A federal appeals court on Monday blocked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt from temporarily freezing an Obama-era regulation on methane gas emissions. The ruling represents the first legal setback Pruitt has faced during his months-long quest to dismantle the Obama Administration’s environmental rules.

The case highlighted the split between the EPA’s growing cadre of opponents, mostly made up of environmental groups, and its allies, mostly made up of industry groups. It specifically pitted Pruitt and the American Petroleum Institute against six environmental groups. The plaintiffs, which include the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, brought their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June.

The events that led to the court’s 2-1 decision began in June 2016, when the EPA announced a rule that would require oil and gas companies to, among other things, monitor and reduce methane gas emissions. The rule was set to take effect in August 2016; companies would be required to conduct an “initial monitoring survey” of their methane emissions by June 2017.

In April, soon after Pruitt was anointed head of the EPA, he announced a 90-day delay of the methane rule. And in June, Pruitt proposed an extension of the stay for two years. Monday’s ruling struck down Pruitt’s 90-day delay; a separate hearing will be held on the two year extension.

The EPA “lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to stay the rule, and we therefore grant petitioners’ motion to vacate the stay,” Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins wrote in the majority opinion. Pruitt’s 90-day stay, the judges said, “is essentially an order delaying the rule’s effective date, and this court has held that such orders are tantamount to amending or revoking a rule.”

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Pruitt defended his stay, saying that it did not necessarily portend a complete reversal of the rule. He argued: “Just because you provide a time for implementation or compliance that’s longer doesn’t mean that you’re going to necessarily reverse or redirect the rule.”

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Janice Rogers Brown largely echoed Pruitt’s point, saying, “The Court presumes a certain outcome from EPA’s reconsideration, one that a stay alone gives us no basis to presume.”

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is typically emitted during the fracking process for natural gas. According to a fact sheet released by the EPA last year, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas in the U.S., behind carbon dioxide. About one-third of methane emissions come from natural gas, the fact sheet says, adding that the Obama Administration’s methane regulation would have reduced 510,000 tons of methane gas by 2025.

The court’s ruling was a victory for environmental groups, many of which have found themselves in staunch opposition to the governmental body that is supposed to share their goals. David Doniger, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s climate and clean air program, said in a statement:

“This ruling declares EPA’s action illegal — and slams the brakes on Trump Administration’s brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Appeals Court Hands EPA Admin Scott Pruitt Legal Defeat appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, six environmental conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency suspended portions of an Obama-era legislation intended to limit leaks of methane and other harmful toxins during oil and gas production.  

The regulations surrounding these leaks were detailed in the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) passed by the Obama Administration last June. They were meant to go into effect last weekend. The new rules would require oil and gas companies to invest in resources to regularly detect leaks in their well equipment and make repairs as needed.

The groups behind the lawsuit–which include the Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthworks–are now calling on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the EPA’s move and reverse it altogether. They claim that the 90-day stay of the rule, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, failed to give the public prior notice or the opportunity to comment on the action. This information, they say, is required by the Clean Air Act, one of the country’s first modern environmental laws.

“In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law,” said Meleah Geertsma, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump Administration does not have unlimited power to put people’s health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this.”

Scientists say methane is more dangerous than we think. The Energy Defense Fund estimates that methane is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making it more efficient at trapping heat. 

“By emitting just a little bit of methane, mankind is greatly accelerating the rate of climatic change,” said Energy Defense Fund chief scientist Steve Hamburg.

Pruitt wants to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to review these requirements, assess economic impacts, and report back to the agency, even though the original rule had already given companies a year to do so before it took effect. The EPA argues its right to issue the 90-day stay is also included in the Clean Air Act under section 307, which allows it to reconsider the law as long as “the reconsideration does not postpone the effectiveness of the rule.” But environmentalists argue any delays in implementation would indeed hinder its effectiveness. 

Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute argue that many companies are already checking their equipment for leaks, making the methane rule redundant and unnecessarily costly.

This lawsuit is now one of many actions taken against the Trump climate change policies. Environmentalists sued the administration after the controversial Keystone XL pipeline was approved in March. Just last week, a number of school, companies and states have rallied around Michael Bloomberg to uphold the Paris Agreement on climate change, defying Trump after he announced on Friday that the U.S. would pull out of the deal.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservationists Sue EPA over Delay of Obama-era Methane Rule appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. just became the third country, joining Syria and Nicaragua, that cannot be counted as part of the Paris Climate Accords. The 195-nation agreement set goals for reducing greenhouse gas pollution for developed and developing nations alike. President Donald Trump, in a speech at the White House Rose Garden, made the announcement, saying:

In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.

Trump said he will try to negotiate a deal that is “fair,” adding: “If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.” According to the Associated Press, however, a number of European nations will not be open to the U.S. renegotiating the deal:

BREAKING: France, Germany, Italy issue joint statement saying Paris climate accord can’t be renegotiated.

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 1, 2017

The White House deliberations leading up to Thursday’s announcement were reportedly split between two factions: those who wanted to remain part of the deal and those who wanted to withdraw from it. Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson apparently pushed hard for the president to remain, while EPA Chief Scott Pruitt and Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon lobbied him to exit the pact.

Stating his rationale for removing the U.S., the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China, from the accord, Trump said it hurt the U.S. economy and transferred coal jobs overseas. Vice President Mike Pence, introducing Trump at Thursday’s announcement, echoed that reasoning: “Our president is choosing to put American jobs and American consumers first,” he said. “Our president is choosing to put American energy and American industry first. And by his action today, President Trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women first.”

But many of the leaders in the industries Trump said are harmed by the deal–like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP–supported the climate agreement, and lobbied Trump to stay in. Environmental groups, Democrats, and dozens of congressional Republicans backed the deal as well. In the end, however, Bannon, Pruitt, and others, won the president over. Soon after Trump’s announcement, Jim Immelt, the CEO of General Electric tweeted:

Disappointed with today’s decision on the Paris Agreement. Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.

— Jeff Immelt (@JeffImmelt) June 1, 2017

The Paris deal, a non-binding agreement signed in December 2015, was an international framework to set the world on the path toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The goal was to keep the average global temperature from rising more than two degrees celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. The private sector, as well as some states and cities, have already taken steps to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy. Despite Trump’s decision, the U.S. will technically remain part of the pact until November 4, 2020, a day after the next presidential election.

Former President Barack Obama, who was a central architect in the Paris agreement, issued a statement after Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the accord. He said:

The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Three Countries Not Invested in Paris Climate Deal: Syria, Nicaragua…and the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

In a budget memo released in late March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed eliminating two programs that focus on limiting exposure to lead paint. The suggested proposal would eliminate as much as $16.61 million in funding and over 70 full-time staff members. While the current federal government is looking to get rid of as much federal oversight as possible by transferring powers and responsibilities back to the states, environmental and public health advocates are extremely concerned about the hazardous consequences for citizens–particularly children.

History of Lead and Lead Paint Use

Lead is a naturally-occurring metal found in the Earth’s crust. As one of the earliest discovered metals in human history, lead quickly gained popularity due to its corrosion resistance and low boiling point. In ancient times, “sugar of lead” was used by Roman winemakers as one of the first artificial sweeteners. Up until the 19th century, white lead pigments were widely utilized in paints by artists, as the durability of lead made it an ideal paint additive. Lead-based paint was also used in the U.S. in the 1920s, though several European countries had already banned the use of it.

Usage of lead-based paint started to decline in the 1940s. In 1971, the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA) was passed, which aimed to phase out lead paint use in housing built with federal dollars. Lead paint was eventually banned altogether by the American government in 1978.

Lead Poisoning

Lead poisoning occurs when you absorb too much lead by breathing or swallowing it. The neurotoxic effects of lead are substantial, and children are particularly susceptible. When the LBPPPA was passed in 1971, a blood lead level of 60 micrograms per deciliter was considered safe. It wasn’t until 1991 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lowered the “acceptable” blood lead level to nine micrograms per deciliter or less. That number has since been lowered again, and there is still no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe.

“Lead Paint” Courtesy of Mike Mozart : License: (CC BY 2.0)

Lead-based paint, which also includes any lead-contaminated dust, is one of the most common causes of lead poisoning. According to a 2011 national housing survey, more than a third of housing units across the nation contain lead-based paint. Risk of exposure is particularly high in older homes with flaked or chipped paint.

Some neurological and behavioral effects of lead poisoning are considered to be irreversible, and it’s estimated that 2.6 percent of American preschool children have a blood lead concentration over 5 micrograms per deciliter–the current level at which the government recommends public health intervention. Children may experience developmental delay and learning difficulties as a result of lead exposure. Most lead poisoning in children occurs from eating chips and flakes of deteriorating lead-based paint. Children with pica, a disorder which leads to a compulsive appetite to consume non-food items, are especially at risk of ingesting lead.

Lead Paint Programs

In October 1992, Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title X of Public Law 102-550). Title X amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, and was designed to develop a national strategy to address lead-based paint risks in all housing. Congress promulgated Title X after concerns that low-lead poisoning was widespread amongst American children, particularly those under six years old and minority and low-income populations.

EPA’s Proposed Budget Cuts

On March 31, 2017, a 64-page budget memo covering the EPA’s  2018 fiscal year was released by the Washington Post. The memo showed that officials within the EPA want to eradicate two programs that reduce children’s exposure to lead paint. One of the programs at risk is the Lead Risk Reduction Program. The new budget would slash $2.56 million from its funding and lay off about 73 full-time equivalent employees. This program requires professional remodelers to participate in training to learn safe practices for stripping away lead-based paint in homes. The program was created through an EPA regulation in 2010, which mandated federal certification for renovators.

Lead-based paint programs run by the EPA are also potentially at risk of losing $14.05 million. The EPA has been offering financial assistance to states and tribal jurisdictions, under Section 404(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, since 1994. States and tribal programs are given federal money to address lead-based paint risks. Money is granted to develop or carry out authorized lead-based paint activities programs; authorized lead pre-renovation education programs; or authorized renovation, repair, and paint programs.

While a spokeswoman for the EPA stated that the cuts are intended to give local and state governments the authority and responsibility to fund their own entities, the vast majority of states are unable to do so. Only fourteen states are actually able to operate programs which train contractors in removing lead paint. The rest depend on the federal government to successfully run their programs.

These changes come after a Trump Administration order to reduce the EPA’s overall budget by 31 percent. The EPA has proposed eliminating 25 percent of its employees and scrapping 56 programs including: lead reduction programs, water runoff control, and pesticide safety.

Environmental Racism?

Between 1997 and 2001, the CDC found that 60 percent of children who were reported with confirmed high blood-lead levels were black. Children living and playing in inner cities are more likely to be exposed to lead blowing across playgrounds. A 2015 analysis by the Huffington Post uncovered a strong correlation between high percentages of black populations and high lead poisoning rates. Between 1999 and 2004, black children were 1.6 times more likely to test positive for lead in their blood than white children. In Detroit, where 84 percent of the population is black, eight percent of children tested had elevated blood-lead levels in 2013.

Low-income and minority populations are far more likely to live in neighborhoods with dilapidated homes, thereby elevating their risk of exposure to lead paint. Other legal and environmental advocates note that the cuts to these programs will set the U.S. back decades in preventing lead poisoning and only stifle revenue streams. In other words, the government is likely dooming low-income and minority citizens to toxic living conditions.

CDC Lead Poisoning Prevention

The CDC still has programs to help study and eliminate childhood lead poisoning in America. The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 authorized the CDC to initiate these efforts. As a result, the CDC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program was created which helps to develop policies to prevent childhood exposure and poisoning, educate the public and health care providers, provide funding to state and local health departments, and support research to determine the efficacy of prevention efforts.

To date, the CDC has funded nearly 60 childhood lead poisoning prevention programs; developed the childhood blood lead surveillance system, which allows states to report their data to the CDC; expanded public health laboratory capacity; and provided training to public health professionals. The CDC, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, EPA, and other agencies have created a federal interagency strategy to achieve the elimination of childhood lead poisoning as a public health issue by 2020.

Conclusion

While lead-based paint was banned almost forty years ago, its persistence in homes across the country is still alive and well to this day. Pre-1980 American housing contains upwards of three million tons of lead in the form of paint. If the EPA strips these lead reduction programs of funding, this nation will continue to have a high risk of lead exposure for children and adults. Since 36 states rely on federal money to keep programs running, the EPA’s proposed budget is establishing a permanent lead-based environment for the country’s most vulnerable populations.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is the Trump EPA Budget Removing Lead Paint Protection Programs? appeared first on Law Street.

Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has become known for defying climate research and trying to prove that global warming is a hoax. In 2014 he brought a snowball to the Senate floor. Back then, 2014 was the hottest year on record and Inhofe asked the chair, “You know what this is?” before throwing the snowball. On Thursday, he appeared in an interview on CNN’s “New Day” and accused the Environmental Protection Agency of brainwashing American kids with propaganda.

It is not clear whether he really doesn’t believe in science, or if he doesn’t understand it, or if he’s just trying to make a political point. But he actually said, without providing any examples or proof: “we are going to take all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that is brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren’t true, allegations.” Inhofe was referring to Donald Trump’s new budget proposal, which shows huge cuts in the funding for the EPA.

A lot of people were outraged by Inhofe’s comments.

The deniers have taken over. Future generations will despise these people for their recklessness and selfishness. https://t.co/TBR6kmuoBx

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 15, 2017

Lunatics like this are one of the main reasons your clean water is at risk https://t.co/esoPQErEpB

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) March 16, 2017

When interviewer Poppy Harlow asked Inhofe to explain his remarks about brainwashing, he avoided the question and instead started praising Scott Pruitt, the new head of the EPA, who sued the agency when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma.

Inhofe has made this allegation before; in July he made similar comments to radio host Eric Metaxas. He told Metaxas he “was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that.” Then he told an anecdote in which his granddaughter asked him why he doesn’t understand global warming. Inhofe told the radio host, “I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out.”

In 2010, Inhofe took his grandchildren to build an igloo on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and named it “Al Gore’s New Home.” He has called global warming the “the greatest hoax” ever imposed on Americans. Now, given the GOP’s control of the government, he has a chance to do some real damage. “Now he and his cronies have far more reach and are far more dangerous than they’ve ever been… That’s good news for the polluters but horrible news for public health,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator James Inhofe Claims the EPA is Brainwashing Our Kids appeared first on Law Street.

In what might be the largest assault on the funding of government agencies in decades, President Donald Trump released a preliminary budget proposal on Thursday. The budget, a $1.1 trillion affair, would mostly benefit the Defense Department, while considerably reducing funds for the EPA, the State Department, and a whole host of other federal agencies. The budget is called “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.”

About three-quarters of the federal budget is mandatory spending, or spending that is largely locked in and cannot be shifted. Mandatory spending is generally comprised of entitlement spending and interest payments on the national debt. The remaining quarter of the budget is discretionary spending, or spending that the presiding administration and Congress can alter. This is the chunk of the budget–in which funding to federal agencies falls–that would be affected by Trump’s proposals.

Here is a guide to help you navigate Trump’s first budget proposal as president, and what might happen next.

Focus on National Security

For the federal government’s budget for the 2018 fiscal year, Trump has one clear area in mind that could use an infusion of cash: national security. Under Trump’s proposed budget, $54 billion would be added to defense spending, a ten percent increase. The funds would, in part, according to Trump’s budget, help to increase the ranks of the Army and Marine Corps and build-up the military’s ship and plane fleets.

“The core of my first budget blueprint is the rebuilding of our nation’s military without adding to our federal deficit,” Trump said in a letter that accompanied the proposed budget. Some Republicans worry that the increase in military spending does not go far enough. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said “the administration’s budget request is not enough to repair” the damage done by the military spending cuts in recent years.  

Another costly security-related project that the budget proposal covers: Trump’s long-touted wall on the Mexican border. The price tag for that endeavor, which the proposed budget allocates funds for, would be roughly $2.5 billion.

Severe Cuts to Non-Defense Agencies

How would the increases to defense spending be paid for? After all, when Trump pledged to drain the swamp, he never said money trees would sprout in its place. Ten federal agencies would face cuts of over ten percent of their current budget. The EPA, led by Scott Pruitt, a fervent critic of the agency, would see a 31 percent decrease in spending–a cut of about $2.5 billion. Programs to protect wildlife and the environment would be scaled back; 3,200 employees would lose their jobs.

The State Department, the government’s diplomatic arm of international engagement, would also face a stiff budget cut: nearly $11 billion would be shaved off the agency’s funding, a 29 percent drop. Contributions to the UN–for peacekeeping missions and efforts to combat climate change–would be drastically reduced, as would contributions to the World Bank.

