Moms Clean Air Force members attend a press conference hosted by Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) announcing legislation to ban chlorpyrifos on July 25, 2017. Moms Clean Air Force
The Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a risk assessment for toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos Tuesday that downplayed its effects on children's brains and may be the first indication of how the administration's "secret science" policy could impact public health.
<p>Several studies have found that babies exposed to chlorpyrifos in the womb can suffer from lower birth weights, attention deficit disorder, autism spectrum disorder, lower IQ and limited working memory, <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/epa-ignores-evidence-chlorpyrifos-causes-permanent-damage-to-childrens-brains" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Earthjustice pointed out</a>. But the EPA on Tuesday discounted those findings, ruling instead that the science on chlorpyrifos' brain-damaging effects "remains unresolved." In doing so, it reversed the findings of EPA scientists from previous administrations.</p>
<p>"This shows that E.P.A. has completely abandoned any commitment to protecting children from this extremely toxic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemical</a> when their own scientists recommended twice to ban it," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> senior director for health Erik D. Olson told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/climate/epa-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-children.html?fbclid=IwAR1oVHFXSRiLg7sx1wgirelbWGK5jBoZ6b_NO0diW0o-RBfJRUTDU4itq6w" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "The science is being overridden by politics."</p>
<p>In Tuesday's conclusion, the EPA discounted several epidemiological studies, including a prominent one conducted by Columbia University that found a connection between chlorpyrifos exposure in utero and developmental disorders in toddlers. This suggests the agency is moving forward with its proposed "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-limits-science-public-health-2645395622.html" target="_self">secret science</a>" policy that would reject or at least give less weight to the conclusions of studies that do not make their underlying data public. However, several long-term health studies do not publish such data in order to preserve their subjects' privacy. The "secret science" policy has not yet been made an official EPA rule, but the agency already seems to be applying it in the case of the chlorpyrifos assessment. EPA spokesperson James Hewitt said the agency had not been able to confirm the conclusions of the Columbia study.</p><p>"The EPA is ignoring decades of science by leading universities and in doing so, it's neglecting its duty to protect children from pesticides," Earthjustice managing attorney Patti Goldman said in a statement. "Ignoring the demonstrated harm to children doesn't make chlorpyrifos safe, it just shows a commitment to keep a toxic pesticide in the market and in our food at all cost."</p>
<p>EPA scientists sounded the alarm on chlorpyrifos in 2014 and 2016, recommending it be banned from use on food, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/517654-epa-questions-science-linking-widely-used-pesticide-to-brain-damage" target="_blank">according to The Hill</a>. (It was already banned for household use in 2000). But in 2017, the EPA under Trump <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-pesticide-ban-chlorpyrifos-2338511186.html" target="_self">halted</a> the process of banning the chemical. This <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticide-chlorpyrifos-2458558122.html" target="_self">triggered a round of lawsuits</a>, leading eventually to Tuesday's risk assessment.</p><p>"They kicked the decision back to scientists and said they're reanalyzing it so that's how they got around the courts telling them to decide whether to ban it or not," <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> senior scientist Nathan Donley told The Hill.</p><p>He said Tuesday's assessment suggests it is unlikely that the agency will ultimately decide to ban the pesticide.</p><p>Meanwhile, states including <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-chlorpyrifos-ban-2636704080.html" target="_self">California</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/chlorpyrifos-ban-hawaii-2578016885.html" target="_self">Hawaii</a> have taken matters into their own hands and banned the chemical. Corteva, the pesticide's No. 1 maker, has said it will stop producing it by the end of 2020, according to The New York Times. Despite this, Earthjustice pointed to <a href="https://beta.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0938" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">EPA documents</a> showing that Corteva has been lobbying the agency.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Democratic Bill Banning Toxic Pesticides Applauded as 'Much ... ›
- Trump EPA Won't Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That ... ›
- California, Nation's Top User of Chlorpyrifos, Announces Ban on ... ›
- Wheeler's EPA Keeps Brain-Damaging Chlorpyrifos in Food ›
- Entire Pesticide Class Must Be Banned to Save Children's Health ... ›
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks onstage at the event Fourth Annual Berggruen Prize Gala Celebrates 2019 Laureate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in New York City on Dec. 16, 2019. Ilya S. Savenok / Getty Images for Berggruen Institute
The passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg means the nation's highest court has lost a staunch advocate for women's rights and civil rights. Ginsburg was a tireless worker, who continued to serve on the bench through multiple bouts of cancer. She also leaves behind a complicated environmental legacy, as Environment and Energy News (E&E News) reported.
<p>While it was often assumed that Ginsburg would decide in favor of environmental advocates in cases argued before the Supreme Court, the truth is that she often decided based on the nuances of the law rather than the decision that was best for the planet, according to E&E News.</p><p>She sided with the majority in the 5-4 decision of <em><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ruth-bader-ginsburg-leaves-a-nuanced-legacy-on-environmental-issues/" target="_blank">Massachusetts v. EPA</a></em>. That case, argued before the court in 2006 and decided in 2007, found that the Clean Air Act gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) the authority to regulate greenhouse gases that are spewed from the tailpipes of cars, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/19/ginsburgs-long-environmental-legacy-418324" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">POLITICO</a>.</p><p>That decision was instrumental in the Obama administration raising the tailpipe emissions standard to make new cars 5 percent more efficient annually until 2026. That rule was then rolled back by the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" target="_self">Trump</a> administration to make them just 1.5 percent more efficient, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-emissions/trump-finalizes-rollback-of-obama-era-vehicle-fuel-efficiency-standards-idUSKBN21I25S" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>And yet, Ginsburg also wrote the opinion of the court in the 2011 decision of <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut</a></em>. That decision stripped the authority of the states and private companies to sue power companies for their contribution to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate crisis</a> in federal court under a public nuisance law, as E&E news reported.</p><p>Ginsburg, in that decision, emphasized the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, as POLITICO reported. That authority paved the way for the Obama administration to issue new rules for power plants that drastically reduced how much pollution they could spew into the air and waterways.</p><p>The decision, which on its face seemed to limit the rights of people and states to hold polluters accountable for their actions, actually empowered state attorneys general to sue in state court. This authority has been upheld, despite repeated attempts by the fossil fuel industry to move the cases to the federal courts, according to POLITICO.</p>
<p>Ginsburg did look to expand the authority of regulatory agencies to rein in polluters. She joined the dissent in two notable cases, <em>Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers</em> and <em>Rapanos v. United States</em>, both of which would have expanded the definition of the Clean Water Act, according to E&E News.</p><p>In 2014, Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in a case that allowed the EPA to regulate coal plants where their emissions blew across state lines and affected the air quality of states that were downwind, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-upholds-epa-rule-on-cross-state-pollution/2014/04/29/7978fd14-cfce-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>. That case is credited with putting an end to some of the country's filthiest power plants, according to POLITICO.</p><p>Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator under Obama and now the president and CEO of the National Resources Defense Council, said in 2014 that the decision was "a resounding victory for public health and a key component" of the agency's attempts to "make sure all Americans have clean air to breathe," as The Washington Post reported.</p>
<p>In an NRDC <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2020/200918" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">statement</a> on Friday, McCarthy praised Ginsburg's life work. "From her pathbreaking advocacy for gender equality to her relentless defense of democracy itself, Justice Ginsburg widened our vision of who we are, enlarged in law the values we share and raised, forever, the possibility of what we might become."</p><p>Other environmental advocates issued statements praising the late justice as well.</p><p>"Justice Ginsburg was a pioneer for gender equality, civil rights, and the right of citizens to sue to protect their environment. The legal community lost a champion for the underdog and the nation as a whole," said Trent Dougherty, general counsel for the Ohio Environmental Council, in a <a href="https://theoec.org/press-releases/rbg0920/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director said in a <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2020/09/sierra-club-statement-passing-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg" target="_blank">statement</a>, "As we mourn the loss of Justice Ginsburg, we should reflect on her words that 'Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time. Those of us who strive to make change for good in this world — whether it be fighting for racial justice, reproductive rights, or for a livable future — must continue the fight in her honor."<span></span></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule ... ›
- Supreme Court Upholds Virginia's Ban on Uranium Mining - EcoWatch ›
- In Major Win for Indigenous Rights, Supreme Court Rules Much of ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation, Fewer Environmental Protections
04 September
Politics
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks at the Nixon Library on Sept. 3, 2020. Richard Nixon Foundation / YouTube
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (EPA) Andrew Wheeler gave a speech Thursday where he accused Democratic efforts to stop the climate crisis as actions that have hurt poor and vulnerable communities. He also laid out a vision for a second Trump term, saying it would bring a new wave of deregulation and support for economic development, according to Reuters.
