPA's Proposal for Limiting Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water Is ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Clear skies are seen above Kathmandu Valley during the nationwide coronavirus lockdown on March 29, 2020 in Kathmandu, Nepal, one of the most polluted cities in the world. Narayan Maharjan / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Stephanie Hanes
Earlier this month, health care experts from across the United States gathered to address hundreds of journalists and policymakers by webinar. But their focus was not testing, nor vaccines, nor "herd immunity." It was not even COVID-19, really. Instead, their focus was climate change.
<p>"While many see issues like climate change and biodiversity loss as far from what's going on right now … I see this as the time to talk about it," said Aaron Bernstein, a pediatrician at Boston Children's Hospital and a professor at Harvard Medical School. "Climate solutions are, in fact, pandemic solutions."</p><p>A few days later, economists and policy experts with the World Resources Institute held their own panel discussion. The message was similar, and the audience one of the largest in the organization's history. The experience of and response to COVID-19, proclaimed expert after expert, was intricately tied to climate.</p><p>Indeed, increasing numbers of researchers and policymakers, scientists and health care practitioners, are looking at the coronavirus through an ecological lens. Whether they are focused on consumer behavioral shifts, changes in emission outputs, or policy decisions that might help or hurt long-term goals for green infrastructure, they are seeing in this moment a pivotal chance to address climate change.</p><p>"As we respond to the very imminent economic and health crisis, can we also tackle the climate and sustainability crisis?" asked Manish Bapna, WRI's managing director and executive vice president.</p>
<p>There have been a number of short-term environmental shifts connected with how the world is coping with the pandemic. China's carbon emissions dropped 18% between the beginning of February and mid-March, according to data compiled by the website CarbonBrief. Pollution over India has decreased dramatically, according to satellite images from NASA's Earth Observatory. And in the U.S., a dramatic decrease in air travel, as well as a drop in vehicular travel, has also lowered emissions. </p><p>But many of these changes are temporary, researchers say, and may barely register on any long-term analysis of global carbon emissions. The drop in China's carbon output, for instance, came alongside a lockdown over much of the country and a related plunge in factory operations. As the country reopens, says Fang Li, chief representative of the World Resources Institute in Beijing, emissions are expected to rebound along with the economy. After the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, Dr. Fang and others point out, global emissions grew rapidly. </p>
Renewing a Focus
<p>For many climate advocates, this is a reason to push green initiatives now. Environmentalists worry that unless policymakers focus on climate as part of their economic packages, the pandemic could lead to policy shifts that would undermine years of hard-won climate victories. Indeed, the Trump administration in late March announced that it would weaken Obama-era fuel standards that mandate increased fuel efficiencies for automobiles. It also announced last month that the Environmental Protection Agency will not enforce environmental regulations during the pandemic.</p><p>"What we have to worry about is whether ... policy changes are going to be long term or short term," says Christopher Jones, director of the CoolClimate Network at the University of California, Berkeley. "If we roll back standards and they remain in place when the economy comes back, we are going to have a real problem." </p><p>Researchers say that a green economic stimulus package could both help the U.S. ensure long-term sustainability and rebound from the crushing economic impact of the pandemic. (More than 26 million Americans have filed for <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2020/0401/Faces-of-the-new-jobs-crisis-from-restaurants-to-real-estate" target="_blank">unemployment</a> benefits since March 15, according to the U.S. Labor Department.) Many environmentalists look at the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus package signed by President Barack Obama in 2009, as an example of how government initiatives can spur climate-friendly industry. That bill, which earmarked some $90 billion to promote green energy, is widely credited with launching the widespread renewable energy sector in the U.S. </p><p>"Economic measures should focus on climate as well as jobs and livelihood," Mr. Bapna said during the WRI panel.</p><p>But as Kenneth Gillingham, a professor at Yale University and a research fellow at the National Bureau of Economics Research, points out, the pandemic itself has slowed renewable energy efforts.</p><p>"There's a slowing down of building new solar farms, of new wind facilities," he says. "Some projects are hitting the pause button. Other projects may not happen for a long time."</p><p>And while there is hope for a green renewal, he suspects the future will be a good deal more nuanced.</p><p>"Entirely rebuilding our economy as a green economy? It's a wonderful vision, but I don't believe that's what we'll likely see," he says.</p>
Inequality, Exacerbated
<p>But a move toward environmental sustainability, says Dr. Bernstein, is going to be crucial not only for combatting a climate crisis, but for helping some of the people most impacted by the coronavirus. As he points out, both the pandemic and the impacts from climate change disproportionately affect people of color and other marginalized groups.</p><p>There is, he and others say, a hopeful lesson to be taken from the massive lifestyle and economic shifts seen across the globe in response to COVID-19. For years, popular wisdom has said that people simply would not engage in the sort of behavior changes necessary to fight climate change; that they wouldn't stop traveling, wouldn't stop consuming, wouldn't sacrifice material comforts and help save others who are most immediately at risk from climate change. Now, the response to the pandemic suggests otherwise. </p><p>"We are able to mobilize the entire global economy and population for an imminent threat," says Dr. Jones. "Both climate change and this pandemic both affect the most vulnerable. But everybody is willing to make personal sacrifices to protect the most vulnerable. I think that's quite new."</p><p>The question, he and others say, is whether people will be able to see climate change as a similarly "imminent threat," deserving of action. While climate researchers look at the world's increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters and see a direct connection to human behavior, research shows that most everyday people still feel disconnected from both the impacts and causes of climate change.</p><p>"We don't experience risk properly," says Katharine Hayhoe, professor and director of the Texas Tech University Climate Science Center. </p><p>But with the coronavirus, researchers say, there is a chance to shift.</p><p>"It can make people feel that what was previously unthinkable is plausible," Dr. Jones says. "They know what the experience feels like."</p>
<p class=""><em style="">This story originally appeared in <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/" target="_blank">The Christian Science Monitor</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 5 Things About Climate Change and Coronavirus From WHO ... ›
- A 'Green Stimulus' Could Battle Three Crises: Coronavirus ... ›
- Coronavirus Response Proves the World Can Act on Climate Change ›
- Coronavirus Lockdowns Led to Record 17% Emissions Drop - EcoWatch ›
- Beijing on Lockdown Again After New Coronavirus Outbreak - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less