Some observers believe that reduced spending to the State Department could, ironically, compromise national security. “We learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan that our military needs an effective civilian partner if victories on the battlefields are going to be converted into a sustainable peace,” said Stephen Hadley, President George W. Bush’s national security adviser. In addition to the cuts to the EPA and State, funding to 19 agencies would be eliminated entirely, from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.

Next Up: Congress

It is highly unlikely that the 2018 fiscal year budget will resemble what Trump proposed on Thursday. For one, the Obama Administration capped military spending in 2013, caps which could not be undone without 60 votes in the Senate, and Democrats would likely all oppose such an attempt. In addition to Democratic opposition, many Republicans see Trump’s cuts as being too severe, if not illogical and unnecessary.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the proposed State Department cuts render the budget proposal “dead on arrival.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said the cuts to foreign aid, which makes up a fraction of the budget but has a substantial impact, go too far. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a connoisseur of conservative budget planning, supported Trump’s first draft. “We are determined to work with the administration to shrink the size of government, grow our economy, secure our borders, and ensure our troops have the tools necessary to complete their missions,” he stated. But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), seemingly the face of congressional GOP opposition to Trump, gives the budget outline a slim chance of passing the Senate. “It is clear that this budget proposed today cannot pass the Senate,” he said in a statement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Trump’s 2018 Budget Blueprint appeared first on Law Street.

Bucking scientific consensus in the U.S. and around the world, Scott Pruitt on Thursday questioned the belief that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to climate change. Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will soon be rolling back many of President Barack Obama’s environmental regulations, perhaps as early as next week. And now, as Pruitt publicly undermines the widely accepted dangers of carbon dioxide, some worry that he will launch an attack against the EPA’s rule that the agency is obligated to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, also known as an “endangerment finding.” 

In 2009, the EPA issued this endangerment finding, which concluded that carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases, is a threat to “the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The agency reviewed thousands of published studies, poring over findings from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others.

Pruitt, in an interview with CNBC, undermined his own agency’s previous conclusions. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he said, referring to the impact carbon dioxide has on global warming. 

Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA stipulated that it was a duty of the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The American Chemistry Council and other groups appealed the findings to a federal circuit court in D.C. In June 2012, the court upheld the EPA’s decision. Soon after, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the endangerment finding has stood its ground ever since.

That is, until President Donald Trump chose Pruitt–a longtime ally of the oil and gas industry and a determined opponent of environmental regulations–to lead the EPA. In his Senate hearing in January, Pruitt was asked if he would consider revisiting the endangerment finding. “It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected,” he said.

Despite Pruitt’s apparent promise to respect the EPA’s finding, its future standing is not guaranteed. For one, the energy industry has been lobbying the Trump Administration to construct a legal case against the endangerment finding. Pruitt, or anyone else in the administration, does not have the unilateral authority to unravel the endangerment finding, because it was upheld in court.

If Pruitt decides to heed the calls of energy lobbyists, and balk the international scientific consensus, he would need to build a science-based legal challenge to the D.C. court’s 2012 ruling. Given the body of evidence supporting the EPA’s initial finding, that carbon dioxide does indeed contribute to global warming, and is a public health threat, Pruitt would have a difficult time building a successful legal challenge. But that does not mean he won’t try.

“President Trump’s campaign commitment was to undo President Obama’s entire climate edifice,” Myron Ebell, who worked on Trump’s EPA transition team, told the New York Times. “They’re thinking through the whole thing,” he said, adding: “I do think they are looking at reopening the endangerment finding.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Scott Pruitt Unravel the EPA’s Endangerment Finding? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republican Health Plan Struggles, But Clears First Obstacle

On Monday, Republicans unveiled their new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Yesterday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan tried his best to sell the plan, after dissatisfaction was expressed across the political spectrum. But there’s still lots of criticism floating around–various groups representing medical doctors, retired citizens, and insurance companies from both the left and the right have spoken out against it. Some powerful conservative groups and lawmakers have organized to oppose the new plan, claiming that it doesn’t go far enough, and calling it “Obamacare-lite.”

But at least Donald Trump is supportive of the plan, and said, “we’re gonna have a tremendous–I think we’re gonna have a tremendous success.” Overnight, the House Ways and Means Committee became the first to approve it, after 18 hours of debate. The White House wants the plan to pass by April 7, but that might be easier said than done considering recent setbacks.

Despite objections from doctors, nurses, hospitals, the AMA & the AARP, and not knowing the cost, Republicans rushed through #Trumpcare. https://t.co/kc5s2bZeVH

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) March 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, he signed a directive that said for each new regulation, two Obama-era regulations would be revoked; a reverse two-for-one. In his first month and a half as president, Trump and his cabinet have worked at an unprecedented clip to reverse the Obama Administration’s rules. Trump has frozen, suspended, or terminated roughly 90 regulations put in place under Obama, many as a response to opposition from industry leaders and advocates. Here are five rules that Trump has worked to scrap. 

Lead on Federal Lands

As President Barack Obama was leaving office, he issued an order to ban hunters from using lead bullets and anglers from using lead tackle when hunting and fishing on federal lands. The order was designed to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. Days after Trump’s swearing in, the National Rifle Association (NRA) issued a press release, which said the lead ammunition ban imposed a “considerable financial hardship” on hunters and anglers “by forcing them to use more expensive alternatives.” On March 2, Ryan Zinke, the freshly confirmed Secretary of the Interior, revoked Obama’s order.

Consumer Protection

In January, major communications companies–Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and others–signed a petition against an Obama-era rule that required “reasonable measures” to protect consumers’ personal information–Social Security numbers, browsing history, and more– from being stolen by hackers or other actors. The rule would have a “potentially deleterious impact on consumers, competition, and innovation,” the companies wrote. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission issued a stay on the rule.

Clean Water Rule

In the waning days of Obama’s tenure, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers broadened the scope of water sources in the U.S. that are to be protected and regulated. The California Farm Bureau Federation responded that the rule would prove “economically harmful for California agriculture.” The group wrote: “In order to comply with the regulation, farmers and ranchers will become increasingly reliant on attorneys and consultants, making farming the land more difficult and costly.” Last week, Trump issued an executive order to review the law, and to begin the process of rolling it back.

Gun Control

Under an Obama-era regulation, people on disability insurance and Supplementary Security Income would be barred from purchasing guns. The Social Security Administration would be forced to give the personal information of people who qualified as “mentally disabled” to the Department of Justice. This rule was equally opposed by two wildly different groups: the NRA and the American Civil Liberties Union. Both groups said that it broadly paints all people with mental disorders as potentially violent, and therefore unfit to own a gun.

In December, soon after Obama enacted the rule, the NRA issued a statement that said the rule “would stigmatize the entire category of beneficiaries subject to reporting.” Last week, Congress repealed the rule, and Trump signed the repeal.

Emissions Standards

On January 12, the Obama Administration issued an order dictating emissions standards and miles per gallon requirements for automobiles by 2025. Two dozen of the world’s largest automakers–from Toyota to Aston Martin–sent a letter to Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator. The letter said the rule was rushed, and needs a more thorough evaluation to determine if “the future standards are feasible” and “cost-effective.” While the rule has yet to be revoked, the Trump Administration has signaled it would likely reverse the rule as early as this week.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here Are Five Obama-era Regulations Trump Has Worked to Scrap appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is preparing to submit a budget proposal for the coming fiscal year that would increase military spending by $54 billion, a 10 percent spike, according to an administration official. To offset the increase, a similar amount would need to be shaved from other programs and agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department.

“This budget follows through on my promise to focus on keeping Americans safe,” Trump said during a meeting with governors on Monday. The president said that the budget will include “a historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States.” He added that the budget will send a “message to the world, in these dangerous times, of American strength, security, and resolve.”

While a final budget will not be set for at least a few months, Trump’s wish list sets the tone for how he plans to spend the government’s money during his first year in office. It also seems to send the message that he is doing what he said he would: pare down a bloated government, while increasing military spending.

“We have to start winning wars again–when I was young, in high school and college, people used to say ‘we haven’t lost a war’–we never lost a war– you remember,” Trump said at the governors meeting. “We either got to win, or don’t fight it at all.”

The administration official, who talked to reporters on the condition of anonymity, said foreign aid would see massive reductions in funding. Foreign aid, which is often tied to security concerns that could ultimately affect the U.S., takes up one of the slimmest slices of the federal budget.

On Tuesday evening, Trump is expected to discuss his budget proposals to a televised joint session of Congress. In the months ahead, the initial budget request will get hemmed and altered by Republicans in Congress. Democrats are expected to staunchly oppose certain proposals, such as the proposed cuts to the EPA.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) said the additional $54 billion in military spending “almost certainly means cuts to agencies that protect consumers from Wall Street excess and protect clean air and water.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said the cuts will have “far-reaching and long-lasting damage to our ability to meet the needs of the American people and win the jobs of the future.”

But Trump sees his proposal as him cashing in on a campaign promise to increase the bang of America’s buck. “We are going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people,” he said during a White House address preceding his meeting with the governors. “We can do so much more with the money we spend.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Budget Blueprint Seeks Dramatic Military Spending Increase appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) has crossed party lines before, and she says she will do it again–the politician announced that she would not support President Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt.

Collins will not vote for Pruitt, the current Oklahoma Attorney General, at his confirmation hearing because of concerns over his numerous lawsuits against the EPA and potential impact on clean air in Maine. She is the only Republican to voice her opposition to Pruitt so far. 

In a statement, Collins said that she supports EPA regulation of fossil fuel-powered plants to reduce air pollution:

The state of Maine, located at the end of our nation’s ‘air pollution tailpipe,’ is on the receiving end of pollution generated by coal-fired power plants in other states. Reducing harmful air pollutants is critical for public health, particularly for Maine which has among the highest rates of asthma in the country. Controls for mercury, one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, are especially important for children and pregnant women. Moreover, there is no doubt that the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change pose a significant threat to our state’s economy and our natural resources, from our working forests, fishing, and agricultural industries, to tourism and recreation.

Pruitt, meanwhile has questioned the extent to which human activity has affected climate change. During his statewide campaigns, he also received money from donors with strong ties to fossil fuel industries.

This isn’t the first time Collins has opposed one of Trump’s cabinet picks before. Earlier this month, she and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) were the only two Republican senators to vote against Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

Collins has a history of taking a more centrist approach to politics, particularly when it comes to social issues–her voting record has shown that she is mostly pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage.

During the election, she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that she would not vote for Trump, and condemned his attacks on a disabled reporter, Mexican-American judge, and the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.

When Trump announced an executive order at the end of January that would restrict immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries, Collins was one of a handful of Republican lawmakers to speak out against the ban.

She told the Maine Sun Journal at the time that the ban could hurt Iraqi citizens working with the U.S. military and that “religious tests serve no useful purpose in the immigration process.”

Because there is a 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate, more Republicans would need to cross the aisle to join Collins (assuming that the Democrats vote unanimously against Pruitt, which may not happen) and defeat his nomination. The Betsy DeVos vote last week came down to a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the final vote in her favor.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Susan Collins Says She’ll Oppose Trump’s EPA Pick appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Finance Committee Republicans took matters into their own hands to confirm two of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

In an effort to advance Trump’s nominees for Treasury secretary and secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services–Steven Mnuchin and Congressman Tom Price–the Republicans on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee voted in a surprise meeting on Wednesday morning to change the procedural rules that outlined that Democrats must be in attendance to vote on the nominees.  With this rule change, Mnuchin and Price were approved by the committee in a 14-0 vote, allowing for the nominations to go to the full Senate for approval.

Where are @SenateFinance Dems this morning? Standing with the ppl of OH and others hurt by the abusive practices of Mnuchin’s bank. pic.twitter.com/AvLpnxyJko

— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) February 1, 2017

This move comes a day after Democrats on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee staged a boycott of Mnuchin and Price’s hearings, which presented an obstacle considering the standing rule was that at least one Democrat had to be present in order for any votes to take place. The boycott was led by Senators Sherrod Brown and Roy Wyden in an effort to push for more vetting of both Mnuchin and Price, both of whom the senators claim gave misleading testimonies and responses during the committee hearings about their investments and foreclosure practices, respectively.

.@sensherrodbrown on why Senate Dems boycotting Price and Mnuchin committee votes. https://t.co/qr5oT2gOHX

— Andrew Rafferty (@AndrewNBCNews) January 31, 2017

The Democratic senators outlined their concerns and request for further questioning in a letter sent to the committee’s chairman, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, this morning.

Here are the questions @SenateFinance Democrats want answers to from Price & Mnuchin pic.twitter.com/jo2NOyq484

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) February 1, 2017

Talking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Hatch relayed his annoyance with the boycotting senators. “I’m very disappointed in this kind of crap . . . This is the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate,” Hatch said.

Even after the rule change and the approval of Trump’s two nominees, Hatch still took time to go after the committee’s Democrats for their boycott, telling reporters that the boycott was “unprecedented obstruction” and a “cheap political ploy.” However, the boycott might not be as unprecedented as Hatch claims it to be, considering, as many have pointed out, the Republicans boycotted in 2013 to block the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rule change and verbal sparring in the media between Finance Committee members just adds to the rising tension between members of Congress. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted no on the confirmation of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary, who is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife. Earlier today, things got contentious between Democratic Senator Al Franken and GOP Senator John Cornyn during a Judiciary Committee meeting when Cornyn took exception to Franken calling out absent GOP Senator Ted Cruz. In addition, Democratic senators on the Environmental and Public Works Committee–taking a cue from their colleagues on the Finance Committee–have staged a boycott of the vote to confirm Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA.

Al Franken calls out absent Ted Cruz & Cruz’s GOP colleague John Cornyn objects. Franken: “Well, he should be here.” pic.twitter.com/zjMBDhshnJ

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 1, 2017

And this is only Day 12 of Trump’s presidency.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Change Finance Committee Rules to Push Through Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that had many people drawing parallels to George Orwell’s classic novel “1984,” the Trump administration issued communications bans on several government agencies this week.

On Monday morning, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent out an email to the employees of its research branch–the Agricultural Research Service, which includes about 2,000 scientists–instructing everyone to stop most public communication. This move, which was eventually reversed, echoed similar other orders that were issued to several government agencies.

Buzzfeed obtained a copy of the email to the Agricultural Research Service, which said:

Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content.

Members of the scientific community criticized the announcement, citing suppression of science. After only a day of public outcry, another email was sent to the staff at ARS on Tuesday evening. This email came from ARS administrator Chavonda Jacobs-Young and reversed the initial order, saying the previous notice should not have been sent in the first place. Officials later told the media that the order to the ARS had not been coordinated with the rest of the department and that it would contradict current guidelines that encourage scientists to share their finding with the media.

Scientists at the USDA were also told that they could keep publishing scientific papers in academic magazines, but could not do any interviews with the media without getting approval from the communications office first. Communications restrictions were also sent to the EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service. The EPA order also included instructions to freeze all grants and to not discuss it with any outsiders, the Huffington Post reported. The EPA issues grants for environmental research, air quality monitoring, education, and more.

USDA gag order rescinded after public outcry.https://t.co/L1x2EXsM9A
SO KEEP OUTCRYING – it works

— Kelly Hills (@rocza) January 25, 2017

Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, voiced anxiety about what this may mean for the agency’s future. “To our knowledge, there is not a precedent for large-scale communication freezes like this,” she said to Buzzfeed.

Last week after the inauguration, the official National Park Service Twitter account retweeted a picture comparing the crowds at the event to those attending Obama’s inauguration in 2009. Immediately after, it was ordered by its Washington office to stop all tweeting until further notice. The account was allowed to resume again, after deleting the original tweets and posting an apology.

We regret the mistaken RTs from our account yesterday and look forward to continuing to share the beauty and history of our parks with you pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv

— NationalParkService (@NatlParkService) January 21, 2017

Then on Tuesday, the Badlands National Park sent out a series of tweets with climate change facts but were quickly deleted.

These are tweets that the new Admin has already deleted. RT if you believe in science and oppose Trump’s gag order on climate facts! pic.twitter.com/yBUgyfACN6

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) January 25, 2017

And now, an alternative, unofficial National parks account claiming to be run by NPS employees has surfaced. The account, with the username @AltUSNatParkService, quickly gained popularity, with nearly 650,000 thousand followers on Wednesday afternoon. Several very similar accounts popped up as well.

What do we want?
Peer-reviewed Science
When do we want it?
Yesterday, please!

— AltUSNatParkService (@AltNatParkSer) January 25, 2017

White House spokesman Sean Spicer told the Hill that he couldn’t comment on the specific bans, but did say that it was normal procedure for a new administration. “I don’t think it’s anything surprise that when there’s an administration turnover, that we’re going to review the policy,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Orders Several Agencies to Restrict Public Communications appeared first on Law Street.

Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency appeared before part of the Senate for his confirmation hearing on Wednesday. Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma, said he would like to shift some regulatory control from the federal government to the states. He purported that being pro-energy and pro-environment can be mutually exclusive. And while he acknowledged that climate change and human activity are linked, he questioned just how strong that causality is.

As attorney general, Pruitt advocated on behalf of states’ rights in the face of what he saw as federal overreach. In fact, Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times; he also led the 27-state lawsuit against President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. If he is confirmed as the next EPA chief, Pruitt could become involved in some of the lawsuits that he filed. In Wednesday’s hearing, Senate Democrats asked Pruitt if he would recuse himself from those lawsuits. He did not commit to doing so.

Scott Pruitt will not say whether he will agree to upholding California’s high vehicle pollution standards. That is unacceptable.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 18, 2017

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced Pruitt: “Yes, as attorney general, Scott fought the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the outgoing administration on many fronts,” he said, “but all of these suits were brought to protect state and local interests from overzealous and activist agencies.” Outside the hearing room, protesters, some wearing pink hats and surgical masks, others donning oil rig gear, represented the dueling sides of the hearing itself: Democrats who questioned Pruitt’s ties to the energy industry, and Pruitt’s long-held disdain for environmental activists and what he sees as job-killing regulations.

“We must reject as a nation the false paradigm that if you’re pro-energy you’re anti-environment, and if you’re pro-environment you’re anti-energy,” Pruitt said during the hearing. In his opening remarks, Pruitt, who is often called a climate denier, clarified his stance on climate change: “Science tells us that the climate is changing and human activity in some manner impacts that change,” he said. “The human ability to measure with precision the extent of that impact is subject to continuing debate and dialogue, as well they should be.”

If we look at EPA’s major legacy rule – CPP, WOTUS, haze, CSPAR, tailoring rule – the agency is batting 0.00. #confirmpruitt

— Jim Inhofe (@jiminhofe) January 18, 2017

Pruitt’s hearing was on the same day the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report that said 2016 was earth’s hottest year on record, since at least 1880, when record keeping began. Though he made clear that the EPA under his watch would grant more power to state legislatures, Pruitt mentioned the Flint, Michigan water crisis as an instance when the federal agency failed to do enough.

“In Flint, the EPA should have acted faster. With air quality, water quality across state lines, there is a role where EPA is important,” he said. Pruitt added that he does not know the science behind lead poisoning: “I haven’t looked at the scientific research,” he said.

In 2009, the EPA found that carbon emissions endanger humans and warm the planet. That ruling serves as the basis for subsequent emissions regulations, including Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Pruitt, who Democrats worry will scrap a number of regulations, said he would enforce that ruling. “It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected,” he said. Pruitt is expected to pass a full Senate confirmation, as all 51 Republicans will likely support him; Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is also expected to support Pruitt.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scott Pruitt: Trump’s Choice to Lead the EPA Defends His Record of Suing the EPA appeared first on Law Street.

The President-elect has been criticized because he claimed that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. The new proposed head of the EPA is a climate change denier. And the new proposed Secretary of State is an oil company CEO with close ties to Russia. So, it’s no wonder that environmentalists across the globe are worrying. Now, American climate scientists are copying as much of their research and climate data as possible onto independent computer servers, in an attempt to protect the information from any political interference.

“Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,” said Nick Santos to the Washington Post. He is an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis and spent last weekend copying climate data onto a non-governmental server that will be available to the public. Other efforts include “guerrilla archiving” in Toronto–meaning the copying of irreplaceable public data–discussions on how to download as much information as possible as quickly as possible, and the creation of a website for storing all this scientific information.

This isn’t something we should have to be worried about as researchers in the developed world. But here we are.https://t.co/m9nTzWgvF7

— Ari Belasen (@DrBelasen) December 13, 2016

On Friday, Trump’s transition team sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy to find out the names of employees who attended domestic and international climate talks. It also asked about all publications written by employees at the department’s laboratories for the past three years. This could be a sign of coming retaliation against employees who simply were doing their jobs, and drew criticism from Democrats and environmentalists.

Yes Mr. Trump, climate change is a “hoax.” It was just a haphazard occurrence that that 13 of the 15 hottest years have occurred since 2000. pic.twitter.com/2kvVpjTNb5

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 12, 2016

On Tuesday, however, the Energy Department’s spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said it would not comply with Trump’s request. He said that the demand for individual names of employees left many people in the department feeling unsettled. He said:

We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department. We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.

For many people it is deeply worrying that several of Trump’s cabinet picks are skeptical about climate change, which is a fact the vast majority of scientists in the world agree upon. Michael Halpern from the Center for Science and Democracy said it’s not unreasonable to believe the new government would want to get rid of climate data that proves a fact that they dispute. “There is a fine line between being paranoid and being prepared, and scientists are doing their best to be prepared…” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scientists Rush to Back Up Climate Data Before Trump Takes Office appeared first on Law Street.

It’s not exactly surprising when President-elect Donald Trump contradicts himself on certain policy views: he’s taken differing stances on issues such as immigration, Obamacare, and gay marriage, among many others. But his inconsistency on climate change just this week has been causing some major whiplash for anyone following Trump’s opinions on the issue closely.

Earlier this week, in a meeting reportedly set up by Ivanka Trump, Al Gore met with the President-elect to discuss the issue of climate change. While the details of the discussion have not been disclosed, Gore told reporters that the two looked for “areas of common ground” in the “interesting discussion.” Trump also allegedly met with Leonardo DiCaprio to discuss green jobs, and was gifted a copy of DiCaprio’s climate change documentary, which he reportedly promised to watch.

While those meetings may have offered some hope to environmental activists, those hopes came crashing down after Trump announced yesterday that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt would be his appointment to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt has called the issue of climate change “far from settled” and referred to himself as the “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” in his official bio.

The appointment of Pruitt falls more in line with the Donald Trump who has called climate change a “hoax” and has called for abandoning Obama’s climate change actions such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Clean Power Plan.

Trump has continuously stated that he’s “not a huge believer” in man-made global warming, and while he’s claimed that the research as it stands isn’t conclusive on the issue, he also doesn’t seem to be interested in investing in further research.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

On the other hand, Politico has reported that Ivanka Trump plans on making climate change one of her “signature issues.” While this might just reflect a difference of opinion between the President-elect and his daughter, Trump has also made comments that have shown a more balanced approach on the issue, such as his comments to the New York Times post-election:

“I think there is some connectivity” between humans and climate change, Trump says.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016

If this inconsistency indicates anything besides Trump’s own lack of convictions, it’s that Trump will likely take a backseat on the issue and allow his advisors and appointees to decide what role the U.S. will play in the fight against climate change. While Ivanka puts on a deceptive show of being a climate change spokeswoman, our new EPA director will likely be rolling back the progress made during the Obama administration.

If anything’s certain, it’s that we’re in for an unpredictable four years.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump’s Confusing Stances on Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump took a significant step in fulfilling his promise to scale back the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, announcing Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the agency’s next leader. Pruitt, 48, has spent years waging legal battles against the agency he is now set to steer. In his six years as attorney general, Pruitt has been a consistent and vociferous critic of government overreach; President Obama’s environmental regulations have frequently been targets.

“For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn,” said a statement from Trump’s camp, adding that Pruitt will “reverse this trend and restore the EPA’s essential mission of keeping our air and our water clean and safe.”

Pruitt, who has voiced his disdain for government overreach in editorials and in his work as attorney general, said he will run the agency in “protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses.” Working as the attorney general of Oklahoma, one of the country’s leading producers of oil and natural gas, Pruitt partnered with energy companies to fight Obama’s environmental regulations on things like greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution.

“There’s a mentality emanating from Washington today that says, ‘We know best,’” Pruitt said during his 2010 election campaign for attorney general. “It’s a one-size-fits-all strategy, a command-and-control kind of approach, and we’ve got to make sure we know how to respond to that.” He also has a cozy relationship with wealthy energy industry players: the CEO of Continental Energy was the co-chairmen of Pruitt’s 2013 re-election effort. 

Perhaps the most maligned target of Pruitt’s crusade against federal overreach is Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which imposed caps on emissions at power plants. Writing in the National Review on Obama’s key energy achievement in May, Pruitt said: “The checks and balances built into our system of government were simply ignored as inconvenient impediments to the president’s agenda,” referring to Obama’s executive action on the bill, which circumvented Congress. Oklahoma and 28 other states filed an anti-regulation suit against the act. The suit is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

A Kentucky native, Pruitt went to the University of Tulsa law school, started a private practice upon graduating in 1993, and five years later served in the Oklahoma State Senate, before running a successful campaign for attorney general in 2010. An avid baseball fan, Pruitt co-owned and managed the Oklahoma City Redhawks, a minor league baseball team, from 2003 to 2010.

Environmental groups and some lawmakers were unhappy with Trump’s latest cabinet appointment. “Scott Pruitt has a record of attacking the environmental protections that EPA is charged with enforcing. He has built his political career by trying to undermine EPA’s mission of environmental protection,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called Pruitt a “sad and dangerous” choice. “I will vigorously oppose this nomination,” he added. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is Scott Pruitt? appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, I hope you’re enjoying your Thursday! If you’re like me, the weeks feel extra long when waiting for the holidays to come. But the last story today features some new takes on classic holiday songs that may help you bide that time! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

EPA Critic to Head the EPA

This morning, Trump’s transition team announced that the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency will be a firm critic of the agency, climate change denier Scott Pruitt. Pruitt is Oklahoma’s Attorney General, and has close ties to the fossil fuel industry. He has fought President Obama’s climate efforts and has sued the agency he will now be leading, first over the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector and then over regulations of methane emissions from the oil and gas sectors.

The man who Trump just appointed to lead the @EPA sued the agency on behalf of the coal industry to kill enviro + public health regulations. https://t.co/ekXsqhmyXM

— Erin Schrode (@ErinSchrode) December 7, 2016

Many believe that this appointment will be disastrous for the environment. “Our country needs–and deserves–an EPA administrator who is guided by science, who respects America’s environmental laws, and who values protecting the health and safety of all Americans ahead of the lobbying agenda of special interests,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

“We are in danger. The whole country is in danger.” A lawyer who knows Scott Pruitt reacts. https://t.co/EOdsPbniPI

— Nicholas Thompson (@nxthompson) December 8, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 8, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The use of herbicides and pesticides on crops has become the default method for conventional agriculture. Despite growing public concerns over the use of chemicals on our food supply, these products continue to saturate the market and are utilized at a steady rate. While researchers continue to evaluate the long term effects these potent chemicals have on humans and the environment, another chemical has been added to farmers’ ever-growing arsenal. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to expand the use of Enlist Duo, an effective weed killer, from 15 to 34 states. But should we be worried about the toxicity of this popular herbicide?

Enlist Duo

Originally, in 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of a brand new herbicide, Enlist Duo, for genetically modified corn and soybean crops. Enlist Duo is a chemical manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, which is a subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company–one of the largest chemical companies in the world.

After the initial approval of Enlist Duo, the EPA asked a court to give it another opportunity to re-review the approval of the chemical. In a highly unusual move, the agency asked for a withdrawal of its own approval of the product. According to the EPA, it had reviewed the patent submitted by Dow to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and discovered a significant discrepancy. Particularly, the company claimed the product’s combination of two chemicals, 2,4-D and glyphosate, amplified each other and created a far more potent herbicide.

The EPA was concerned that Dow had not disclosed this synergy during the agency’s initial review of the product’s environmental and health risks. The agency scientists wanted to decide if there needed to be a larger no-spray zone at the edge of farm fields. Studies where rats, rabbits, birds, and fish were given one large dose of Enlist Duo showed no increased toxicity in the animals after two weeks. However, the agency never requested that Dow chronically dose rats with a combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate. Therefore, long-term health effects of the chemical mixture are unclear.

“Pesticide spraying” Image Courtesy of Jetsandzeppelins : License (CC BY 2.0)

Lawsuit

Several environmental groups, led by the National Resources Defense Council, brought a lawsuit against the EPA over Enlist Duo in 2014. The plaintiffs stated that the EPA had violated the law because it had not adequately considered the effect that Enlist Duo would have on public health and the environment, particularly the monarch butterfly population.

Dow, of course, opposed the allegations as well as the EPA’s request to vacate the original approval, suggesting instead that the court remand the registration back to the EPA for further evaluation. The company voluntarily agreed to stop sales of the product while the EPA reevaluated it. Additionally, Dow stated that it had abandoned the synergy patent in question when a thorough review revealed that the particular synergies were not in the final formulation of Enlist Duo. However, advocacy groups noted in a legal filing that Dow abandoned the patent a year after the EPA approved Enlist Duo, and only after the EPA requested synergy data from Dow.

Eventually, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA’s original approval. The three-sentence judicial order did not elaborate on any reasoning for the decision. This meant that Dow could continue to market the chemical to farmers for sale, even while the EPA was re-reviewing its initial approval. The company reneged its voluntary offer to cease sales, claiming the offer was never agreed to; thus, the chemical remained on the market.

2,4-D and Human Health Effects

Last year, the Chicago Tribune released an investigative article that revealed that the EPA had changed its interpretation of a key study of 2,4-D. Essentially, the EPA changed the no-adverse-effect level of 2,4-D from 7mg/kg to 21mg/kg in rats, paving the way for the agency to reduce consumer protections. EPA scientists dropped a tenfold child-safety factor after conducting a study that concluded there was no longer evidence of a special susceptibility of children to the chemical compound. Regulators set the allowable daily intake of 2,4-D for people at 0.21mg/kg. Thus, the significant change allowed for 41 times more 2,4-D to enter the American diet than previously allowed, an astounding change.

2,4-D has been around since the 1940’s and was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, a highly toxic and controversial herbicide used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War. The EPA has discounted safety data showing that 2,4-D has been linked to cancer and other health problems, such as hypothyroidism and Parkinson’s disease. In order to make the change in allowable daily intake, the EPA has tossed aside research produced by Dow’s own scientists regarding kidney problems and kidney lesions caused by 2,4-D.

The overuse of chemicals, like Roundup, year after year has resulted in an increase in weed resistance, or “superweeds,” leaving companies scrambling to find more effective products to market to farmers. As a result, agriculture is now turning back toward older, more toxic products, like 2,4-D. But if you’re concerned about exposure to more toxic weedkillers, disclosures in Dow’s patent applications are very telling. The company’s application for genetically modified corn and soybeans foreshadows a day when weeds develop a resistance to both glyphosate and 2,4-D. The records show that Dow eventually envisions a day when the company must add even more traits to corn and soybeans so that the crops can survive being sprayed with up to 17 different chemicals.

Concerns Regarding Enlist Duo Use

One of the largest concerns surrounding Enlist Duo use is that Dow may have lied on its patent application. A Dow spokesperson adamantly denies that contention, stating that the EPA and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have “different standards of data requirements” and the company’s claims that the two chemicals amplified each other were “based on a limited dataset.”

After the re-review and approval of Enlist Duo this year, the EPA has also announced a proposal to expand where the new herbicide can be used. Currently it is used to suppress weeds on corn and soybean crops. Now, the EPA is considering whether to allow its use on cotton crops. This expansion means that the new herbicide may be approved for use in 34 states, as opposed to the original 15 states. Moreover, the World Health Organization has issued findings that glyphosate and 2,4-D are probable and possible carcinogens, respectively, in addition to the other health concerns related to 2,4-D.

Monarch Butterfly Populations

In addition to human health hazards, environmentalist groups are concerned about Enlist Duo’s effect on the monarch butterfly population. Monarch butterflies have struggled in recent years, with populations in a steep decline due to the overuse of glyphosate products, like Roundup. Enlist Duo’s chemicals specifically obliterate milkweed, the plant that monarchs need to survive. A 1999 survey found that milkweed was in at least 50 percent of Iowa corn and soybean crops; by 2009, milkweed was only found in 8 percent of those same fields.

Additionally, estimations of the monarch butterfly populations have remained low, despite an initial bump in numbers, after a winter storm killed millions before they ever left the Mexican monarch reserve. Storms devastated 133 acres of trees west of Mexico City and affected over 7 percent of monarchs, with about 6.2 million butterflies frozen or killed.

“Monarch caterpillar on common milkweed in Minnesota” Image Courtesy of USFWSmidwest : License (CC BY 2.0)

The EPA’s failure to consider the effects of Enlist Duo on monarch butterflies has environmentalists extremely concerned for the ailing population, teetering on the brink of extinction.

Conclusion

The market for Enlist Duo is potentially massive, with 94 percent of soybeans and 89 percent of corn planted in the U.S. genetically modified to survive herbicides, primarily the glyphosate in Roundup. However, the EPA’s suggestion to more than double the number of states permitted to use Enlist Duo has outraged environmentalists and advocates across the country. Many people believe that reviving a World War II-era chemical to combat superweeds isn’t the best solution for the sustainability of industrial agriculture–especially when it could have a negative effect on the monarch butterfly population. The EPA contends that the chemical is “perfectly safe,” and poses no long-term health risks to humans.