<p>The speech was given to celebrate the agency's 50th anniversary and was streamed live on YouTube. Wheeler took the opportunity to celebrate the Trump administration's rollbacks of environmental protections and promised more to come. He also used his platform to say the agency would focus less on preventive measures that stop pollution, but concentrate on the cleanup of toxic areas, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/fb0ad1ef15443dfdddec52f5081eb094" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Associated Press</a> (AP).</p><p>"We need to make sure we are speaking to people where they live and we're addressing the problems they see on a daily basis," Wheeler told the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-will-roll-back-more-regulations-if-re-elected-epa-chief-says-11599130805" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a> Thursday.</p><p>Wheeler said that a second Trump term would mean the EPA would turn its attention to community revitalization, water quality, permitting reform, Superfund cleanups and pesticide administration, according to Reuters.</p>
<p>"I believe that by focusing EPA toward communities in the coming years, our agency can change the future for people living in this country who have been left behind simply for living in polluted places," he said, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/515055-epa-chief-pushing-for-second-trump-term-outlines-vision-for-agency" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p><p>He argued that the actions that supported development and cleanup were actually designed to help poor communities.</p><p>"This will do more for environmental justice than all the rhetoric in political campaigns," Wheeler claimed, as Reuters reported.</p><p>He also added that in a second term, he would continue rules he implemented that limit what scientific research could be considered in decision-making and another that reevaluates how the agency predicts climate risk, according to The Hill. Both of those rules have been criticized by experts for eschewing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a> and for fuzzy math.</p>
<p>While Wheeler argued that policies meant to mitigate pollution are hurting poor communities, many experts see it differently. They argue that the more than 100 environmental rollbacks that have happened under the Trump administration will increase air and water pollution around the nation's most vulnerable communities, leading to more illness and premature deaths, according to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/03/epa-chief-trump-will-roll-back-more-environmental-rules-if-re-elected.html" target="_blank">CNBC</a>.</p><p>"EPA was founded to protect people — you, me and our families — but the Trump administration has turned it into an agency to protect polluters," said Gina McCarthy, who led the agency during the Obama administration and now is president of the NRDC Action Fund, the political arm of the Natural Resources Defense Council, as the AP reported</p><p>In an attempt at revisionism, Wheeler said it was the Obama administration that hurt poor communities by regulating industry.</p><p>"The Obama-Biden administration only focused on climate change at the expense of the communities here in the United States and the expense of reducing pollution where people live," Wheeler told the Wall Street Journal.</p>
<p>Former EPA officials like McCarthy, both from Republican and Democratic administrations, have banded together to denounce the policies put forth by Trump and Wheeler. Five former EPA administrators issued a joint statement that said, "Actions during the Trump administration have further decreased public confidence in the agency's credibility, undercut its historic dedication to high ethical standards, and affected employee morale," according to the AP.</p><p>"Every one of the actions they have taken, either by weakening or rolling back basic protections, has put environmental justice communities — front-line communities — in greater harm," Mustafa Santiago Ali, a longtime EPA official who now works on environmental justice and climate issues for the National Wildlife Federation, said in an interview, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/03/wheeler-epa-trump-climate/?hpid=hp_national1-8-12_epa-540p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "I have seen no actions that lead me to believe they have any interest in protecting those lives."</p><p>Mike Flynn, who worked at the EPA for nearly four decades before retiring in 2018, told The Washington Post: "The Trump administration has transformed EPA into an agency that's failing to meet the fundamental mission of the agency, protecting public health and environment."</p><p>He added that the staff there "is really demoralized."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just ... ›
- Wheeler Signs Proposal for Pipeline Projects to Bypass Clean Water ... ›
- Trump Admin Weakens Obama-Era Rule to Limit Toxic Waste From ... ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- EPA Chief: Climate Change Is Not Top Priority - EcoWatch ›
- Court Rules EPA Must Release 20,000 Emails Between Wheeler ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Trump looks on as EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks during an event to unveil changes to the National Environmental Policy Act on Jan. 9, 2020 in Washington, DC. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
The Trump administration announced that it would roll back a rule from 2015 that was put in place to limit the amount of toxic chemicals that are in the wastewater of coal plants, according to The Washington Post.