The EPA is accepting public comments through December 1, 2016 regarding the agency’s proposal to expand the use and registration for Enlist Duo. 

Resources

Primary

EPA.gov: Registration of Enlist Duo

Additional

Dow: Annual Reports

NRDC: EPA Proposes to Re-Approve Combination Herbicide Enlist Duo

NRDC: EPA Unlawfully Approved Herbicide Enlist Duo

Chicago Tribune: Weedkiller’s Revival is Cause for Concern

Chicago Tribune: EPA Tosses Aside Safety Data, Says Dow Pesticide for GMOs Won’t Harm People

Chicago Tribune: Court Clears Way for Revival of Worrisome Weedkiller

Chicago Tribune: Congress Questions EPA About Dow’s Enlist Duo Pesticide Risks

CBS DFW: EPA May Increase Use Of Weed Killer Despite Concerns

The Guardian: Storms Devastate Monarch Butterflies’ Forest Habitat in Mexico

NRDC: EPA Unlawfully Approved Herbicide Enlist Duo

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Enlist Duo: Effective New Herbicide or Monarch Butterfly Threat? appeared first on Law Street.

After a year of intense debates, drama, and scandals, election day is now less than a week away. The results of the 2016 election will have a major influence on the next four years in politics with regard to a variety of issues, including gun rights, immigration, and tax reform. While environmentalism has not been a highlight of this election cycle, each president has a dramatically different approach to the issue, and the winner will have a serious impact on the future of environmentalism in the United States.

In this two-part series, we will unpack each candidate’s stance on environmentalism and their plans for the future, as well as outline exactly what is within their power to do. This first part will focus on the Republican side of the issue and analyze Donald Trump’s environmental policy. How exactly would Trump’s plan to loosen environmental regulations influence global warming as well as air and water quality? What exactly is Hilary Clinton’s renewable energy proposal and how effective would it really be? These are pressing questions that have gotten little attention throughout the campaign season.

Read Part Two: Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand on Environmental Policy?

The G.O.P. Debates: The Case of the Missing Environmentalist

First a little context. While the 17 original Republican candidates fought bitterly on a variety of issues, they were almost all united in their belief that climate change is a hoax. There were a few exceptions to this rule; Jeb Bush and John Kasich admitted that climate change was real, but not that it was caused by humans, while Carly Fiorina both admitted that climate change was real and caused by human activity. Chris Christie and Rand Paul have both publicly admitted to climate change being real and human-caused (Rand Paul even signed onto a bill agreeing to this) but both later went back on their statements, claiming that the science is still unclear.

Republican runner-up Ted Cruz briefly drew public attention with a clever scientific misinterpretation when he claimed that there has been no warming over the past 18 years, at least if you go by satellite data. His timeline of 18 years would take us all back to the uniquely hot 1997-1998 El Nino. It is true that if you only look at a short period of time and begin with a hot year, it doesn’t appear that much warming has taken place. But if you look at global temperatures over any kind of longer period, they are very clearly going nowhere but up. The methodology behind his assessment also flies in the face of the scientific community, which creates climate change models based on satellite atmospheric data combined with surface measurements, because satellite data can easily be subject to flaws due to confounding variables.

Current Republican nominee Donald Trump has had an even more outlandish position–that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese in order to render American manufacturing less competitive. He has since both claimed that this was a joke and that he never said any such statement, although it still exists on his Twitter account and in videotaped interviews.

“Donald Trump” courtesy of Gage Skidmore; License: (CC-BY-SA 2.0)

Where the Party Stands

The Republican party is often viewed as being anti-environmentalist and generally for good reason. Currently, 182 members, or 34 percent, in Congress do not believe in climate change. While this list of climate deniers includes both Republicans and Democrats, Republicans make up the vast majority of this demographic. In fact, only eight out of 278 Republican members of Congress have taken open stances that they believe climate change is real. However, it wasn’t always the case that Republican presidential candidates also soundly rejected the existence of global warming. Both George W. Bush and John McCain did have environmental proposals when they ran for president and made public speeches about their intentions to aid the environment (although Bush’s environmental legacy was far from positive).

It is not exactly unique that environmental protection isn’t high up on the list of Republican priorities, but is unique that climate change and environmentalism were hardly even touched upon in the Republican presidential debates. The closest these topics came to being debated was within the context of which energy sources the candidates supported, which were universally oil, gas, or coal. Several of the candidates offered support for renewable proliferation to increase domestic energy security, but not at the expense of the economy or energy producers.

The internationally acclaimed COP 21 agreements came to pass without so much as a mention during the G.O.P. debates; the California drought was similarly ignored. This may be reflective of the voting base Republican politicians appeal to, which also has a high percentage of climate deniers. Interestingly enough, this is beginning to shift with time as well; where 24 percent of Republican voters believed in climate change in 2014, now 47 percent embrace the science. If the Republican party shifts enough in its position on environmentalism, it will be interesting to see if Republican politicians will also be forced to change their stances.

Donald J. Trump: Get Rid of All Regulations

Republican nominee Donald Trump does seem to have a consistent view on whether climate change is real (unless you count being confused as to whether or not he blames the Chinese for it). Historically, he has always claimed that climate change is a hoax. His campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, publicly stated that, while Trump acknowledges that temperatures are rising globally, he doesn’t believe that human activity has had any influence over this. Trump’s running mate Mike Pence, however, spoke on CNN a day after the first debate to say that climate change was definitely real and man-made–although he reiterated Trump’s general stance that no environmental policies should be put into place that would hurt businesses or cost jobs.

Trump’s environmental policy logically follows his general denial of climate change as relevant or real. Trump’s original plan was to entirely abolish the Environmental Protection Agency–the government body that designs new environmental rules and regulations (working together with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an umbrella department within the Office of Management and Budget). While it is not within his power to do so unilaterally, one of the most important ways a President can influence energy policy is by choosing a new administration for the EPA. Each new President can appoint a new Administrator, who must be approved by Congress. If the president’s recommendation is approved, that further gives him or her the power to reshape both the upper positions of the EPA and the direction the agency will take.

Trump’s proposed selection to lead the EPA transition team is none other than Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and the Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group that uses bogus science to question “global warming alarmism.” Ebell is a famous climate denier and believes that Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which will dramatically shift the future of energy production in the United States, is not only a huge waste of government funds but also illegal because of the undue burden the regulations place on American businesses. At this time it’s unclear if Trump’s intention is to attempt to make Ebell the new EPA Administrator, but his current position as leader of the team puts him at the top of the suspected list. Alongside Ebell, the EPA transition team includes Republican energy lobbyist Mike Mckenna and former Bush Administration Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt.

In the event that Trump is able to get his EPA transition team approved by Congress (and they will almost certainly face some opposition), they would be well equipped to try to dismantle the Clean Power Plan and remove many environmental regulations. Which brings us to the simple cornerstone of Trump’s environmental policy: remove as many regulations as possible. Trump has said that he will fight to do away with all regulations he believes are unnecessary in order to allow American businesses more operational freedom and greater room to grow.

In terms of Republican politicians, this position is in no way unique, but few presidential candidates have taken such a hard line stance against previously established environmental regulations (runner-up Ted Cruz would be fighting a very similar battle right now). Trump’s plan includes freeing up protected federal land, both on and offshore, for oil and gas drilling. Interestingly, designating an area as federally protected government land under the Antiquities Act is one of the few ways a president can directly use their executive authority to protect the environment. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are both known for designating huge areas of land as federally protected, Clinton doing so several times specifically to prevent oil and gas companies from drilling in certain areas. For Trump to attempt to use executive power to remove these designations is a little like one president fighting directly with the legacy of a previous president.

More Fossil Fuels

Trump has said he would open up these swaths of federal land for coal mining leases and remove some of the rules that protect waterways throughout the nation from drilling, which is of concern if you’re an environmentalist or if you drink water. Trump is, in fact, one of few politicians still talking about the fantasy power source of “clean coal” in 2016. The general concept behind clean coal is to burn coal as efficiently as possible and then capture the emissions afterward, making it as “clean” as possible. While it’s true that we have made coal cleaner, it’s impossible to burn coal without some pollution. Clean coal has proven much more expensive and difficult to scale than its early proponents thought, making it far from a viable method to reduce carbon emissions. This is particularly true when less expensive and more efficient alternatives exist.

Trump’s focus on coal in particular is interesting, because coal as an energy source has dropped significantly in popularity and coal-fired power plants are rarely built these days (President Obama, coming from coal-heavy Illinois, also once preached the benefits of the mythical Clean Coal, although he’s since done an 180 on the issue and one of the key focuses of his Clean Power Plan is to regulate and reduce coal emissions by as much as possible).

Trump has made public that he views regulations on pollution as an obstacle to the success of business and jobs in America, although research indicates that over the past few decades the negative impacts of regulation on business have been modest and the demand for cleaner technology has in the past repeatedly stimulated innovation and growth in the private tech industry. If his EPA team was driven by the goal to free up businesses from all regulation, this would also involve dismantling key provisions of the Clean Water act and Clean Air Act. While a president can’t literally change the provisions of these acts, the administration he or she puts in place can reinterpret them and Trump could effectively remove the enforcement mechanisms that enable these acts to have their nationwide impact. Trump has, in fact, publicly stated that he would review the EPA endangerment findings, which are used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. To strip away the EPA’s ability to regulate air and waterborne pollution would dramatically increase the United States’ role as a global polluter and worsen public health throughout the United States.

Conclusion

It’s important to look at our current political context to see if Trump really could do any of what he proposes. His selection of an EPA transition team of climate deniers is a little ridiculous and simply unrealistic considering that any new administrator could be blocked by Democrats in the Senate. A figure as divisive as Myron Ebell, or any of the other members of the team, will simply not make it through Congress. If Trump does become president he will most likely have to consider a more neutral person to take the EPA Administrator role.

The fact that Congress is largely deadlocked between the two parties on environmental issues has been and will be a huge obstacle for any president trying to accomplish anything (a problem that extends far beyond the environment). Because of this gridlock, nearly all political efforts to combat climate change have had to come through executive action, a pattern that can be easily seen throughout Obama’s two terms. Trump’s commitment to reversing Obama’s executive actions would potentially mean undoing much of the last eight years of environmental policy efforts, worsening air and water quality and giving fossil fuel companies greater access to federal land for fracking and drilling. By specifically using executive power to accomplish this, it would be within Trump’s hands to dramatically peel back the progress that the environmental movement has made in the United States. His plans should be taken seriously by American voters as a threat to the future of our public health and energy security and to the ever worsening global problem of climate change.

Resources

The Blaze: Mike Pence Breaks From Trump, Says Humans Have a Hand in Climate Change

Business Insider: Where Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Climate Change

CBS News: Where the 2016 Republican Candidates Stand on Climate Change

CNN: Campaign Manager: Trump Does Not Believe Climate Change is Man Made

Competitive Enterprise Institute: Myron Ebell

The Economist: Green Tape: Environmental Regulations May Not Cost as Much as Governments or Businesses Fear

Fortune: How Donald Trump’s Energy Policies Are All About Removing Regulations

Grist: How Obama Went from Being Coal’s Top Cheerleader to its No. 1 Enemy

Governing: Economic Engines: Do Environmental Regulations Hurt the Economy?

Grist: Who’s Really in Charge on EPA Rules? A Chat With Legal Scholar Lisa Heinzerling

Grist: Why is Trump so Fixated on Abolishing the EPA?

The Hill: Top Climate Skeptic to Lead Trump’s EPA Transition Team

Politico: The Politico Wrong-o-Meter: Fact Checking the 2016 Presidential Debate

Think Progress: The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus

Think Progress: Christie Says He’s Not ‘Relying on any Scientists’ to Inform Climate Change Views

Think Progress: The Environmental Implications of a Trump Presidency

Scientific American: Many More Republicans Now Believe in Climate Change

Scientific American: Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition Team

The Washington Post: Ted Cruz Keeps Saying that Satellites Don’t Show Global Warming: Here’s the Problem

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Donald Trump Stand on Environmental Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a settlement with Harley-Davidson Thursday, after filing a lawsuit the same day accusing the motorcycle giant of violating the Clean Air Act.

Harley-Davidson to Stop Sales of Illegal Devices that Increased Air Pollution from the Company’s Motorcycles https://t.co/NFiGtwfJ87

— Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept) August 18, 2016

Harley-Davidson has been ordered to immediately stop selling illegal devices known as “super tuners,” that once installed, cause motorcycles to emit higher amounts of certain air pollutants than what the company certified to EPA. According to the complaint, Harley-Davidson manufactured and sold approximately 340,000 of these illegal devices.

Harley’s Screamin’ Eagle Super Tuner Kit looks like this:

Harley-Davidson Screamin Eagle Super Tuner Pro 321098 1098 2011 fxdwg https://t.co/c6wCMBesgP pic.twitter.com/WBK7wVmrcJ

— exclusive item (@isunzabertrand) August 14, 2016

It currently retails for $459.95 on the Harley-Davidson website and promises to make Electronic Fuel Injection (EFI) tuning faster and easier.

Aside from stopping the sales of the item, Harley-Davidson has been ordered buy back and destroy illegal devices, and “will also pay a $12 million civil penalty and spend $3 million to mitigate air pollution through a project to replace conventional wood stoves with cleaner-burning stoves in local communities,” according to the DOJ.

“Given Harley-Davidson’s prominence in the industry, this is a very significant step toward our goal of stopping the sale of illegal aftermarket defeat devices that cause harmful pollution on our roads and in our communities,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden, head of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Anyone else who manufactures, sells, or installs these types of illegal products should take heed of Harley-Davidson’s corrective actions and immediately stop violating the law.”

The complaint also claims that Harley made and sold more than 12,000 motorcycles from model years 2006, 2007, and 2008 that did not comply with proper EPA certifications for clean air standards. Instead of recalling the vehicles, Harley-Davidson agreed to ensure that all of its future motorcycle models sold in the U.S. are fully certified by EPA.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Sues, Then Settles With Harley-Davidson Over EPA Violations appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to create our everyday products, and the legislation that regulates them hasn’t been updated for nearly half a decade–but that all changed today. President Obama signed into law Wednesday new regulations that will overhaul toxic chemical use and garnered unexpected bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats and environmentalists and the chemical industry.

It has been a long journey but today @POTUS has officially signed #TSCA into law! pic.twitter.com/jCNuVVH4Ll

— Senator Tom Carper (@SenatorCarper) June 22, 2016

The new law is an update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and will now allow the Environmental Protection agency to collect more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States. Also under the new law, the EPA must conduct a review of all the chemicals currently on the market and make the results public. The EPA will also have to consider the chemical effects on certain demographics like infants, pregnant women, and the elderly.

“This is a big deal. This is a good law. It’s an important law,” Obama said at the bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, [or] the mattress that our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”

The law will also streamline the different states’ rules on regulating the $800 billion industry. Three years of negotiating between lawmakers went into creating this law which aims to “bring chemical regulation into the 21st century,” according to the American Chemistry Council, who backed the bill.

“I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work — it’s possible,” Obama said. “If we can get this bill done it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well.”

In recent years, Republicans have been critical of Obama’s efforts to strengthen environmental and climate protections, claiming regulations create unnecessary burdens and stifles business. However, all parties were on board for this bill–it passed in the House with a 403-12 vote.

“That doesn’t happen very often these days,” Obama said. “So this is a really significant piece of business.”

The Environmental Defense Fund called it “the most important new environmental law in decades.” However, as with any law, there are some downsides. The law restricts how and when a state can regulate certain chemicals and limits the EPA’s ability to monitor some imported chemicals. The Environmental Working Group, another organization that supported the bill, criticized that the EPA may not have enough resources or legal authority to review and/or ban chemicals, citing that House Republicans slashed the EPA’s funding and staff in an appropriations bill for next year.

But, on the bright side, the approximate 700 new chemicals that come on the market each year will now have to clear a safety bar first and companies can no longer classify health studies of those chemicals as “confidential business information.” Those studies now must be made available to the public.

The law was named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after the late New Jersey Democrat who spent years trying to fix the law. His wife attended the signing at the White House.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

The United States for the first time in history promised to cut its carbon dioxide emissions when it joined the Paris Agreement. In order to meet those targets, the Obama Administration created the Clean Power Plan to reduce emissions and move American states toward cleaner energy sources. However, the Clean Power Plan is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court and it’s unclear whether or not the U.S. government will be able to make its promises a reality. Read on to learn more about the past, present, and potential future of federal pollution regulation in the United States.