<p>The rule insisted that coal plants invest in newer technologies to treat their wastewater so toxic heavy metals like <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead">lead</a>, selenium and arsenic are not leached into nearby <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a> and streams where they can damage fragile ecosystems and also seep into <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a>, as The Washington Post reported.</p><p>The new <a href="https://www.epa.gov/eg/2020-steam-electric-reconsideration-rule" target="_blank">regulations</a> put forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), which is run by Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the coal industry, allows coal plants to dial back their investment in new technologies; the regulations delay the date that plants needed to be in compliance, and they exempt some coal-fired plants from taking any corrective or pollution-limiting action, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/climate/trump-coal-plants.html" target="_blank">The New York Times.</a></p>
<p>The compliance date is pushed back to 2025 for some plants. The ones exempted from the rule are done so with the expectation that they will be retired by 2028.</p><p>The "effluent limitations" regulations that the EPA rolled out Monday will save the coal industry $140 million, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-coal/u-s-epa-rolls-back-limits-on-waste-water-from-coal-plants-idUSKBN25R2QK" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>"Newer, more affordable pollution control technologies and flexibility on the regulation's phase-in will reduce pollution and save jobs at the same time," said Wheeler, as Reuters reports.</p><p>The Obama administration had said that the 2015 rule would limit 1.4 billion pounds of toxic pollutants from entering U.S. waterways each year. Coal plants use scrubbers to capture mercury, sulfur dioxide and heavy metals that would be emitted through smoke stacks. That rule has been in place since the 1980s, but what to do with those trapped pollutants is a thorny issue. Coal plants had been allowed to dump them into nearby waterways until the 2015 rule took effect, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>And yet, without evidence, the current EPA said it expects the same or even greater pollution reductions because coal plants will supposedly adopt the newer technologies voluntarily. The EPA's math is based on the assumption that 30 percent of coal plants will implement technologies that are beyond the regulations required by the EPA, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/31/trump-toxic-water-pollution-wastewater" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p><p>"It's clear from this rule that a relatively inexpensive treatment technology is available – the one that they made voluntary – that would eliminate the toxic contamination of drinking water supplies and is very affordable. And yet they did not require it," said Betsy Southerland, an Obama EPA water official, to The Guardian. "People should be very concerned."</p>
<p>Environmental activists quickly criticized the rule as a gift to the coal industry and a shortsighted measure that ignored the health of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> and people that live near coal plants, according to The Washington Post.</p><p>Thomas Cmar, an attorney with Earthjustice, told The New York Times that the EPA's actions will allow older, dirtier coal plants to stay alive longer since they do not have to invest in upgrades.</p><p>"There are dozens of water bodies around the country where the local water is significantly impacted by this type of direct dumping of toxic metals from power plants," said Cmar to The Times.</p><p>Cmar said Earthjustice will attempt to stop the rollback in court.</p><p>"Giving coal companies a free pass to dump more toxic heavy metals like mercury and arsenic into our waters is a travesty," Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an email, to The Washington Post. "This shameless handout will allow greater amounts of these dangerous pollutants to be spewed directly into our waterways, threatening public health and pushing hundreds of aquatic endangered species, including salmon, sturgeon and hellbender salamanders, closer to extinction."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Toxic Wake: 10 Ways the EPA Has Made Life More ... ›
- EPA Moves to Overhaul Obama-Era Coal Ash Disposal Rule ... ›
- EPA Delays Toxic Waste Rule for Coal-Fired Power Plants - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation, Fewer Environmental Protections - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
EPA Has Granted More Than 3,000 Pollution Monitoring Exemptions to Oil and Gas Industry
26 August
Climate
Environmental regulators across the country granted more than 3,000 requests from polluting oil and gas operations, government facilities, chemical plants, and other facilities to stop pollution monitoring. PxHere / CC0
Environmental regulators across the country granted more than 3,000 requests from polluting oil and gas operations, government facilities, chemical plants, and other facilities to stop pollution monitoring and other procedures intended to protect human health and the environment, an expansive two-month AP investigation revealed.
<p>The Trump administration, under pressure from the oil and gas industry, allowed for the exemptions in late March because of the coronavirus pandemic. </p><p>"It's like saying, 'We're going to remove the radar guns and remove speedometers, but you still have to comply with the speed limit,'" said Eric Schaeffer, now head of the Environmental Integrity Project advocacy group. "That doesn't make sense." </p><p>While EPA claims the monitoring waivers do not constitute a license to pollute at will, without effective monitoring there is no way to know. </p><p>As a whole, the skipped leak inspections could be endangering oil and gas workers and allowing thousands of tons of greenhouse pollution to be emitted into the atmosphere, a former oil and gas engineer told the AP.</p>
<p>The investigation's findings run counter to statements made by the EPA in June that the coronavirus was not impacting compliance and monitoring, and that the industry was not seeking relief. </p><p>In fact, the industry actors aggressively sought and were granted exemptions, as early as March, to skip inspections of smokestacks, tank seals, flare stacks, and emissions monitoring systems, which could raise the risk of explosions. </p><p>"As surely as night follows day there are going to be an increased number of deaths from those causes," Philip J. Landrigan, director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good at Boston College, told the AP.</p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><a href="https://apnews.com/3bf753f9036e7d88f4746b1a36c1ddc4?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=93878362&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8llXBR1XSIHnBMwvxjlxSTzAmU1Yd25iuXcsHj4vE8oBH169XOVGeDGxaAruzlCNLYkhcXGNC0FJFTnyKho_GYG7zgOD__m50Rvc-lLDpvzw2fuhM&utm_content=93878362&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">AP</a></p><p><a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/broadcast-networks/three-years-corporate-broadcast-news-hurricane-coverage-failed-mention-specific" target="_blank"></a><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Waste is found dumped at a marsh near the mouth of Neshaminy Creek to the Delaware river in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, on Feb. 6, 2019. Bastiaan Slabbers / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Melanie Benesh, Legislative Attorney
From the beginning, the Trump administration has aggressively slashed environmental regulations. A New York Times analysis identified 100 environmental protections that have been reversed or are in the process of getting rolled back. The administration's record on chemical safety has been especially hazardous for the health of Americans, especially children.
<p><a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2018/01/trump-s-toxic-wake-8-ways-president-made-chemicals-less-safe-2017" target="_blank">One year into President Trump's term,</a> EWG detailed how the Trump administration has stacked the Environmental Protection Agency with industry lawyers and lobbyists, undermined worker safety and cooked the books on chemical safety assessments. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/13-ways-pruitt-s-epa-has-made-your-life-more-toxic" target="_blank">Midway through his second year,</a> we reported how the EPA reversed a ban on a brain-damaging pesticide, delayed chemical bans and killed a rule to protect kids from toxic PCBs in schools. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/08/10-ways-trump-has-undermined-chemical-safety" target="_blank">Last year,</a> we reported that the EPA had rescinded safety rules at chemical plants, rubber-stamped untested new chemicals and silenced researchers.</p><p>As Trump's first term nears its end, things are even worse. Here are 10 more ways the Trump administration has continued to make life more toxic for Americans.</p>
1. Failed to Aggressively Regulate Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’
<p>The toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS contaminate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/" target="_blank">more than 2,200 sites</a> across the nation. Because they never break down in the environment, PFAS are often called "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-toxic-chemicals-are-everywhere-and-they-wont-ever-go-away/2018/01/02/82e7e48a-e4ee-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html" target="_blank">forever chemicals</a>." They build up in our bodies and are linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harms and reduced effectiveness of vaccines. Even though the EPA has known about the risks from PFAS chemicals <a href="https://www.ewg.org/epa-pfas-timeline/" target="_blank">since at least 1998</a>, they remain virtually unregulated.</p><p>In February 2019, the EPA released a toothless PFAS "action plan" that lacked deadlines for action and failed to address the use of PFAS in everyday products, contamination from PFAS air emissions or disposal of PFAS waste, among other concerns. A year and a half later, key goals from the plan, including regulating PFAS under the Superfund law and setting drinking water standards, remain unfulfilled.</p><p>When Congress stepped in and sought to designate PFOA and PFOS – the two most notorious and well-studied PFAS – as "hazardous substances" and to set deadlines for agency action, Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SAP_HR-535.pdf" target="_blank">threatened a veto</a>. Trump's EPA also <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/27/2020-13738/long-chain-perfluoroalkyl-carboxylate-and-perfluoroalkyl-sulfonate-chemical-substances-significant" target="_blank">weakened a rule</a> designed to regulate <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/06/final-decision-epa-fails-protect-public-toxic-forever-chemicals-consumer" target="_blank">PFAS in consumer products</a>.</p>2. Allowed a Rocket Fuel Chemical to Stay in Drinking Water
<p>Perchlorate is a component of rocket fuel that also frequently contaminates drinking water sources. Perchlorate can interfere with thyroid function, which can also harm <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/11/kids-still-risk-rocket-fuel-chemical-food-and-water" target="_blank">childhood brain development</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-11/html/2011-2603.htm" target="_blank">Almost a decade ago,</a> the EPA determined that these harms warranted regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency then dragged its feet for years. In 2016, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2016/160218" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council sued</a> to force the EPA to finally set a legal limit for perchlorate in drinking water. In a <a href="https://www.freshlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/12/Doc-38-Consent-Decree.pdf" target="_blank">court-approved consent decree</a>, the EPA agreed to propose a standard by October 2018 and finalize it by 2019. However, the EPA sought extensions and failed to meet these deadlines.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/26/2019-12773/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-perchlorate" target="_blank">EPA finally proposed a drinking water standard</a> in June 2019 but also suggested that it might not regulate perchlorate after all. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/21/2020-13462/drinking-water-final-action-on-perchlorate" target="_blank">A year later, </a>the EPA withdrew its decision to regulate perchlorate in drinking water.</p>3. Allowed Scores of New Chemicals, Including New Toxic PFAS, Onto the Market Without Adequate Oversight
<p>In 2016, Congress substantially changed the way new chemicals are approved under the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/new-tsca-bill-falls-short-protecting-americans-toxic-chemicals#.WwLUddMvwWo" target="_blank">Toxic Substances Control Act</a>, or TSCA.</p><p>Under the old law, chemicals were frequently approved by default, often <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/off-the-books-ii-more-secret-chemicals/new-chemicals" target="_blank">without any health and safety information</a>. As a result, unsafe chemicals were allowed to be used for years or decades before the health and environmental hazards came to light. Inadequate oversight of new chemicals can also lead to <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/harmful-chemicals-removed-from-products-often-replaced-with-something-as-bad-or-worse/" target="_blank">regrettable substitution</a> – when chemicals are finally found to be unsafe, they are often replaced by unstudied chemicals that may be just as or even more toxic.</p><p>The 2016 update was supposed to fix the new chemicals program by requiring the EPA to make an affirmative safety finding on new chemicals and restrict use if industry failed to provide sufficient safety data. Nonetheless, the Trump EPA has approved scores of new chemicals in a process that <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/12/09/when-will-epa-fully-explain-and-legally-justify-its-reviews-of-new-chemicals-under-tsca/" target="_blank">lacks transparency</a> and <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/20200317_comms_pc_tsca_english_final.pdf" target="_blank">contravenes the 2016 law</a>. The EPA has also <a href="https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/09/05/trumps-epa-flouting-law-when-approving-new-chemicals-here-are-3-examples" target="_blank">ignored known health concerns</a>, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/21/the-trump-epa-is-throwing-workers-facing-risks-from-new-tsca-chemicals-under-the-bus/" target="_blank">limited its consideration of worker risks</a> and <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/the-trump-epa-is-illegally-denying-requests-for-public-files-on-new-chemicals/" target="_blank">denied requests for public files</a> in the new chemicals program.</p><p>The EPA has also exploited loopholes in the new law to quickly approve new chemicals, including toxic PFAS. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/07/28/greasing-the-skids-the-trump-epa-is-green-lighting-dozens-of-new-pfas-under-tsca/" target="_blank">A recent investigation</a> found that the EPA has been quietly approving new PFAS chemicals, through a provision known as the low volume exemption in the new chemicals program. As a result, the EPA is greenlighting new PFAS chemicals on an expedited basis, without public scrutiny. One PFAS, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2020/01/27/what-connects-cross-country-skiing-and-chemical-safety/" target="_blank">used in ski wax</a>, was approved despite a finding that the chemical could "waterproof the lungs," resulting in severe health impacts.</p><p>Since the law was updated in 2016, the EPA has reviewed more than <a href="https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/statistics-new-chemicals-review" target="_blank">3,000 new chemicals</a> submissions. More than 1,000 of these chemicals have been approved through the low volume exemption, and since 2016, manufacturers have begun producing at least 900 new chemicals, many without adequate safety data. Environmental groups have <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">sued the EPA</a> over its failures to protect the public and the environment from risks from new chemicals. </p>4. Failed to Protect Workers From a Deadly Paint-Stripping Chemical
<p>Methylene chloride is a highly toxic chemical used in paint strippers that is responsible for <a href="https://saferchemicals.org/us-deaths-from-methylene-chloride/" target="_blank">more than 60 deaths</a> since 1980. In the final days of the Obama administration, the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231-0001" target="_blank">EPA proposed a ban</a> on "methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal."</p><p>After significant pressure from <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-reconsiders-ban-on-potentially-lethal-paint-stripper-chemical-methylene-chloride/" target="_blank">families who lost loved ones</a> due to methylene chloride exposure, the Trump EPA eventually issued a final rule in 2019. However, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-bans-consumer-sales-methylene-chloride-paint-removers-protecting-public" target="_blank">EPA narrowed the rule</a> so that it would apply only to consumer<em> uses</em> of methylene chloride, not commercial uses. That means workers are not protected, even though a <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/workers-rights/epa-restricts-sales-of-deadly-paint-strippers-after-years-of-delays/" target="_blank">Center for Public Integrity investigation</a> found that most deaths from methylene chloride take place at work.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/final-risk-evaluation-methylene-chloride" target="_blank">separate EPA evaluation</a> of methylene chloride found that manufacturing, disposal and several other uses of methylene chloride pose no "unreasonable risk." Environmental groups have filed lawsuits challenging <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/trump-s-epa-sued-for-leaving-workers-exposed-to-deadly-chemical-in-paint-strippers" target="_blank">the rule</a> and the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/trumps-epa-sued-over-understating-risks-of-deadly-chemical" target="_blank">recent evaluation</a>.</p>5. Cooked the Books on the “Civil Action” Chemical