The Current Political Context

Currently, the United States has the second highest rate of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, surpassed only by China. The United States has also historically avoided participating in international climate negotiations and is one of  a small number of developed nations that chose not to ratify the Kyoto Convention. While both industrialized and developing countries around the world have joined onto the convention over the past two decades and made pledges to reduce their emissions, the United States has struggled to make national commitments to reduce its own emissions. This is, in part, because American fossil fuel companies have been able to exert a great deal of influence on political decisions through lobbying and because Congress is divided on whether or not climate change is even scientifically valid.

COP21, the 21st Conference of Parties for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, marked the first time that the United States made a national pledge to reduce its emissions. However, while the COP21 was hailed as an international victory, it remains unclear if America can actually follow through on its commitments. U.S. policymakers remain divided on the issue of climate change and many believe that the government’s attempts to regulate fossil fuel usage directly interfere with the economy. As of February, the Clean Power Plan, with which the EPA began strictly regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, has been stayed by the Supreme Court and risks being ruled unconstitutional. The United States may have made an international commitment to reduce emissions, but on a domestic level, is it ready for such a change to take place?

A Brief history of Climate Change Negotiations

The first United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as the Kyoto Protocol, was held on December 11, 1997. The convention entered into force on February 16, 2005–90 days after it was ratified by 55 nations emitting at least 55 percent of the CO2 emissions in 1990. The protocol required industrialized countries to make pledges to reduce their emissions by 5 percent before 2012.

Developing nations weren’t required to make pledges in the first incarnation of the Kyoto Protocol, although many did pledge to use aid from the U.N. and World Bank to invest in renewable energy sources. This was decided by the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” meaning that since industrialized countries did the most damage to the environment, they should bear the heaviest burden of fixing it. Likewise, since dramatically reducing emissions would handicap growth in developing nations, it’s viewed as unfair to expect them to make the same level of commitment.

The United States did sign onto the Kyoto Protocol but it did not ratify the convention, meaning essentially that it gave its public support but refused to individually reduce its emissions. Decisions not to make emissions pledges from some major nations such as the United States, Canada, and Russia–although Russia did eventually agree to ratify the convention in 2004–are often cited by smaller countries as justification to not participate as well.

“High-level ministerial roundtable under the Kyoto Protocol” courtesy of UNclimatechange via Flickr

In 2012, following the end of the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period, another conference was held to establish new international pledges. The second conference produced the Doha Amendment, which gathered binding emissions reduction commitments from much of the industrialized world, including the entirety of the European Union and 37 other developed countries. Many developing countries ratified the amendment and made their own commitments, but their participation was on a non-binding basis.

In December 2015, COP21 was held in Paris and attended by representatives from 188 different countries, making it one of the largest international conferences in history. Rather than set specific reduction targets, COP21 let each participating country decide its own emission reduction plan with the ultimate goal of keeping global warming from raising the earth’s temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius. COP21 was successful in bringing together almost every country on earth to participate in the conference, including a wide range of developing countries and many of the world’s top polluters, such as China, India, Indonesia, and the United States. The United States pledged to reduce its emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025, focusing primarily on carbon dioxide but also on methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.

The Clean Air Act and the EPA’s Role in Emissions Regulations

While COP21 marks the first time that the United States made an international commitment to reduce its emissions, the U.S. government has exercised power internally to regulate emissions since Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1973. The Clean Air Act gave the EPA the power to create National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six hazardous air pollutants: nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. Each state was required to design a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to upgrade and regulate industrial air polluters in order to meet these NAAQS. The act was amended in 1977 and in 1990, both of which were made to redesign the NAAQS and extend the deadlines for states that failed to reach their goals. The 1990 amendment also set new standards for technology upgrades for large-scale, stationary polluters.

The Clean Air Act addressed both stationary and mobile sources of pollution: power plants were forced to upgrade their technology and install filters on smokestacks and the auto industry was forced to redesign its engines and cars to reduce effects of harmful chemicals released into the atmosphere as well as meet average miles-per-gallon efficiency standards. The act has made a significant impact on air quality in the United States, reducing smog by more than 25 percent since 1990, lead pollution by 92 percent, sulfur dioxide by 71 percent, nitrogen dioxide by 46 percent, and ending the production and distribution of many chemicals that adversely affect the ozone layer.

However, while the Clean Air Act has existed for 43 years, its use to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a recent development. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled  in Massachusetts v. the EPA that if it could be scientifically proven that greenhouse gas emissions were dangerous to human health, then it would be the EPA’s responsibility to regulate them. Only two years later, in 2009, scientific evidence proved both that GHGs were harmful to the human respiratory system and that an increase in heat waves due to global warming could be dangerous, especially for the elderly and infirm.

“Smokestack” courtesy of Dean Hochman via Flickr

The Clean Power Plan Explained

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. the EPA gave the EPA the power to use the Clean Air Act as a viable policy tool to combat climate change and paved the way for the creation of the Clean Power Plan. The United States’ greenhouse gas emissions can be broken down into five major categories: 31 percent comes from electricity generation (also referred to as the power sector), 27 percent from transportation, 21 percent from industry, 12 percent from commercial and residential sources, and 9 percent from agriculture.

If the United States is to successfully reduce emissions by its target of 26 to 28 percent, a substantial amount of those reductions will have to come from the power sector, which contributes the largest share of greenhouse gasses and is also likely where the government can exert the most regulatory control. This has been the guiding logic behind the creation of the Obama Administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan mandates that power plants across the United States reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 32 percent by 2030. The plan works differently on a state-by-state basis according to the energy mix used in each state, how efficient and environmentally friendly the current power plants are, and how effective a variety of traditional emission reduction tools can be in the context of the first two factors. The different emissions reductions targets vary widely because of these variables. For example, Montana is required to reduce its emissions by 47 percent while a few states aren’t required to make any changes because they don’t have power plants that the plan applies to. The EPA’s job is only to set these reduction targets; each state is allowed to design its own plan to meet its target. The only condition is that the plans must be submitted by September 1, or the EPA will impose a federal plan on states that failed to create their own.

Each state may choose to pursue the emissions reductions either through rate-based methods, which focus on reducing the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy; or through mass-based methods, which focus on reducing the overall number of tons of carbon emitted. Regardless of their method of choice, the EPA offers four basic building blocks to aid the construction of each state’s plans: making existing coal plants more efficient; using existing gas plants more efficiently; increasing renewables and nuclear and increasing end-use energy efficiency. These four principles are not binding constraints but rather general guidelines; each state is expected to create a unique plan.

Legal Challenges

Since the release of the Clean Power Plan, 29 states have attempted to sue the EPA but the majority of these cases were quickly dismissed. But in January, one case, West Virginia v. the EPA, may be on its way to the Supreme Court. While the D.C. circuit court initially plans to review the case in June, on February 9 the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to issue a stay to stop the Clean Power Plan’s implementation prior to undergoing judicial review. That stay stops the EPA’s regulations until after a court ruling has determined whether they are within the agency’s authority. A ruling against the EPA could effectively cripple the plan’s intended purpose of combating climate change.

Image courtesy of Phil Richards via Flickr

However, on February 24, less than two weeks after the Supreme Court issued the stay, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. Justice Scalia led the decision to overturn the Clean Power Plan and his death significantly complicates the plan’s legal future. The Supreme Court now seems to be divided 4 to 4 on the issue, but there has been no mention of changing the decision to stay the case. The issue is also further complicated by the GOP’s refusal to hold hearings on the President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.

The looming question now is whether or not the Supreme Court will wait to hear the case until after the 2016 Presidential election and/or the confirmation of a ninth justice. The D.C. Circuit Court is currently scheduled to hear the states’ lawsuit this upcoming summer after which point the Supreme Court will decide whether or not it wants to take up the case. If the court refuses to take up the case or issues a 4-4 split ruling, then the circuit court’s decision will stand. However, legal experts note that the court could delay the case until a new justice joins the bench, which would likely lead to a 5-4 decision based on the ideological leaning of the ninth justice.

So What will Happen in the Meantime?

The Clean Power Plan is critical to the United States’ ability to fulfill its COP21 commitments. However, the fact that the plan is currently pending a court ruling does not mean that it failed. Last year, the Clean Power Plan already exerted considerable influence on the American energy systems as states have begun to redesign their energy systems for the future and many power plant operators have already begun retrofitting their plants and designing compliance plans. The primary focus of the Clean Power Plan is to dramatically reduce the use of coal in American energy and that may very well be happening. The implementation of the plan also coincides with a time when we have new access to domestic reserves of natural gas and energy investors have already started to move away from coal toward less expensive forms of energy.

Coal stocks plummeted in 2015 and many plants across America declared bankruptcy. However, this isn’t to say that the Supreme Court decision isn’t important. If the Clean Power Plan is overturned, then a new series of political barriers to regulating emissions may be created.  The decision also sets a dangerous legal precedent, marking the first time the Supreme Court has stayed federal regulations before hearing the case. The EPA’s legal authority to address airborne pollution is the major weapon that gives the United States a real chance to reduce its emissions. If that power is called into question then that may dramatically impede the EPA’s ability to make progress on climate change.

Conclusion

The Clean Power Plan’s emphasis on increasing renewable energy in America is a large part of what makes it an effective weapon against climate change. Coal may still die out on its own, but without the plan in place, it seems likely that energy investors will shift to the more cost efficient natural gas rather than renewable energy. Natural gas releases less CO2 than coal but is still very much a greenhouse gas and a national dependence on methane as an energy source would still result in high levels of GHG emissions.

As long as the Clean Power Plan is in legal limbo it’s difficult to predict what direction American energy will take. Currently, it seems likely that there won’t be a final hearing on the case until after the 2016 election is decided and a new justice is confirmed by the Senate. Whether that new justice ends up being liberal or conservative will most likely make or break the plan and will strongly influence the United States’ ability to meet its Cop21 goals. The next president will also have control over executive branch policy, meaning that he or she could peel back a significant portion of existing regulation or continue President Obama’s efforts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions further.

Resources

The Atlantic: A Legal Win for the E.P.A.

The Atlantic: Will a Reconfigured Supreme Court help Obama’s Clean Power Plan Survive?

The Atlantic: Did the Supreme Court Doom the Paris Climate Change Deal?

The Atlantic: The Supreme Court’s Devastating Decision on Climate Change

CNN: Kyoto Protocol Fast Facts

CNN: Obama: Climate Agreement ‘Best Chance we have to Save the Environment‘

Earth Institute, Columbia University: What is the U.S. Commitment in Paris? 

Environment and Energy Publishing, LLC: Clean Power Plan: A Summary

The EPA.: The Clean Air Act Requirements and History

The EPA: The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

The EPA: Summary of the Clean Air Act

The Guardian: The Kyoto Protocol is Not Quite Dead

The Hill: Supreme Court Overturns Landmark EPA Air Pollution Law

Inside Climate News: For U.S. and China, World’s Biggest Climate Polluters, It’s Still Business as Usual

Moyers & Company: Here are the 56% of Republicans who Deny Climate Change

NRDC: NRDC Summary of EPA’s Clean Power Plan

United Nations Conference on Climate Change: 188 Countries have Committed to Reducing their Carbon Emissions

United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention: Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Clean Air Act

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the United States be Able to Keep its Paris Agreement Commitments? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is viewed both domestically and internationally as one of the most water secure nations in the world. The 2011 California drought represents one of the first developments to challenge this notion in many years. California’s four-year rain shortage has brought the realization that a community can’t survive without a water source to the attention of many Americans and that the United States isn’t immune to water scarcity. This year’s El Niño finally brought rain to California, but seemingly just as the drought was temporarily broken on the West Coast, media attention fell onto another water-related crisis: Flint, Michigan.

Flint and Beyond

Three years ago Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed Darnell Earley as the Emergency Manager of Flint, giving him complete control over the city’s budget and charged him with saving the city from bankruptcy. In 2014, in a move calculated to save the city millions of dollars, Earley made the executive decision to relocate the city’s drinking source from the distant Lake Huron to the much closer Flint River. While the Flint River may have been more economically convenient, the water was not properly treated with an anti-corrosion chemical to prevent erosion of lead pipes. The water was understood to be toxic from years of being used as a chemical dumping ground by Flint’s now extinct automobile industry, which also made it significantly more corrosive than most sources.

The water looked and smelled unpleasant, and while it wasn’t fully understood at the time the switch was made, water in Flint contained dangerous quantities of lead residue from local pipelines. After the switch, Flint residents experienced hair loss and fell seriously ill, leading them to quickly contact city officials. Earley, the Governor’s office, and the State Health Department were all contacted but largely ignored complaints. It took two entire years before a team of researchers from Virginia Tech did an official study that proved the water was highly toxic. The health consequences of those two years will last a lifetime for the people of Flint, and has rendered the entire community unstable.

Flint serves as a chilling example of how dependent an area and its people are on their water source and marks a shift in national attention toward the idea of water instability in America. The story of the Flint water crisis went viral and has been covered widely since the revelations. In January 2016, Time Magazine published an article on Flint titled, “The Poisoning of an American City,” which was featured on its cover.

Flint became one of just a few nationally-circulated stories of a community experiencing water pollution since before the Clean Water Act was passed and in the months following the Flint crisis, similar stories have been popping up all over the country. On January 23, attention turned to St. Joseph, Louisiana, where the drinking water runs brown from aging and malfunctioning pipelines. Then on February 21, CNN covered a story on Crystal City, Texas where the faucets and showerheads dispense sludge due to sediment buildup in their storage tanks.

A History of Water Legislation in the United States

Many will argue that America is currently experiencing its most water-secure period in history. Prior to the 70s, the United States had essentially no regulation for pollution and chemical dumping was widely practiced by the industrial sector. In the late 60s only about one-third of U.S. waters were considered safe to swim in and fish from. According to a 1970 report from Bureau of Water Hygiene, a sample of American tap water supplies found that 36 percent exceeded the limits of established drinking water standards. It required several major tragedies to change the political attitude toward water as a public health issue, including toxic spills and oil leaks. Perhaps the most memorable of these events happened in 1969 in Cleveland when the Cuyahoga River lit on fire due to its high quantity of flammable waste. The image of a burning river emblazoned Time Magazine and led to a national outcry.

America’s first water-related piece of legislation was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, which was followed by five additional bills written between 1956 and 1970. In 1972, in response to major pollution disasters, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was revised and expanded in order to give it a much larger scope of control. The newly dubbed Clean Water Act of 1972 was passed with bipartisan support and in spite of a veto from President Nixon, representing the most influential piece of water-related legislation in American history.

While previous water quality bills ultimately held the states responsible for interpretation and enforcement, the Clean Water Act marked a departure from this line of thinking–giving the federal government direct authority to regulate water quality. The act gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to set industrial wastewater standards, made it illegal for individuals to dump waste in navigable waters, and forced industrial and municipal facilities to obtain permits to discharge their waste. These permits could also be revoked–effectively shutting down a business if the discharges were found to exceed EPA standards. Industries across America were forced to upgrade their technology in order to generate smaller waste streams and use a secondary treatment on the waste that they did create. The Clean Water Act targeted the largest sources of pollution–toxic waste dumping, oil spills, and large sewage leaks–using better technology as the primary solution.

The Clean Water Act was amended three times during the 70s and 80s to strengthen its ability to regulate waste. The EPA’s power was further increased by the Ocean Dumping Act in 1972 and the Safe Drinking Act in 1974. These efforts had a huge influence on reducing large scale pollution and has successfully increased the percentage of swimmable and fishable waters in the United States from one-third to almost 60 percent, as well as dramatically decreasing the load of contaminants in drinking water across the nation.

So Where Are We Now?

While considerable progress has been made, the Clean Water Act was written with the goal of making the United States’ waters swimmable and fishable by 1983. However, in 2016 the EPA has admitted that over 40 percent of U.S. waterways don’t meet national standards. While regulations have significantly improved, they’ve failed to protect many communities from pollution. Flint, Crystal City, and St. Joseph are extreme examples of water sources gone wrong, but they’re far from unique. Citizens across the country are regularly exposed to dangerous chemicals through the drinking water. The Natural Resource Defense Council studied major cities all across the United States and found that many of them had tap water that contained a number of contaminants. The most common and deadly of these contaminants were lead, pathogens, arsenic, radon, and perchlorate rocket fuel.

The D.C.-based Environmental Working Group conducted a similar study that took place over the course of five years, testing for 316 different contaminants in water supplied to 48,000 communities throughout the country. They found the same trend of pollutants appeared regularly in drinking water throughout the country, especially in concentrated urban areas. They ranked different communities on the percentage of chemicals found in the water, the number of different chemicals present, and the level of danger of each individual community.