<p>Trichloroethylene is a chemical solvent made infamous by the book and movie "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3PHjIly2N0" target="_blank">A Civil Action</a>." The EPA considers it to be a known carcinogen, and it is one of the primary contaminants that sickened scores of veterans who served at <a href="https://psmag.com/environment/what-happened-at-camp-lejeune" target="_blank">Camp Lejeune</a>, in North Carolina.</p><p>As with methylene chloride, in the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed banning three uses of TCE: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0163-0001" target="_blank">spot cleaning, aerosol degreasing</a> and <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0387-0001" target="_blank">vapor degreasing</a>. In December 2017, the Trump EPA <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-epa-indefinitely-delays-bans-deadly-chemicals" target="_blank">shelved these proposed bans</a>, claiming that it would study those uses in a separate ongoing risk evaluation of TCE.</p><p>However, the EPA dramatically rewrote the accepted science on TCE in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-trichloroethylene" target="_blank">draft risk evaluation</a> released in February. As <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/06/industry-s-behest-epa-caves-banning-civil-action-carcinogen-lays-ground" target="_blank">EWG warned</a> in 2018, the solvents industry aggressively lobbied the EPA to ignore a key <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241384/" target="_blank">2003 study</a> finding that TCE causes heart deformities in developing fetuses. TCE's connection with fetal heart defects was an important basis for the Obama EPA's decision to ban three uses of TCE. An <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623816303240#bib0190" target="_blank">independent review</a> of the EPA's science found that "prenatal exposure to TCE can cause human cardiac defects" and that the study "remains a valid choice" for assessing risk.</p><p>The lobbyists succeeded. The EPA's draft risk evaluation questioned the study's design and minimized its significance. An <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/epa-scientists-found-a-toxic-chemical-damages-fetal-hearts-the-trump-white-house-rewrote-their-assessment/" target="_blank">investigation by Reveal News</a> compared the draft risk evaluation with a leaked earlier draft. It found that the earlier draft had relied extensively on the 2003 study and used it as a benchmark for the risk calculations. Reveal also reported that then-EPA chemicals safety chief Nancy Beck – "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/05/scariest-trump-appointee-you-ve-never-heard" target="_blank">the scariest Trump appointee you've never heard of</a>" – ordered that the risk evaluation be rewritten to downplay the risks of TCE. With the EPA giving significantly less weight to risks from fetal heart deformities, it's unlikely the agency will finalize the proposed bans.</p>6. Pressured EPA Scientists to Drop Evaluations of Toxic Chemicals – Including Formaldehyde
<p>The Trump EPA is undermining the work of independent scientists within the Integrated Risk Information System program, known as IRIS. The program's work is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Its scientific assessments are intended to support the work of other EPA program offices and regional offices. IRIS is a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/02/03/epa-iris-toxic-chemicals/" target="_blank">frequent target of chemical industry attacks</a> because its independent safety assessments often don't align with industry objectives.</p><p>In 2018, the Trump EPA tried to <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3534381/Combined.pdf" target="_blank">defund</a> the IRIS program. EPA leadership also pressured IRIS to drop critical health assessments. In March 2019, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697212.pdf" target="_blank">a Government Accountability Office report</a> disclosed that EPA leadership directed agency offices to limit the number of chemicals they wanted IRIS to review, and cut in half the number of IRIS's ongoing or upcoming assessments.</p><p>One of the halted assessments was IRIS's decades-long review of formaldehyde, a widely used chemical and <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/formaldehyde.pdf" target="_blank">known human carcinogen</a>. This is surprising because former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt indicated to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2018 that the report was complete and <a href="https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pruitt%20Letter%20formaldehyde%20assessment.pdf" target="_blank">ready for release</a>. However, answering <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2019/01/29/document_pm_02.pdf" target="_blank">questions for the record</a> following a 2019 Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said formaldehyde was "not a top priority."</p><p>Instead of releasing the IRIS study on formaldehyde to the public, the EPA has instead decided that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention – under the leadership of Nancy Beck – should <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-list-next-20-chemicals-undergo-risk-evaluation-under-tsca" target="_blank">conduct its own assessment</a> of formaldehyde. As with TCE, this action will give the agency an opportunity to distort the science and minimize risks. Because these reviews take years, it will also significantly delay any EPA regulatory action on formaldehyde.</p>7. Rolled Back Clean Water Protections
<p>Industrial chemical pollutants are often discharged into drinking water supplies. But the Trump administration has made it a priority to roll back the<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13435/clean-water-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="_blank"> Clean Water Rule,</a> which more clearly defined which kinds of bodies of water are subject to the Clean Water Act. EWG's analysis found that the Clean Water Rule, if implemented as proposed by the Obama administration, would have protected drinking water sources for more than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/trump-plan-gut-stream-protections-imperils-tap-water-117-million-americans" target="_blank">117 million Americans</a>.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/epa-science-board/index.html" target="_blank">EPA's own science advisors</a> have opposed the rollback of the Clean Water Rule, but the Trump administration <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-completes-repeal-clean-water-rule-imperiling-drinking-water-sources-117m-people" target="_blank">repealed</a> it in 2019, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/trump-administration-finalizes-repeal-pollution-rule-threatening-drinking-water-sources-117" target="_blank">proposed its own rule</a> in January and <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/21/2020-02500/the-navigable-waters-protection-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states" target="_blank">finalized it</a> in April. The new rule covers far fewer bodies of water and would leave 234,000 miles of small streams unprotected. EWG estimates that at least 72 million Americans draw at least half their drinking water from small streams.</p><p>Because of the repeal, those bodies of water will no longer be subject to pollution limits. Protection for small and seasonal streams and wetlands is important because they often flow into larger bodies of water, including sources of drinking water. Polluted drinking water sources <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2017/03/17/judge-dismisses-water-works-nitrates-lawsuit/99327928/" target="_blank">strain municipal water utilities</a> tasked with filtering out contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and risk exposing the public to more <a href="https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/state-of-american-drinking-water.php" target="_blank">contaminants that aren't regulated</a> under the act.</p>8. Cooked the Books on Asbestos
<p>Asbestos is a highly toxic, naturally occurring chemical linked to a particularly deadly form of cancer called <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mesothelioma/symptoms-causes/syc-20375022" target="_blank">mesothelioma</a>. An estimated <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Jukka%20Takala&orcid=0000-0001-5722-7052" target="_blank">40,000 Americans</a> die every year from asbestos-related diseases. Although the toxicity of asbestos is well understood, the EPA has never actually banned most uses. The EPA attempted a ban in 1989, but most of the rule was overturned by <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6165892895625819539&q=corrosion+proof+fittings+v+epa&hl=en&as_sdt=20006" target="_blank">the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991.</a></p><p>After Congress reformed TSCA in 2016, the EPA announced that asbestos would be one of the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/under-new-safety-law-epa-picks-first-10-chemicals-review" target="_blank">first 10 chemicals</a> reviewed under the new law. Many hoped that this time, the EPA would finally ban asbestos.</p><p>Instead, when the EPA released its <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/draft-risk-evaluation-asbestos" target="_blank">draft risk evaluation</a> in May, it found that several uses of asbestos, including import of asbestos and asbestos-containing products and distribution of asbestos-containing products, did not pose an unreasonable risk. The EPA made its risk determinations by ignoring exposure from "legacy" uses of asbestos, such as old insulation and building tiles. Although in November the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/court-trump-epa-acted-unlawfully-refusing-consider-legacy-use-asbestos-lead" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals</a> ordered the EPA to fix this error, it has yet to do so.</p><p>Instead of banning asbestos, in April 2019 the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/25/2019-08154/restrictions-on-discontinued-uses-of-asbestos-significant-new-use-rule" target="_blank">published a rule</a> requiring notice and approval before manufacturers could resume using it in some applications the agency considered abandoned. However, <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/815-e-p-a-memos-on-asbestos/12c87a96be998db10048/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">leaked documents</a> show that more than a dozen EPA staffers urged an outright ban on asbestos instead.</p>9. Proposed a Loophole for Toxic Air Pollution