Both the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group found that some of the most severely polluted areas in the U.S. were major cities, including San Diego, Las Vegas, Jacksonville, Albuquerque, Houston, and Denver, all of which had a number of dangerous contaminants in their drinking water exceeding the EPA’s safe limits. Across the nation, cities have been using inaccurate water testing practices, withholding information from their citizens, and completely bypassing EPA guidelines.

“Sewage Contaminated Water” courtesy of Tony Webster via Flickr

Obstacles to Keeping Water Clean

Regulating the discharges of America’s entire industrial and municipal sectors is a task of momentous proportions and many dangerous chemicals don’t specifically have regulations attached to them. As such, many companies can get away with dumping illegally. If an industry is particularly critical to the economy of an area, it may have a blind eye turned to its actions, at least from local governments. Furthermore, there are also cases like Flint where much of the damage had already been done. The auto industry responsible for the majority of the dumping in the Flint River, with the exception of Flint Motors, died out long ago. All the companies that could now be fined or forced to pay for the cleanup have gone bankrupt.

There are also several legal loopholes that certain industries can use to legally pollute groundwater. Perhaps the most significant of these is the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which allocated federal subsidies to different energy sources with the majority of the funds going to the fossil fuel industry. However, beyond covering subsidies, the act also gave hydraulic fracturing companies the privilege to legally inject water based pumps into the ground without publicly releasing the chemicals used in the underground pumping process. This became known as the Halliburton Loophole, due to the fact that the Energy Policy Act was designed by a team directed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton.

A large part of the problem is also that the Clean Water Act regulates pollution that comes from point sources, or identifiable and quantifiable streams of pollution, such as oil leaks or sewage streams. However, up to 50 percent of America’s pollution is estimated to come from non-point sources, which are widespread and difficult to track or control. Pollution can often enter water sources simply by getting carried along with rainwater. Non-point sources include animal feces, particularly from livestock and pets (whose feces contain different, more harmful bacteria and pathogens as a result of their unique diets); nitrogen and phosphorus from lawn fertilizers; and agricultural pesticides, dirt, general sediments, and rock salt; the leaking residue of aging septic tanks; and numerous other examples. Aging and deteriorating piping systems can also transport contaminants directly to your home as water moves through them.

The problem is not just with water pollution but also with excessive over-withdrawal from water sources. A body of drinking water is restored naturally with rainfall that runs–both as surface water and groundwater–into lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. However, if a community continuously withdraws water at a faster rate than the watershed can restore it, the level of accessible drinking water will lower and lower until the body of water is completely undrinkable. This problem is seen at its worst in highly populated urban areas and tourist destinations where large water withdrawals are necessary to sustain the community.

Major American waterways such as the Colorado River and Lake Mead, both of which provide water to tens of millions of people, are at risk of drying up within the next few decades. Long-term water use is often not taken into account by city planners; for instance, Los Angeles and Las Vegas are currently America’s two fastest growing cities and both are built on literal deserts. El Niño’s unorthodox rain patterns have brought temporary relief to these areas, but the pattern of dry, arid weather will eventually resume and the California drought shows every sign of resurfacing. These problems are also not limited to the West–40 out of 50 states are currently predicted to have one or more regions that will experience water shortage within the decade.

Recent Policy Developments

The most relevant recent water-related policy development happened in 2014 when the Obama Administration passed the Waters of the United States Rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule. The purpose of the rule was both to give more regulatory oversight to the Environmental Protection Agency and to expand the definition of protected waters beyond lakes and rivers to also include smaller waterways such as streams and tributaries, which ultimately flow into lakes and rivers and thus impact the health of our drinking water.

Republican members of Congress have objected to the Clean Water Rule on the grounds that it unfairly increases federal power where the government has no right to assert control over businesses, farmers, and private landowners. The rule’s opponents have attempted to overturn it using the Congressional Review Act, and on January 13, the House of Representatives effectively voted to overturn the rule. Only six days later, on January 19, President Obama responded by vetoing the overturn. Without the necessary two-thirds majority required to override his veto, the Clean Water Rule will continue to be U.S. law.

Conclusion

With the rate and severity of droughts increasing, so does our understanding of the sheer volume of polluted water sources throughout the nation, and it’s more important than ever to take water instability seriously. Despite some progress in the past few years, the same dangers are just as alive today as they were in the pre-seventies era. This is illustrated well by the fact that in 1969 the burning Cuyahoga River made the cover of Time magazine and 57 years later we see yet another polluted waterway–this time the Flint River–back on the magazine’s cover. If there’s a positive side to the recent surge in media attention toward these events it’s the idea of a water crisis as a tangible, possible thing that could happen in America may now be present in the minds of American citizens and voters.

There is no silver bullet to water instability; any approach to making American watersheds sustainable must involve a number of different methods. Some cities in America have banned the use of chemical rock salt for roads and others have banned the use of phosphorous and nitrogen-based fertilizers. In response to the drought, California set strict laws regulating the amount of water each citizen was allowed to use and that each establishment was allowed to offer. As the population continues to grow, especially in urban centers, more and more areas may have to regulate water withdrawal with an eye to the future. Perhaps one of the most needed changes is for more and more areas to regularly test their water for contaminants to determine its safety and create a baseline measure to determine changes. The most important element of water sustainability is to act now and plan for the future, understanding that the health of a community directly correlates to the health and security of its water source.

Resources

ATTN: U.S. Cities are Underreporting Heavy Metals in their Water Supply

Daily Finance: 10 American Cities with the Worst Drinking Water

Encyclopedia.com: Clean Water Act of 1977

EPA: Summary of the Clean Water Act

EPA: What the Clean Water Rule Does

The Guardian: Flint Water Crisis: Congressman says EPA guilty of ‘Flat-out Incompetence’

NRDC: Study Finds Safety of U.S. Drinking Water at Risk

The New York Times: A Question of Environmental Racism in Flint

The New York Times: Events that Lead to Flint’s Water Crisis

The New York Times: Unsafe Levels of Lead in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

Salon: It’s Not Just a Flint Problem: Other U.S. Cities are Suffering from Toxic Water

Salon: America’s Water Crisis is so Much Bigger than California

Water Encyclopedia: Clean Water Act

The Water Project: Water Scarcity in U.S.

Earth Works Action: The Halliburton Loophole

CNN: Water Runs Black in Texas Town Already Wracked by Corruption Arrests

Environmental Protection Agency: Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing

The Hill: House Votes to Overturn Obama Water Rule

Time: The Burning River that Sparked a Revolution

USA Today: Obama Vetoes Attempt to Kill Clean Water Rule

The News-Star: Water Woes Plague St. Joseph

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Water Instability in the United States: Can Anything be Done? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government has officially filed a civil suit against Volkswagen for violating the Clean Air Act; the latest step in a saga that has taken several months to unravel and appears to look worse for the car manufacturer at each turn.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has made allegations against the German automaker that mostly stem from the discovery that some of Volkswagen’s cars had “defeat devices” installed. Essentially a defeat device would kick in during an emissions test, to make it appear as though the cars were running at standards that were in accordance with the Clean Air Act. However, when the cars were out on the road, their emissions were significantly higher–in some cases up to 40 times greater than the federal standards allow. The DOJ is alleging that about 500,000 of those were sold in the United States. Volkswagen admitted in September that it was aware of the implications of these devices, and is currently negotiating with American regulators on how to conduct a recall of the affected cars.

The federal civil suit against Volkswagen doesn’t preclude the DOJ from filing criminal charges against the company as well. But given the higher burden of proof needed to prosecute a criminal case, it makes some sense that the civil suit has come first.

Assistant Attorney General John Cruden of the environment and natural resources division at the Justice Department explained the motivations for the lawsuit in a statement released by the DOJ:

Car manufacturers that fail to properly certify their cars and that defeat emission control systems breach the public trust, endanger public health and disadvantage competitors. The United States will pursue all appropriate remedies against Volkswagen to redress the violations of our nation’s clean air laws alleged in the complaint.

The DOJ also outlined the public health danger that could come from Volkswagen’s deception, warning that it could cause nitrogen pollution, and stating:

NOx pollution contributes to harmful ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. These pollutants are linked with asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses. Exposure to ozone and particulate matter is also associated with premature death due to respiratory-related or cardiovascular-related effects. Children, the elderly and people with pre-existing respiratory disease are particularly at risk of health effects from exposure to these pollutants.

Volkswagen will have a hard road ahead when it comes to fighting off this civil suit. Given that it could end with the company paying billions in fines, it’s certainly one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Government Sues Volkswagen For Clean Air Act Violations appeared first on Law Street.

How far can government agencies go when trying to implement new regulations? According to a review from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the EPA broke the law in its push to gain public support for its new water regulation rule, using what the GAO calls “covert propaganda.” As social media becomes an increasingly important platform for government agencies to share information with the public, it’s also becoming clear that a line exists in terms of how far their outreach can go.

The EPA rule that prompted the campaign sought to better define and expand the agency’s authority to regulate the “navigable waters” of the United States under the Clean Water Act. A series of Supreme Court decisions made it particularly difficult to determine the waters under EPA authority, so the agency proposed a new rule to create clarity while also expanding its jurisdiction. The rule immediately became controversial. In fact, Republicans and a range of business interests, from farmers to the oil industry, came out against the rule before it took effect. Critics argued that the rule was a sweeping example of government overreach with the EPA seeking to expand its authority to regulate and dictate the use of land near water sources. The interest groups opposing the new legislation created a particularly powerful coalition, lobbying members of Congress and creating public relations campaigns to communicate their opposition.

In response to the strong opposition from the business lobby, the EPA went on its own social media campaign to spread information about the new rule during the public comment period. A New York Times article noticed the unconventional methods employed by the EPA, citing observers concerns that the agency was overstepping its bounds.

After a review of the EPA’s practices, the GAO report identified four social media campaigns initiated by the EPA, concluding that two of them violated anti-lobbying restrictions and laws that prohibit publicity or propaganda for agencies that receive Congressional appropriations. While government officials and the heads of certain agencies are allowed to explicitly advocate for certain policies, federal agencies themselves are not allowed to lobby the public.

The EPA’s position, which is reflected in the GAO report, maintains that the agency acted properly in its use of social media. In a statement given to the New York Times, an EPA Spokesperson said:

We use social media tools just like all organizations to stay connected and inform people across the country about our activities… At no point did the E.P.A. encourage the public to contact Congress or any state legislature.

The GAO took issue with the agency’s use of a platform called Thunderclap, which allows a message to be posted across supporters’ Facebook and Twitter accounts all at once. The problem identified by the GAO was that when the message was shared across social media, which may have reached as many as 1.8 million people, the EPA was not was not easily identifiable as the source. Because government information is supposed to be closely tied to its source, the use of Thunderclap constituted “covert propaganda.”

The EPA also used a #DitchtheMyth campaign on social media, which allowed people to share the agency’s campaign with their networks. The GAO argued that this was acceptable because the prescribed message referenced the EPA’s official Twitter accounts and the graphics used the EPA logo. The #CleanWaterRules campaign was also considered lawful by the GAO. This campaign did not violate the publicity restrictions placed on the agency because the GAO found that the communications did not qualify as self-aggrandizement, but rather were intended to promote discussion and associate the proposed rule with the agency.

Finally, the GAO found that an EPA’s blog post violated anti-lobbying restrictions because of how hyperlinks connected people with advocacy groups while knowing that members of Congress explicitly opposed the rule. A blog post by an EPA communications director illustrated some of the ways the rule would help people in everyday activities like surfing and drinking beer. The blog post linked to a National Resource Defense Council page, which talked about the effects of clean water on beer brewing, and a Surfrider Foundation article about how pollution affects surfers. Both websites also featured some sort of action section that encourages visitors to contact their legislators about the EPA rule. The GAO concludes:

EPA violated the anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts for FY 2015 when it obligated and expended funds in connection with establishing the hyperlinks to the webpages of environmental action groups

By hyperlinking to these advocacy organizations’ websites, the EPA associated itself with their message–including appeals to contact Congress about open legislation–which violate the anti-lobbying restrictions placed on the agency.

While these efforts don’t necessarily constitute flagrant abuse, they do seem to violate the restrictions placed on the EPA as the GAO review found. In its report, the GAO recommended that the agency determines how much it spent on unlawful practices and notify Congress and the President that the violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal employees and agencies from spending unauthorized or unappropriated funds.

This finding illustrates the particularly difficult position many government agencies can find themselves in while trying to establish new rules and regulations. The EPA is arguably one of the best examples, as a highly polarized Congress has made its efforts particularly controversial. As more and more regulation is created through executive action, efforts like the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States rule have come under more and more criticism from opponents. Much of this ends up being manifested in lawsuits and political disagreement–the new water rule is currently facing challenges from 18 different states. But as the debate rages on, agencies are tasked with informing the public about of their policies and potential effects. Using social media to do so can be particularly effective, but as the GAO ruling shows, limitations certainly exist.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the EPA Illegally Lobby the American People? appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the United States environmental community’s fight against power plant emissions. Its main priority? To reduce carbon pollution, which, among other greenhouse gas pollutants, is detrimental to the Earth’s climate and the health of every global citizen. In recent years, the EPA has taken strides like never before to combat unchecked power plants across the country that produce harmful gases into the atmosphere. With the backing of the Obama Administration, environmental efforts are at the forefront of America’s priorities.

 The EPA and Carbon Pollution

What is the EPA?

The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing U.S. regulations based on environmental laws passed by Congress. Nearly half of the EPA budget is directed to grants for state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and other entities that align with its mission. The EPA also conducts and shares its own scientific studies, sponsors partnerships within the environmental community, and educates the public.

What are carbon pollutants?

According to environmental scientists, carbon pollution is the primary contributor to long-lasting climate disruption. Carbon pollutants and other greenhouse gas pollutants (gases that trap heat in the atmosphere) exacerbate natural weather conditions like floods, wildfires, and droughts and negatively impact human health. Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) makes up nearly three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and accounts for 84 percent in the United States. Other greenhouse gases include Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and synthetic fluorinated gases. The severity of damage these pollutants cause to climate depends on the abundance and strength of the gas and duration its duration in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is by far the most abundant and therefore the most dangerous.

CO₂ passes into the atmosphere through “burning fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees, and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement.)” In the natural carbon cycle, CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere through plant absorption. Carbon pollutants alter the natural balance; carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere at a higher rate than it is leaving.

CO₂ emissions have been on the rise since the Industrial Revolution, but between 1990 and 2013, CO₂ emission increased by seven percent due to energy use and transportation emissions. NASA’s video below shows a visual simulation of CO₂ emissions.

Main Source of Carbon Pollution

Human reliance on electricity is to blame for an estimated 37 percent of CO₂ emissions. Transportation and industry account for most of the rest. The combustion of fossil fuel to create energy is the primary source of carbon emissions. The burning of coal, in particular, emits the most CO₂ compared to oil and gas. Therefore, coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of carbon emissions in the United States.

Coal-fired power plants first burn coal to create extremely fine talcum powder, which is blown into the firebox of the boiler with hot air. The burning coal and air combination creates “the most complete combustion and maximum heat possible.” Water, pumped through the pipes inside the boiler, turns into steam, which can reach 1,000 degrees F and has a pressure of up to 3,500 pounds per square inch. At this point, the steam is piped to the turbine generator where the pressure turns the turbine blades, therefore turning the turbine shaft connected to the generator. Inside the generator, “magnets spin within coils to produce electricity.” Lastly, steam turns back into water inside a condenser.

In a given year, an average 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant emits 3.7 million tons of CO₂, 220 tons of hydrocarbons (which creates smog), and 720 tons of poisonous carbon monoxide. This results from burning 1,430,000 tons of coal a year. Aside from carbon emissions, the plant will also release 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, 125,000 tons of ash, and 225 pounds of arsenic.

Negative Impacts of Carbon Pollutants

According to the EPA, carbon pollution causes rising global temperatures, rising sea level, changes in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in ecosystems, habitats, and species diversity. High levels of CO₂ can cause an increase or decrease in rainfall depending on location. Rainfall influences agriculture crop yields, water supplies, energy resources, and forest and other ecosystems across the globe.

Carbon pollution causes an increase in heat waves, drought, and smog (ground-level ozone pollution). It can lead to increasing intensity of extreme events, i.e. hurricanes, precipitation, and flooding. It can also increase the “range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.” Younger children, those with heart or lung diseases, and people living in poverty could be at risk the most for feeling the effects of climate change.

Laws and Proposed Regulations

The Clean Air Act

One of the first pieces of hard-hitting environmental legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was most recently revised in 1990. The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to establish and enforce National Ambient Quality Standards. The 1990 amendments, led by the Bush Administration, specifically aimed to fight acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. It defines major sources of air pollutants “as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants,” and requires technology-based standards. These standards are referred to as “maximum achievable control technology.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a plan through executive orders to reduce carbon emissions. The President created a list of carbon-reduction targets on the path of decreasing U.S. carbon emissions, preparing and adapting for climate change, and leading the global effort to address the issue. On the domestic front, Obama ordered the EPA to finalize its standards for greenhouse emissions from new and old coal-burning power plants. Although, industry heads have threatened suits if old plants are required to limit emissions.