<p>In July 2019, the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/26/2019-14252/reclassification-of-major-sources-as-area-sources-under-section-112-of-the-clean-air-act" target="_blank">Trump EPA proposed to reverse</a> a longstanding policy requiring large power plants, refineries and other industrial polluters to always meet certain strict controls, even after reducing emissions. The new rule creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act regulations that would allow large industrial facilities to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/reclassification_of_major_sources_as_area_sources_under_section_112_of_the_clean_air_act.pdf" target="_blank">reclassify themselves</a>, from "major sources" of air pollution to "area sources."</p><p>That change would allow them to opt out of strict pollution control standards, called "maximum achievable control technology," and substantially increase their emissions of dangerous air pollutants. EPA's own data shows that more than <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-26/pdf/2019-14252.pdf" target="_blank">3,900 large facilities</a> that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications" target="_blank">emit pollutants like mercury and benzene</a> could take advantage of this loophole. <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2020/02/19/epa-data-emphasizes-danger-of-trump-administrations-air-toxics-loophole/?conversion_pg=www.momscleanairforce.org%2Fthe-racism-of-the-epa-agenda%2F" target="_blank">The Environmental Defense Fund</a> estimates the loophole could increase toxic air emissions by as much as 480 percent, or almost 50 million pounds per year. </p><p>This rollback is especially alarming in the midst of the global coronavirus pandemic. Studies have found that people who live in areas with <a href="https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/07/17/why-air-pollution-is-linked-to-severe-cases-of-covid-19/" target="_blank">high levels of air pollution</a> are at greater risk for severe cases of COVID-19.</p>10. Continuing Its Quest to Censor Science
<p>In 2018, the EPA <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science" target="_blank">proposed a disastrous rule</a> significantly limiting the kinds of science the agency can rely on to justify environmental regulations. The rule would have prohibited the agency from using studies that don't make their underlying data publicly available or whose results can't be replicated. That change would prevent the EPA from including in its future risk assessments most <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/scientific-medical-academic-groups-urge-epa-drop-transparency-rule" target="_blank">human health studies</a>, because personal medical data must remain confidential. The rule would undermine studies that are foundational to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html" target="_blank">clean air regulations</a>.</p><p>The proposal sparked enormous opposition from scientists, academics and environmental health advocates. More than 600,000 public comments were submitted to the agency, the vast majority in opposition. In September 2019, the EPA dropped the proposal from its regulatory agenda. </p><p>But the Trump EPA is at it again. In March, the agency issued a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/supplemental_notice_of_strengthening_transparency_in_regulatory_science.pdf" target="_blank">supplemental proposal</a> that is actually <a href="https://www.ewg.org/testimony-official-correspondence/ewg-comments-epa-strengthening-transparency-regulatory-science" target="_blank">worse than</a> the original proposal. The 2018 proposal applied to all "dose response" studies, but the new proposal applies to all studies. The new proposal also applies retroactively, which means the EPA could use it to gut existing regulations.</p><p>As these actions – and dozens of others – show, the Trump EPA has aggressively worked to erode and eliminate vital environmental and public health protections. The public needs an EPA that will prioritize people and planet over polluters and profit.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump EPA OK's Rocket Fuel Chemical for Water Supplies - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA OKs 'Emergency' Use of Bee-Killing Pesticide on 13.9 ... ›
- Trump Admin Weakens Obama-Era Rule to Limit Toxic Waste From Coal Plants - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Methane flares at a fracking site near a home in Colorado on Oct. 25, 2014. WildEarth Guardians / Flickr
In the coming days, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to use its power to roll back yet another Obama-era environmental protection meant to curb air pollution and slow the climate crisis.
<p>This new rollback concerns <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane" target="_self">methane</a>, a potent greenhouse gas destructive to the earth's atmosphere. The EPA is expected to make the announcement on Friday that it is ending a stricture put in place by the previous administration that curbed the amount of methane that could be released in oil and gas exploration, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-to-rescind-methane-regulations-for-oil-and-gas-11597051802" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported.</p><p>Since the rule is not official yet, anonymous officials at the agency told The Wall Street Journal that the rollback will scrap the new rules that required oil and gas producers to have systems, checks and processes in place to identify and address methane leaks on their rigs.</p>
<p>The rollbacks do not end there. The Wall Street Journal also reported that the EPA will also end its oversight of ozone pollutants and emissions from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_self">pipelines</a> and storage sites. Additionally, the agency will reduce its requirement for monitoring and reporting certain pollutants.</p><p>The EPA's decision to end its oversight and slacken regulation may result in an additional 5 million metric tons of methane pollution released into the atmosphere each year.</p><p>Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that can be 25 times more impactful than carbon dioxide in equal quantities, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/511298-epa-to-issue-methane-rollback-this-week-report" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported. In 2018, it accounted for nearly 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity, mostly from the oil and gas industry, although commercial agriculture and the cattle industry are also large contributors to methane emissions.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/trump-epa-reportedly-moving-forward-eliminate-key-federal-methane-protections" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF) noted, the action would also mean no future action could regulate methane production from oil and gas facilities built before 2015. Their analysis shows that 9.3 million people live within half a mile of one of the older wells that the administration is seeking to leave forever unregulated by the EPA.</p><p>"Our federal methane safeguards have been in place since 2016, protecting Americans from unhealthy and climate-damaging pollution. The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration's decision to reverse course is deeply and fundamentally flawed," said EDF lead attorney Peter Zalzal, in a <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/trump-epa-reportedly-moving-forward-eliminate-key-federal-methane-protections" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Eliminating these safeguards would ignore the overwhelming body of scientific evidence documenting the urgent need to reduce methane pollution. And it is also starkly at odds with the broad and diverse set of stakeholders — including some major oil and gas producing companies — that support retaining and strengthening methane safeguards."</p>
<p>The administration is using the decline in demand for oil and gas as a justification for easing the pollution rules. It argues that the rule is needed to free the oil and gas industry from what it calls crippling regulations during an economic slowdown due to the novel coronavirus. However, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/climate/trump-methane-climate-change.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> notes, the weakening of the rule has been in the works for more than a year.</p><p>As The New York Times noted, several of the world's major fossil fuel companies actually support the methane rules and do not want to see them relaxed. In a 2019 public comment on a draft of the rule, Joe Ellis, a vice president at BP, urged the EPA "to continue to regulate methane emissions from new sources and to adopt a rule for existing sources. EPA regulation of methane across the value chain is the right thing to do for the environment, will support consistent regulation across the U.S. and can be cost-effectively achieved with new technology."</p><p>Furthermore, Exxon urged the EPA in 2018 to maintain core elements of the Obama administration's policy. And Gretchen Watkins, the U.S. chairwoman for Shell, which has urged the Trump administration to regulate methane emissions, said, "The negative impacts of methane have been widely acknowledged for years, so it's frustrating and disappointing to see the administration go in a different direction," as The New York Times reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Permian Basin Methane Emissions Found to Be More Than 2x ... ›
- Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than ... ›
- 'Extraordinarily Harmful' Trump Rule Would Gut Restrictions on ... ›
- Exxon Now Wants to Write the Rules for Regulating Methane ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Democratic Bill Banning Toxic Pesticides Applauded as 'Much-Needed' Step to Protect Kids and Planet
05 August
Politics
Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced legislation to ban some of the most toxic pesticides currently in use in the U.S. D-Keine / E+ / Getty Images
By Jake Johnson
Democrats in the House and Senate on Tuesday introduced sweeping legislation that would ban some of the most toxic pesticides currently in use in the U.S. and institute stronger protections for farmworkers and communities that have been exposed to damaging chemicals by the agriculture industry.
<p><br/></p>
<p>The Protect America's Children from Toxic Pesticide Act of 2020, sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), was <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/08/04/sweeping-proposal-would-protect-kids-farmworkers-and-everyone-toxic-pesticides" target="_blank">applauded</a> by environmentalists as a "bold and much-needed" step in the right direction.</p><p>"The pesticide industry and chemical agriculture have for far too long been able to abuse legal loopholes allowing for the use of toxic pesticides that have not been adequately tested to make sure they are safe for people and the environment," <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/08/04/sweeping-proposal-would-protect-kids-farmworkers-and-everyone-toxic-pesticides" target="_blank">said</a> Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. "The Udall-Neguse plan will rein in this largely unchecked explosion of pesticide use by agriculture and give the EPA much stronger authority to protect the public."</p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://neguse.house.gov/media/press-releases/neguse-udall-introduce-landmark-pesticide-reform-to-protect-children-farmworkers-and-consumers-from-toxic-pesticides" target="_blank">summary</a> of the bill released by Neguse's office, the legislation would ban:</p><ul><li>Organophosphate insecticides, which are designed to target the neurological system and have been linked to neurodevelopmental damage in children;</li><li><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/neonicotinoids">Neonicotinoid</a> insecticides, which have contributed to pollinator collapse around the world; and</li><li>Paraquat, which is one of the most acutely toxic herbicides in the world.</li></ul>
<p>If passed, the bill would end the use of <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/19/total-disgrace-outrage-trump-epa-says-it-wont-ban-pesticide-linked-brain-damage" target="_blank">chlorpyrifos</a>, an organophosphate pesticide linked to brain damage in children. Last July, as Common Dreams <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/19/total-disgrace-outrage-trump-epa-says-it-wont-ban-pesticide-linked-brain-damage" target="_blank">reported</a>, President Donald <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a>'s Environmental Protection Agency rejected a petition by environmental and public health groups to ban chlorpyrifos <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/07/18/epa-will-not-ban-use-controversial-pesticide-linked-childrens-health-problems/" target="_blank">despite evidence</a> of the pesticide's neurotoxic effects.</p><p>"Our nation's pesticide laws have not kept up to keep us safe," Udall said in a <a href="https://neguse.house.gov/media/press-releases/neguse-udall-introduce-landmark-pesticide-reform-to-protect-children-farmworkers-and-consumers-from-toxic-pesticides" target="_blank">statement</a>. "The United States sprays a total of over a billion pounds of pesticides each year on the food we feed to our children, exposing them to dangerous chemicals linked to brain damage and diseases like Parkinson's."</p><p>"It is long past time for the United States Congress to turn attention to this issue," Udall added, "and put the health and safety of our families above the profits of large corporations."</p>
<div id="2d54c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4007f312b8e16fd98602a90f340a5032"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1290678924201152515" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today we are introducing the Protect America’s Children From Toxic Pesticides Act, #PACTPA. This is a bill to prote… https://t.co/B24L1YUHEe</div> — Tom Udall (@Tom Udall)<a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorTomUdall/statuses/1290678924201152515">1596556809.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Daniel Savery, senior legislative representative at Earthjustice, said in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/lawmakers-aim-to-ban-brain-damaging-pesticides-with-new-bill" target="_blank">statement</a> that the the Udall-Neguse bill "says what we all know to be true: that nerve agents have no place on our food, in our workplaces, and in our communities."</p><p>"Earthjustice is grateful for the leadership of Senator Udall and Representative Neguse," said Savery, "and we stand with our farmworker partners in support of this bill."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/04/democratic-bill-banning-toxic-pesticides-us-applauded-much-needed-step-protect-kids" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- California Bans Pesticide Linked to Brain Damage in Children ... ›
- Hawaii Bans Use of Toxic Pesticide Chlorpyrifos - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA OKs 'Emergency' Use of Bee-Killing Pesticide on 13.9 ... ›
- Trump’s EPA Dismisses Agency’s Own Findings That Chlorpyrifos Harms Children’s Brains - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
If you lived in a community suffering from bad air quality in 1981, chances are your neighborhood hasn't improved much. That's the takeaway from a new study that found despite years of progress to improve air pollution, wealthy, white Americans are breathing much cleaner air than low-income communities of color, The Guardian reported.
<p>"Disadvantaged communities remain persistently exposed to higher levels of air pollution," said Jonathan Colmer, an economist at the University of Virginia and co-author of the new <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6503/575" target="_blank">study</a> published in the journal <em>Science</em>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-pollution/after-three-decades-most-polluted-us-neighborhoods-havent-changed-idUSKCN24V3BS#:~:text=After%20three%20decades%2C%20most%20polluted%20U.S.%20neighborhoods%20haven't%20changed,-Nichola%20Groom&text=Likewise%2C%20the%20least%20polluted%20areas,decades%20in%20the%20United%20States." target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported. "This was true in 1980, it was true in 1990, 2000, 2010, and so on."</p><p>The study examined fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, across the United States dating back to 1981. It found that the concentration of pollution from fine particulate matter fell about 70 percent between 1981 and 2016. Experts attribute the progress to stricter emissions regulations, more fuel-efficient vehicles and a decrease in coal-fired plants, Reuters reported.</p><p>But even with four decades of air quality improvement, low-income communities of color still do not have equal access to clean air. That's particularly worrying because of the connection between pollution and COVID-19. Recently, a group of <a href="https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/covid-pm" target="_blank">Harvard data scientists</a> found that a person living in areas with high-particulate pollution is 15 percent more likely to die from COVID-19 than someone living in an area with only slightly less air pollution, <a href="https://www.wellandgood.com/air-pollution-covid-19/" target="_blank">Well and Good</a> reported.</p>
<p>"The persistence of these relative disparities were striking," Colmer told <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/07/30/896635668/air-quality-disparities-persist-despite-overall-gains" target="_blank">NPR</a>. "Federal and state guidelines aim for all people and places to enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental hazards. We're falling short in terms of addressing relative disparities."</p><p>The study was released four months after the Trump administration rejected an Environmental Protection Agency recommendation to tighten air quality regulations, Reuters reported. Though the administration countered that current standards were adequate, the evidence suggests otherwise.</p><p>"If a child was born in Los Angeles county today, they would be exposed to the same amount of pollution the average child was exposed to in the early 1990s," Colmer said in The Guardian.</p>
<p><br>"This paper nicely shines a spotlight on the fact that these disparities continue to be large and that we ought to do something about them," said Joshua Apte, an environmental scientist at the University of California, Berkeley not involved in the study, Reuters reported.</p><p>To address the disparities, researchers note that housing discrimination is one of the main culprits, as low-income communities are often located near sources of pollution, according to NPR.</p><p>But housing discrimination isn't the only issue.</p><p>"Only when we figure out what the causes of the disparities are can we then think about, 'Okay, what are the appropriate policies we can use to mitigate these disparities?'" Lala Ma, an environmental economist at the University of Kentucky told NPR.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 6.5 Million People Die Each Year From Air Pollution, IEA Says ... ›
- Half of U.S. Air Pollution Deaths Linked to Out-of-State Emissions ... ›
- U.S. Air Pollution Is Getting Worse Under Trump, New Study Finds ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, DC on Sept. 8, 2014. aa440 / Flickr
The inspector general for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will look into one of the Trump administration's hallmark environmental rollbacks: the weakening of Obama-era emissions standards. The law from the Obama administration was designed to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing fuel-efficiency standards. Now, the EPA's inspector general will try to determine whether or not the rollback violated the government's own laws, according to CNN.