The executive orders also called for strict standards in fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles after 2018 to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. In order to prepare for climate change, Obama’s plan involves federal, state, and local governments working together in order to “increase investments in protective infrastructure.” Weather disasters accumulated $100 billion worth of damages in 2012. Internationally, Obama’s plan includes promoting “the development of a global market for natural gas and continued use of nuclear power.” The plan also calls for the Obama Administration to work with U.S. trading partners to discuss negotiations at the World Trade Organization to advocate free trade in environmental goods/services and cleaner energy technologies.

Clean Power Plan

The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, released in June 2014, sets state-by-state carbon emissions rate-reduction targets. The plan calls for a 30 percent reduction of 2005 carbon emission levels by 2030. The plan provides alternative plans called “building blocks” to cut carbon emissions. Some of these building blocks include: renewable energy sources, nuclear power, efficiency improvements at individual fossil fuel plants, shifting generation from coal to natural gas, and greater energy efficiency in buildings and industries. Targets per state range due to individual states’ “mix of electricity-generation resources…technological feasibilities, costs, and emissions reduction potentials of each building block.”

After comments and revisions, the plan is expected to be finalized in August 2015. The EPA anticipates a long run of legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan from coal-producing industry heads. The Obama Administration and EPA saw its first legal win last week on June 9. The suit was brought by some of the nation’s largest coal companies and 14 coal-producing states claiming the plan would jeopardize future construction of coal plants and slow U.S. coal demand. One of the lawyers leading the suit is Lawrence H. Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional law scholar and former law school mentor to President Obama. The courts, for now, have dismissed the case as premature. As Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained in the opinion, “They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule.” Although delayed, opposition will fight another day.

Conclusion

The future holds the final decisions from the courts regarding the Clean Power Plan. Some challenges will more than likely make their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be a tough battle for the environmental community, but it is one for the health of our Earth and everyone on it. The negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, especially Carbon Dioxide, aren’t theories. They are facts and we have to face reality. Although no plan can reverse the damage that has already been done, we can prevent future damage from taking place. It is truly an international issue that needs international cooperation, but it starts domestically, and hopefully the United States will be the leader it needs to be in environmental conservation.

Resources

Primary

EPA: Carbon Dioxide Emissions

EPA: 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary 

EPA: Summary of the Clean Air Act

Additional

CFC: Obama Vows to Finalize Carbon Standards, Other Safeguards in Climate Change Plan

DESMOG: Facts on the Pollution Caused by the U.S. Coal Industry

Duke Energy: How do Power Plants Work?

EPA: Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants

EPA: Our Mission and What We Do

EPA: Overview of Greenhouse Gases

The New York Times: Court Gives Obama a Climate Change Win

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Clean Power Plan

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Power Plants and Carbon Pollution: What Can the EPA Do? appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine the military visiting your hometown for special training exercises. Their activities wipe out your cell signal and keep your car from starting. Their exercises make so much dust and noise, you can’t hear, see, or think straight for days.

That’s okay right?

Probably not. Yet marine mammals have suffered equivalent disruptions to their daily lives during naval exercises for decades. The active sonar used in training exercises interferes with their primary guiding sense of hearing and causes them to flounder during simple tasks like feeding or navigation. As the exercises grow in size and sophistication, so does the extent of the damage they cause. Since marine mammals can’t defend themselves, several environmental organizations stood up to the government agency that’s supposed to defend them. Here’s what happened when environmentalists took on the government to save the whales, dolphins, sea turtles, and other marine animals.

Naval War Games Aren’t Games For Marine Mammals

The Navy strives to “maintain, train, and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas.” The Navy makes sure it is capable of winning wars through training exercises, often called “war games.” Last year, the Navy planned a series of trainings classified as “military readiness activities” to occur over the next five years in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) study area. A major downside of the trainings? They use active sonar that could potentially kill and injure the marine mammals living in the HSTT region.

Using active sonar just means you’re shooting sounds, called pings, into the water to listen for echoes. Sonar stands for “sound navigation and ranging” because the echoes returned from the pings help people and animals find and navigate around objects in their path. You can’t control the path of a ping; under water they spread out in ripples, touching everything in a given radius. This can get really noisy, really fast, as illustrated by this abstract rendition of sonar below.

If the ping hits a pile of rocks, no harm done. If the ping hits a marine mammal with ultra-sensitive hearing, it can interfere with their basic survival functions.

Marine mammals have evolved with an attuned sense of hearing that enables them to navigate through the murky undersea world, communicate with other animals, and even find food. Hearing is a marine mammal’s primary survival tool. So when military sonar pings rocket through the waves every few seconds, marine mammals can’t perform the most basic functions of life. Ships with sonar cause whales to stop eating and migrating like they should. If the animals get too close, sudden sounds can damage their life-giving hearing permanently and they could be perpetually disoriented forever. For humans, this would be like trying to walk, talk, and drive with continuously fogged-up glasses.

Even the vibrations from the sounds can cause damage under water. You know how the sound of many live drums can make it seem like your whole body is vibrating? Now imagine that times ten. When you hear on land, only your eardrums vibrate. Under water, sound waves rattle and penetrate your entire body. Intense noises–like those used in the naval trainings–can cause deadly hemorrhaging in marine mammals as powerful sounds penetrate their bodies.

This video shows how whales react to the screeching sounds of Navy sonar. They cluster closer to shore, stop diving for food, and change their swimming directions erratically. Some whales even beach themselves in an effort to escape the piercing sounds.

The Navy has been using active sonar in its trainings for years and environmental groups have fought it for almost as long. Past court rulings weighed the need to protect the public over the life of marine mammals. However, the Navy’s latest planned trainings in the HSTT area pushed the marine mammal death toll past levels evaluated in the past. The new exercise plan would include 500,000 hours of sonar, in other words, 500,000 hours of possible damage to marine mammals. According to this Washington Post article, the Navy’s own damage estimate stated 155 animals would die, 2,000 would be permanently injured, and 10 million would have their lives disrupted by the exercises. The Natural Resources Defense Council says this marks an 1,100 perecent increase when compared to other trainings from the past five years.

Armed with new facts and figures, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Cetacean Society International, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Pacific Environment and Resources Center* brought forward a new lawsuit they hoped would succeed where similar efforts had failed in the past. Their case was named Conservation Council for Hawai‘i et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service et al.

The Case

The plaintiffs didn’t go after the Navy itself, but the regulatory agency that approved the Navy’s training plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Here’s a snippet from their mission page:

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries works to recover protected marine species while allowing economic and recreational opportunities.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits the “take” (defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill) of marine mammals. When the Navy planned its new training exercises, it had to apply for an exception to this rule through NMFS. Their application outlined the potential death and injury counts, but the NMFS deemed those losses negligible. The attorneys on the case countered that the NMFS evaluation of the marine life damage neglected to grasp and acknowledge the full extent of potential damage caused by the Navy trainings.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) calls for the government to protect endangered and threatened species. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the “ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out, will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, or destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat for those species.” Attorneys said the NMFS clearly neglected their duties under the ESA as many of the marine mammals found in the Navy’s massive HSTT study area are endangered.

The Verdict

U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway ruled the NMFS had fallen short of its legal obligations to marine mammals by approving the Navy’s proposed training plan. She called the NMFS decision to refer to marine mammal damages from the naval exercises negligible, “arbitrary and capricious” and in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. She also confirmed NMFS’s violation of the ESA, as eight of the thirty-nine marine mammal species living in the HSTT study area are endangered.

While the ruling affirmed the charges brought against the NMFS, specific remedies won’t be decided for the next few months. The decision marks a battle won, but it’s not quite the end of the war.

A Compromise?

The Natural Resources Defense Council released a statement from case attorney Zak Smith, summarizing what it hopes to get from the case:

The Navy has solutions at its disposal to ensure it limits the harm to these animals during its exercises.  It’s time to stop making excuses and embrace those safety measures.

Environmental groups aren’t asking for a complete cease and desist of all naval trainings involving active sonar. They’re just demanding the military use some of its extensive resources to develop safety measures to mitigate marine mammal damage. One option would be decreasing the test area size. Right now, the HSTT test area covers about 2.7 million square nautical miles, an area about the size of the entire United States. Another option is taking particular care to avoid areas where animals might be mating, giving birth, or feeding.

In the video above, Ken Balcomb from the Center for Whale Research says the Navy just needs to learn when and where to practice. He says just as the government would not test nuclear weapons in a crowded downtown area, they should not test active sonar in oceans teeming with delicate and endangered wildlife. For now, environmental groups remain optimistic that trainings and marine mammals can coexist safely.

Resources

Primary

Federal Register: Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area

Environmental Protection Agency: Endangered Species Protection Program

Additional

Washington Post: Navy War Games Face Suit Cver Impact on Whales, Dolphins

One Earth: A Silent Victory

Smithsonian Ocean Portal: Keeping An Ear Out For Whale Evolution

Los Angeles Times: Judge Rules Navy Underestimated Threat to Marine Mammals from Sonar

Natural Resources Defense Council: Court Rules Navy War Games Violate Law Protecting Whales and Dolphins

Natural Resources Defense Council: Groups Sue Feds for Putting Whales and Dolphins in Crosshairs throughout Southern California and Hawaiian Waters

Natural Resources Defense Council: Lethal Sounds

Law 360: Navy Loses Training Authorization Over Animal Concerns

Earthjustice: Sonar Complaint

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Government vs. Environmentalists: Who is Protecting Marine Wildlife? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most hazardous locations for one’s lungs is Texas. A site of many refineries and factories, the state already presents itself as a major emitter; but its activity exceeds the second ranking states by a wide margin. For example, nitrogen oxide emissions from smoke stacks and vents surpass number two ranking Pennsylvania by more than 60 percent, and tonnage of volatile organic compounds eclipse number two Colorado by more than 44 percent. If this is not enough, many state officials are siding with the industries themselves in an attempt to combat the implementation of tighter emissions regulations. Their testimonies argue that toughening up the standards will be too expensive and not necessarily beneficial to public health.

This conflict extends far beyond the Lone Star State. The Supreme Court itself is locked in a debate as to what measures are necessary and how much they will cost. Dissenters argue that the Obama Administration’s latest initiatives via the Environmental Protection Agency do not contain a cost-benefit analysis. The argument leans on wording in the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that regulations be “appropriate and necessary.” But who has the right to unilaterally determine what is appropriate and necessary? A rough estimate at a “quantifiable” benefit estimates that 11,000 unnecessary deaths can be prevented each year. Calculations diverge as to the monetary expenses and savings; one concludes that $9.6 billion in expenses will result in $6 billion in savings, while another maintains that those same costs can result in up to $30-90 billion in savings. These numbers should not be the focus of the decision, though. If thousands of people might live on who would otherwise die, this should be justification enough to implement the necessary measures.

Henan Province, China. Courtesy of V.T. Polywoda via Flickr.

Ozone and air contamination are a widely pervasive problem; the lives that potentially could be saved are not just in urban areas. Gases and ozone emissions are not stagnant; many studies and measurements have found excessively high air contaminants in rural and wide-open areas such as the Colorado mountains and the Native American reservations in Utah. In addition to the problem of poor restrictions on emission, the standards as to what technically constitutes contamination or poor air quality are too lax. For this reason, non-emitting areas are facing health risks that are not legally deemed as such.

Air pollution is a perfectly remediable problem. In the early 1900s, the great steel city of Pittsburgh rivaled Victorian London for poor air quality. But a series of laws and regulations and more efficient use of fuel led the city to be declared one of the most livable by the 1980s; the characteristic smoke and pollution cleared away almost entirely. A more poignant example is Japan. A system of local governments responding to local concerns but acting seamlessly with national and international-level reform efforts enabled the country to curb pollution without derailing economic growth. In fact, considering the incentives to invest in research and new technologies, the formulation of new overseeing agencies and subsequent job creation, by 1980 air pollution control became a profitable industry itself!

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the debates in the Supreme Court right now; all the concerns about cost effectiveness and damage to industry and the economy are based on perceptions of the status quo. People seem to be under the impression that the objective is simply to cap emissions while maintaining all the other aspects of day-to-day life and commercial activity. Rather, as demonstrated by the multi-layered action of Japan, it is a complicated process that requires commitment by many parties, but ultimately a worthwhile one because it is clearly doable and benefits not just the health of the people but can be financially desirable, as well.

This past November, an interesting thing occurred in Beijing. In anticipation of the arrival of many world leaders for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the government mandated a six-day vacation for urban residents, which included traffic restrictions and the closure of factories in an attempt to clear the smog. It was a monumental success; in less than a week, what came to be labeled as “APEC Blue” dominated the skies. The striking effects of this action has galvanized progressive voices and demonstrated to the nation and world that there is a plethora of options from which we can draw that quite effectively address the problem.

Courtesy of Nicolo Lazzati via Flickr.

Air pollution is one of the most visible and widespread consequences of industrialization, rampant consumption, and natural resource use. It may not have as immediate or drastic consequences as some other environmentally related challenges, but it certainly is dangerous. Most importantly, there are so many things that we can do to address it, which may be surprisingly effective and rapid in doing so, while at the same time improving our own habits and ways of life.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beijing Knows How to Curb Its Air Pollution, So Why Doesn’t Texas? appeared first on Law Street.

Bad news for cheap wine lovers and broke 20-somethings everywhere–many beloved budget wine brands just got slammed with a class-action lawsuit filed yesterday in California. Allegations are being made that some of those wines include unsafe levels of arsenic.

The brands named in the lawsuit include Franzia, Menage a Trois, Sutter Home, Wine Cube, Charles Shaw, Glen Ellen, Cupcake, Beringer, and Vendage. These are all pretty popular brands–Franzia actually call itself “the world’s most popular wine,” and consistently has extremely high sales.

The arsenic contamination was found by a company called BeverageGrades, founded by Kevin Hicks, who previously worked in the wine distribution business. The Denver-based company started running tests on different brands of wine to see what sorts of ingredients are found in the most popular ones. The lab looked at 1,300 different kinds of wine and terrifyingly, approximately one quarter of them tested for a high level of arsenic.

Hicks did say that there were some odd trends in the wines that tested positive, however. The cheaper the wine, the more arsenic Hicks’ lab detected. Also, the problem appeared to be with white wines from the aforementioned brands, but not necessarily from the red.

Hicks filed the class-action lawsuit after he claims that he tried to bring the issue to the attention of the wine producers, and they ignored him. The lawsuit alleges that the companies misrepresented themselves to customers.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does allow some arsenic in water, as small amounts aren’t necessarily harmful. Some of the wines though had up to 500 percent of what the EPA allows in drinking water. However, the wine producers argue that using water as a comparison doesn’t make much sense. After all, we drink a lot more water than we do wine, so overall arsenic intake from wine won’t be as high. While our federal government doesn’t regulate how much arsenic can be in wine, Canada’s does. The arsenic levels found in the American wines would have passed under the Canadian standard, even though it’s above the EPA standards for water. That doesn’t necessarily mean that those levels of arsenic are acceptable. Allan Smith, associate director of the Arsenic Health Effects research program at U.C. Berkeley, told CBS that arsenic, even in very small amounts, is very dangerous.

Whether or not this lawsuit will actually go anywhere remains to be seen as it was just filed this week. There are certainly some questions about the validity of Hicks’ claims as well, as when CBS News tried to check his results, they didn’t yield nearly as much arsenic as he claimed.

The companies will presumably be arguing against the allegations. Some of the companies involved in the suit, including Trader Joes, have already said that they are in compliance with all existing regulations.

It’s no surprise that cheap wine isn’t the best thing out there for you, but the fact that it has quite that much arsenic is somewhat surprising. If anything, maybe this lawsuit will push the U.S. government toward more regulation of the wine industry.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawsuit Claims That Your Favorite Wine Contains Arsenic appeared first on Law Street.

Fracking. The word is thrown around in newspapers, in political debates, in discussions about the future of our global climate change problem. But what does it actually mean? What effect does it have on our environment and economy? Is it even legal? Read on to learn about fracking, the legal framework in place to permit it, and the arguments about the practice.

What is fracking?

Fracking–more scientifically referred to as hydraulic fracking–is the injection of fluids, including water and toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells at high pressure in order to extract the gas and oil. The fluids are projected at the earth with such strong force that it creates cracks from which the gas or oil can freely flow. It mirrors the hydraulic fractures can happen in the earth naturally.