<p>The inspector general said yesterday that its review would determine whether the agency's rule followed requirements for "transparency, record-keeping, and docketing, and followed the EPA's process for developing final regulatory actions," according to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-07/documents/_epaoig_notificationmemo_7-27-20_fuel-efficient.pdf" target="_blank">EPA documents</a>, as CNN reported.</p><p>In other words, the inspector general would like to see the paper trail that led to the decision and to see if there was undue influence or ethics violations from industry insiders for the slackening of tailpipe emissions standards, which was finalized in late March as the Trump administration's single largest rollback of federal <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a> rules, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/climate/trump-fuel-efficiency-rule.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p>
<p>The new rule, named the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles rule, or SAFE, holds automakers to weaker fuel economy standards through 2025. The SAFE rule lowered the annual emission improvement requirements that the makers of passenger vehicles must meet. Rather than growing approximately 5 percent annually as required under an Obama-era mandate, the standards now increase about 1.5 percent annually. The Trump administration originally proposed freezing the standards entirely, as CNN reported.</p><p>The Obama era rule would have forced new cars to have a fuel efficiency standard of 54 miles per gallon of gasoline by 2025. The rollback of the law in the SAFE rule will essentially add 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, increase gasoline consumption by around 80 billion gallons, and increase oil consumption by 2 billion barrels, according to <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/27/21340680/trump-epa-clean-car-rollback-obama-investigation" target="_blank">The Verge</a>.</p><p>The potential "irregularities" in crafting the rule were flagged in May by Sen. Tom Carper, a Democrat from Delaware, who asked for an investigation in a letter to the EPA inspector general at the time, as The Verge reported.</p><p>"I'm pleased that the EPA Inspector General is opening an investigation into this rule, which was the product of the most procedurally problematic process my office has ever reviewed. If the EPA IG follows the facts, I have no doubt they will find that the Trump Administration failed to follow the law," Carper said in a statement Monday, according to The Verge.</p>
<p>The SAFE rule was marred with problems from the beginning. The Trump administration argued the rule would make roads safer because cars would be more affordable, making people more likely to upgrade. However, outside economists and public health experts have questioned the administration's justification of the rule, noting that its calculations do not stand up to rigorous independent analysis. They have asked the administration to release the formulas and economic models used to inform its justification, according to The New York Times.</p><p>In fact, the administration's own internal analyses showed that the opposite was true. It would create a higher cost for consumers than leaving the Obama-era standard in place and would contribute to more deaths associated with lung disease by releasing more <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">pollution</a> into the air, as The New York Times reported.</p><p>"This is really serious," said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund to The New York Times. "It's rare for E.P.A.'s inspector general to conduct an investigation of the agency's rule-making."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump EPA Withdraws Clean Air Policy Opposed By Fossil Fuel ... ›
- EPA Air Quality Chief Resigns Over Ethics Investigation - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Trump Admin Reverses Obama-Era Restrictions on Pebble Mine Near Alaska's Largest Salmon Nursery
27 July
Politics
The Bristol Bay watershed supports the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery. World Wildlife Fund / YouTube
Officials from the Trump administration announced last week that a plan to open a copper and gold mine that threatens Alaska's largest salmon nursery would not pose a serious environmental threat.
<p>This is a sharp about-face for the U.S. government, after <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-alaska-mining-salmon-2646141959.html" target="_self">the Obama-administration cited environmental concerns</a> and the threat to the spawning ground of the region's prized sockeye salmon when it put the brakes on the project in 2012, and again when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) expressed concerns about the salmon in 2014.</p><p>This new move represents the latest salvo in the Trump administration's thorough and systematic dismantling of environmental efforts and regulations from the previous administration. When it comes to the Pebble Mine, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/07/24/pebble-mine-alaska-trump/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported, a <a href="https://pebbleprojecteis.com/documents/finaleis" target="_blank">final environmental analysis</a> issued Friday by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that the mine — which targets a deposit of gold, copper and other minerals worth up to $500 billion — "would not be expected to have a measurable effect on fish numbers" in the Bristol Bay watershed, which supports the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery.</p><p>Opponents of Pebble Mine criticized the review process as rushed, flawed, and favorable to the mine developer, as the <a href="https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2020/07/23/as-a-major-federal-environmental-review-comes-to-a-close-six-things-to-know-about-the-pebble-mine-proposal/" target="_blank">Anchorage Daily News</a> reported.</p>
<p>In a joint statement, Alannah Hurley with United Tribes of Bristol Bay, Norm Van Vactor with Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp., Ralph Andersen with Bristol Bay Native Association and Katherine Carscallen with Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay said the final review "completely fails to adequately assess the impacts of Pebble on Bristol Bay's waters, salmon, and people," according to the Anchorage Daily News.</p><p>The mine will be located in two watersheds that feed fish-spawning rivers. Opponents say traces of heavy metals and other contaminants left from the mining operation pose risks if they leach into groundwater or if dams holding back the tailings fail in an earthquake, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/climate/pebble-mine-alaska-environment.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported.</p>
<p>Opposition to the mine has been widespread, both in the region and statewide, for nearly two decades, with concerns about environmental damage and the potential harm to the area's salmon, which are the main traditional subsistence food for many of the Native Alaskans in the region and the crux of both sport-fishing and commercial fishing in the area, according to The New York Times.</p><p>The open-pit mine calls for a large dammed area to trap the tailings from mining operations that would be toxic to the fish. It also calls for the 80 new miles of road to carry the concentrated tailings away to Cook Inlet. Additionally, the mining company wants to build a 165-mile natural gas pipeline for a generating plant to power the operation.</p>
<p>According to the Corps, the operations would permanently destroy more than 2,200 acres of wetlands and waters, and 105 miles of streams. The EPA indicated earlier this year that it would not block the project at this point, as The Washington Post reported.</p><p>Opponents have argued that the environmental impact statement was not rigorous enough, as they highlighted hazardous risks, including the potential for a tailings dam failure that could contaminate waterways used by spawning fish and harm the Bristol Bay fishery, which employs about 15,000 people. They also note that Alaska is the most seismically active state in the nation, and critics said the Corps had not taken sufficient account of the risk of earthquakes or volcanic activity, and that its analysis of the dam designs was inadequate, particularly since a few of the dams would be hundreds of feet high, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>Taryn Kiekow Heimer, who leads the the Natural Resources Defense Council's effort to stop the project, told The Washington Post that the administration's push to greenlight a massive project that is opposed by neighboring <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/indigenous-peoples">Indigenous</a> communities amounts to environmental injustice.</p><p>"It's especially embarrassing for the government and appalling given the current social context we are in," she said of the accelerated approval process. "It's just another example of the entrenched and systemic racism that this government is showing to people of color and indigenous people in particular."</p><p>The Pebble Mine, like logging in Alaska' <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/amazon-wildfires-trump-alaska-exploitation-2640082295.html" target="_self">Tongass forest</a>, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/keystone-xl" target="_self">Keystone XL</a> pipeline, and the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/dakota-access-pipeline-shut-down-2646355663.html" target="_self">Dakota Access</a> pipeline, is a gift to industry that the Trump administration has tried to fast track. All those projects could be reversed if a Democratic administration takes office in January, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/07/24/pebble-mine-alaska-trump/" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Pebble Mine Threatens One of the Last Great Salmon Rivers ... ›
- EPA Likely to Approve Mine That Threatens Alaska's Largest ... ›
- Trump Pushed for Mining Project That Could Destroy Alaska Salmon ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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 ... ›
- Trump’s Toxic Wake: 10 Ways the EPA Has Made Life More Hazardous - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less