What’s the law on fracking?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by Congress on July 29, 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, is “an act to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.” It provides incentives for diversifying sources of energy production. This includes ensuring increased use of biofuel with gasoline, requiring the Department of Energy (DOE) to study and report on already existent natural gases, and providing tax breaks and guaranteed loans for making energy conservation improvements to homes.

While fracking was not protected under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Halliburton Loophole is the nickname for the ability to frack under the Act. Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the EPA created an exemption in order to allow hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to be legal.

The exemption is on page 102, Section 322 in the EPA.

SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(B) EXCLUDES—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’

There are no regulations that require documenting the chemicals used during fracking, or their possible health or environmental effects. As a result, multiple states, the most recent being California, have passed laws to create fracking regulations. In 2011, Texas became the first state requiring companies to disclose the chemicals being used.

What’s the argument against current regulations on fracking?

Many argue that these state regulations still lack crucial information that all residents should know about. Additionally, certain state regulations and laws have trade secrets that keep important information about different chemicals from the public. The Clean Water Act found 32 million gallons of diesel fuel illegally injected into the earth during fracking.  Evidence indicates that over six hundred different chemicals are used to frack. The popular HBO documentary Gasland 2 shows footage of Dimock, Pennsylvania where faucet water could be lit on fire because of contamination due to fracking. Many argue that the government should restrict the use of at least certain chemicals used in the process, or at the very least, require companies to state what materials they are using.

What’s the argument in favor of current regulations on fracking?

Fracking supporters argue that it is economically beneficial to the country. The IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates reported that fracking “supported 2.1 million jobs, added almost $75 billion in federal and state revenue, contributed $283 billion to the gross domestic product, and lifted household income by more than $1,200.” Fracking has promised us affordable and clean natural gas to help combat the foreign fuels we have now. Approximately 20 to 30 billion barrels of natural gas and oil have been recovered due to fracking. Currently, there is no other technology that retrieves natural gas and oil in places from places that fracking can reach.

Conclusion

Fracking has entered the national discourse as a possibly effective way to get some non-renewable resources that are available but difficult to reach. The regulations over whether or not we can use fracking to reach oil and gas resources have evolved over time, but they have done very little to stem the greater debate about the environmental and economical impacts of the process.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Energy Policy Act of 2005

Additional

FracFocus: Chemical Disclosure Registry

Clean Water Action: Fracking Laws and Loopholes

Independent Voter Network: Middle Ground is Possible for Debate on Fracking in America

State Impact: Pennsylvania’s Disclosure Rules: What the Frack’s in the Ground

Slate: Who’s Fracking in Your Backyard?

EnergyFromShale.org: Pioneering America’s Energy Future

Real Clear Politics: The Breathtaking Benefits of Fracking

Reason.com: The Promised Land of Fracking

American Enterprise Institute: Benefits of Hydraulic Fracking

Elsevier: Fracking–The Pros and Cons 

Economist: Fracking

Inhabitat: The Costs and Benefits of Fracking

Huffington Post: Fracking Pros and Cons–Weighing in on Hydraulic Fracturing

Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Announces Final Study Plan to Asses Hydraulic Fracturing

—

Nicole Counts is a freelance writer, activist, and lover of books. She is graduate of Temple University with a BA in English and she lives in New York City. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [greensefa via Flickr]

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Fracking and the Environment appeared first on Law Street.

Wood is the oldest and most reliable source of heat known to man. Twelve million Americans still use wood stoves to heat their homes. Wood is less expensive than natural gas or electric, and is readily available in rural areas that may not have reliable gas or electric lines. However, there have been some concerns about the environmental inefficiency of wood burning as well as its health effects. Read on to learn about the arguments for and against regulating woodburning stoves.

What are the concerns about wood burning stoves?

The pollution caused by burning wood has been linked to asthma, damaged lungs, and early deaths in areas where woodburning is common. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its desire to institute regulations that would ban all woodburning stoves that release more than 12 micrograms of particular matter per cubic meter, a requirement that 80 percent of stoves currently in use would not meet. This regulation would cause all new wood stoves to burn 80 percent cleaner than stoves manufactured under the existing 1988 regulations. While the EPA regulation promises to cut down on air pollutants and would not affect wood stoves already in use, the proposed ban has been met with opposition by those who believe it will have adverse effects on the wood-stove industry and prohibit many buyers from purchasing. Opponents also dispute the actual impact this ban would have, arguing that the areas with the most air pollution are the areas that contain the least amount of wood stoves in use.

What are the arguments in favor of regulating wood burning stoves?

Supporters of the EPA’s proposal argue that while current wood stove owners will not be affected, future wood stoves will reduce harmful emissions by 80 percent, cutting down on air pollution and saving Americans money on health care. The particles released by burning wood have been linked to lung damage, asthma, shorter life expectancy, and climate change. The EPA estimates that these regulations will provide Americans with $1.8-$2.4 billion in annual health savings, and will reduce carbon dioxide, methane, and black carbon emissions as well.

While eco-friendly wood stoves are more costly to make and purchase, the EPA and its supporters argue that individuals will see returns in the long run in reduced healthcare costs and improved overall health. Some states have already needed to decree woodburning bans for short periods of time. In December 2013, Utah banned wood burning in five counties when weather conditions and increased wood burning led to dangerous levels of particular matter in the air around these areas. Similar actions have been taken in parts of Alaska. Advocates of the EPA’s ban see these events as signals that stronger federal action needs to be taken to ensure wood-stove pollution does not produce lasting damage. Supporters also emphasize that the proposed regulations would only come into effect in 2015, and that they would not affect wood stoves already in use.

What are the arguments against regulating woodburning stoves?

Opponents argue that these regulations will destroy the wood-stove industry, costing many Americans jobs and financial stability. The regulations will make the production of wood stoves more expensive, and with the majority of wood-stove buyers being rural, low-income families, this ban on cheaper, less-environmentally friendly stoves could cause a reduction in stove sales and cause many wood-stove manufacturers to go out of business.

Although the ban will only affect newly manufactured stoves, citizens will be prevented from selling their old, inefficient stoves, making them incapable of trading their old stoves for a new one. Many opponents also see these regulations as an example of what they call the EPA’s “Sue and Settle” policy. Opponents accuse the EPA of working in tandem with large environmental groups and state agencies in a process whereby the group will sue the EPA for not going far enough in its restrictions and regulations, and instead of going to court the EPA will settle out of court by offering to impose what some believe are pre-determined regulations on manufacturing, allowing both the EPA and environmental groups to get what they want through the façade of a lawsuit. Shortly after the wood-stove ban was proposed, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, and Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against the EPA claiming it did not do enough to reduce air pollution and demanded that the EPA add woodburning water heaters to the list of regulated woodburning appliances. Opponents of the regulations have cried foul and accuse the EPA of using a corrupt scheme to impose regulations that will force wood stove manufacturers out of business and will make it more difficult for rural families to heat their homes.

Conclusion

Woodburning stoves are a simple way that people can provide energy — particularly heat — for their homes. But they’re not always the most efficient or environmentally friendly way to do so. The potential health concerns have also led to worries. As a result, the EPA has taken action to try to change the ways in which woodburning stoves are regulated. There are many proponents of the stoves, as well as those who want to see them done away with, but change and regulation will be slow to develop.

Resources

Primary 

Environmental Protection Agency: Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters

Additional

Climate Progress: No, President Obama is Not Trying to Make Your Wood-Burning Stove Illegal

Fox News: EPA Proposes Restrictions for New Wood Stoves

Washington Post: EPA Moves to Regulate New Wood Stoves

NewsMiner.com: Feds Announce Plans for Stricter Wood Stove Regulations

Climate Progress: EPA Unveils Long-Awaited Regulations to Make New Wood Heaters Burn 80 Percent Cleaner

Clovis News Journal: People Justified to Get Heated on Stove Rules

Forbes: EPA’s Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

New American: EPA Wants to Snuff Out Wood and Pellet Stoves

Inquisitr: EPA Wood Stove Bans Include 80 Percent of Burners Now on the Market

Independent Sentinel: EPA Bans Most Wood Burning Stoves in a Corrupt Scheme, Fireplaces Next

Troy Record: EPA Wood Stove Ban is Heating Debate

Newsmax: EPA Wood-Stove Proposal Prompts Rural Backlash

Rural Blog: EPA Proposes Regulations Limiting Particle Pollution From New Wood-Fired Stoves and Furnaces

National Conference of State Legislatures: Regulating Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Stoves

Gazettenet.com: U.S. EPA Issues Tougher Regulations For Residential Wood-Burning Devices

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Heat is On: The Debate Over Woodburning Stoves appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new guidelines for what gasoline can contain. The motive behind the new regulations was to create gasoline that minimizes the effects on the environment, improve public health, and mitigates the effects of climate change. One big change was that the EPA announced its desire to minimize the amount of sulfur in gasoline. Read on to learn about the effects of sulfur in gasoline, the debate, and the end results.

Why do we care about sulfur in our gasoline?

Sulfur is a smog-forming pollutant that has been linked to respiratory diseases and air pollution. The new regulations would require refiners to reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline by 60 percent by 2017, from 30 parts per million to 10 parts per million. President Obama asked the EPA for cleaner gasoline standards in 2010, and since then the EPA has worked with scientists and automakers to develop these new regulations. However, the regulations would require oil refiners to install expensive new equipment in their refineries and would force auto manufacturers to install new pollution-control in car engines. While some argue that these new regulations will improve health at a minimal cost, oil refiners argue that the costs are unnecessarily expensive to their industry, thus hurting consumers, taking away jobs, and negatively impacting the economy as a whole.

What are the arguments for these new guidelines?

Advocates argue that the additional costs of the EPA regulations would pay for themselves by the year 2030 through decreased costs in health care. The EPA estimates that the reduction in sulfur emissions would save Americans between $5.7 and $19 billion by the year 2030 and would reduce the amount of sick days taken at school and work. The EPA also estimated that Americans could see the prevention of 770-2,000 premature deaths, 2,200 hospital admissions, 1,900 asthma attacks, and 30,000 reported cases of respiratory problems in children living near highways or urban centers. All of these health benefits, the EPA claims, would come at an increase of just 2/3 of a cent per gallon and the addition of just $75 to the sticker price of a new car.

Representative John Dingell (D-MI) explained the benefit behind the new law, stating,

We do have a serious problem with too much sulfur in gasoline. It screws up the mufflers, it screws up the catalytic converters, and it screws up a lot of other things, too.

Other advocates point to the emission standards of the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, which are far ahead of those in the United States, to argue that these regulations would bring the US up to speed with other developed countries. Lastly, some in the auto industry have argued that these sulfur emission standards would be beneficial to auto makers in enabling them to meet newer, stricter federal environmental regulations, which would more than make up for the additional cost of rigging their cars to emit less sulfur.

What are the arguments against the new guidelines?

Opponents argue that the EPA regulations would have minimal environmental impact while putting greater strain on the economy and ultimately hurting consumers. Since 2000, oil refiners have already been required to reduce the sulfur levels in gasoline by 90 percent; the new regulations would mandate the removal of the last 10 percent, which according to experts is much more difficult and costly to remove than the initial 90 percent. This process would cost the oil industry roughly $10 billion and would increase the cost of gas by nine cents per gallon. This increased cost would force the oil companies to cut employment and raise prices, which in the end hurts the average consumer. Additionally, opponents argue that these increased costs are unnecessary because they will have little impact on climate change and global warming. While sulfur emissions contribute to smog and some air pollution, there has been no link found between sulfur emissions and the factors that contribute to climate change, leading opponents to argue that the environmental impact of these regulations is just not worth the economic stress forced upon consumers and job seekers.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) disagreed with the new guidelines, complaining especially about the little time that producers will have to comply with the guidelines. The API’s Bob Greco claimed that the rules don’t allow enough flexibility for producers to switch over in both a timely and safe manner. Patrick Kelly, an API Senior Policy advisor, also said:

API opposes this discretionary rulemaking as we have serious doubts as to the Agency’s justification for it. We have been insisting that EPA demonstrate a scientific justification for two and a half years. API commissioned research on the costs and benefits associated with further reductions in gasoline sulfur. We found some clear conclusions: The proposed standard will yield little immediate or longer term air quality benefits. And, reducing average sulfur from 30 parts per million to 10 parts per million will impose enormous costs. Further reducing gasoline sulfur is not necessary for meeting more stringent vehicle emissions standards, and automakers are unlikely to introduce vehicle emission technology that is enabled by the lower sulfur fuel.

Conclusion

The implementation by the EPA of new guidelines regarding sulfur in gasoline made news this spring. As the guidelines continue to be phased into place, there is still disagreement about the viability and fairness of the rules, and whether or not they will have a concrete effect on our environment, health, and economy remains to be seen.

Resources

Climate Progress: A Comprehensive Guide to the EPA’s New Pollution-Reducing Gasoline Rules

Huffington Post: Sulfur, Sulfur, Toil and Trouble

TIME: EPA’s New Emission Rules Could Increase Gas Prices, Save Lives

Earth Day Network: EPA Finalizes Tier 3 Gasoline Standards

Environmental Protection: API Opposes EPA’s Tier 3 Rule

Bloomberg: Refiners Rebuff EPA Concessions In Rule to Cut Sulfur

Machinery Lubrication: New EPA Gasoline Regulations Costly, Counterproductive

Bloomberg: EPA Said Poised to Issue Lower Sulfur Limits On Fuel

The New York Times: EPA Set to Reveal Tough New Sulfur Emissions Rule

Utah Political Capitol: Tier 3 Gasoline: Air-Pollution Slayer or Tail Pipe Dream?

Convenience Store and Fuel News: EPA Finalizes Tier 3 Emission & Fuel Standards

Union of Concerned Scientists: The EPA’s Tier 3 Standards

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EPA Rules Aim to Phase Out Sulfur in Gas: What Does it Mean For Your Wallet? appeared first on Law Street.

As congressional gridlock persists, companies have started targeting sympathetic Republican leaders in the house to fight California’s notoriously strict workplace, consumer protection, and environmental laws.  Officials are worried that many of these landmark laws may be in danger. New legislation to strengthen federal environmental laws on toxic chemicals would come at the price of invalidating an extremely strong California law that protects people against the most dangerous toxins.

The new law would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to screen chemicals for safety rather than only being able to regulate chemicals that have already been proven dangerous; however, it could also prevent states from implementing their own regulations.  This is not the only instance in which strong state laws have been threatened by federal ones.  Just last year, a law that would have prevented California from enforcing its state water protections for endangered species made it through the house but failed in the senate.

[Latimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Landmark California Regulations Under Attack appeared first on Law Street.

Activists are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take a drastic regulatory step that could have significant repercussions for the U.S. economy. At issue is the Pebble Mine — a natural resource project in Alaska that could yield more copper than has ever been found in one place anywhere in the world.

With more than 80 billion pounds of copper, Pebble Mine also holds other strategic metals like molybdenum and rhenium, which are essential to countless American manufacturing, high-tech and national-security applications. However, before plans have even started to be developed, the EPA seems to have responded to activist groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council. The EPA has carried out initial assessments of the site and has already taken a position to veto the project before Pebble Partnership even applied for permits.

The goal is to kill the proposal before it starts. The NRDC and other activist groups worry that once in progress the project will continue unless stopped early on, saying that, “EPA’s study (and intervention) is critically important. If left to its own devices, the state of Alaska has never said no to a large mine.”

However, some groups are speaking out against this preemptive EPA vetoing power. The Center for American Progress, for example, has come out in favor of letting the permitting review take place, even though the group has criticized the Pebble Mine project.

[See Full Article: Alaska Dispatch]

—

Featured image courtesy of [emydidae via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EPA Trying to Stop Pebble Mine appeared first on Law Street.

The EPA has been given a second opportunity to defend the “Transportation Rule” and its attack on interstate air pollution. The Clean Air Act defines the EPA’s responsibility to regulate and maintain the nation’s air quality, and an important part of that is setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Each state is responsible for finding a way to meet these standards, however, natural wind patterns often transport air pollution across states, making compliance harder for some states than others.

The “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act makes upwind states responsible for air pollution that travels downwind and prevents these states from meeting NAAQS. Furthermore, the EPA has outlined the steps (Federal Implementation Plans) in which these 28 upwind states must follow in order to reduce air pollution so that the downwind states are able to meet standards.

The Supreme Court will address three main issues in relation to the Transportation Rule: Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction and properly struck down the Federal Implementation Plan’s rules, the reasonableness of EPA’s interpretation of the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, and whether the Court of Appeals’ reasoning disrupts EPA’s approach to managing the Clean Air Act.

[See Full Article: JDSUPRA]

—

Featured image courtesy of [NGerda via Wikipedia]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Interstate Air Pollution Rules appeared first on Law Street.