dereg3 bak

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">capt 719 also 2018&nbsp; bak 120</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">added 28 tag b/c personhood key see clement & coates below</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"idiota" in gk someone too stupid to understand commonality/ relationship</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">tool site</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://deregulationnation.substack.com/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mofo re wind, wotus?</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">The&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="self" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 17px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">Trump administration</a><span style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">&nbsp;announced plans Thursday to formally weaken protections for millions of migratory&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/birds" target="self" style="color: rgb(82, 149, 70); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); overflow-wrap: break-word; font-size: 17px; line-height: 1.5; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;">birds</a><span style="color: rgb(38, 38, 38); font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 17px;">.</span></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp;=</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">120</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 12px; line-height: 21px;"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In its latest move to put profits over people, President Donald Trump’s administration is trying to make it easier for corporations to hide from accountability.</font></strong></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 12px; line-height: 21px;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://default.salsalabs.org/T191eead9-6aa7-4ec0-a874-eed7e85213cc/44ab9761-4a6f-4351-8698-70a1c718d833" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Let’s make sure corporations can’t hide.</font></a></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 12px; line-height: 21px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Every year, investors use shareholder proposals to sound the alarm on emerging issues that not only impact the corporations they own, but also affect how companies interact with our communities and the planet.</font></p><p style="clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 12px; line-height: 21px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Now, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is trying to make it more difficult for shareholders to bring these critical proposals up for a vote.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 12px; line-height: 21px;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://default.salsalabs.org/T8037fabb-e3ea-444f-8645-4fb38aba5738/44ab9761-4a6f-4351-8698-70a1c718d833" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">This rollback will crush accountability. Tell the SEC to make sure shareholders are heard – submit your comment here.</font></a></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 12px; line-height: 21px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Years before Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft killed hundreds of people, the company’s shareholders filed proposals raising concerns about the company’s influence over regulators.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); clear: both; margin: 0px 0px 12px; line-height: 21px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under the new rules, those shareholders’ efforts to hold Boeing’s management accountable would have been blocked.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">OMG</font></p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-ceos-experts-and-philosophers-see-the-worlds-biggest-risks-differently-128382"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://theconversation.com/how-ceos-experts-and-philosophers-see-the-worlds-biggest-risks-differently-128382</font></a></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">We live in a world threatened by numerous existential risks that no country or organization can resolve alone, such as&nbsp;<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/climate-change-27" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word;">climate change</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/extreme-weather-3799" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word;">extreme weather</a>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/coronavirus-5830" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word;">coronavirus</a>.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But in order to adequately address them, we need agreement on which are priorities – and which aren’t.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>As it happens, the policymakers and business leaders who largely determine which risks become global priorities&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/01/24/797182641/is-davos-as-bad-as-critics-say-global-leaders-weigh-in" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word;">spent a week in January mingling</a>&nbsp;in the mountainous resort of Davos for an annual meeting of the world’s elite.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I participated in a global risk assessment survey that informed those at the Davos summit&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">on what they should be paying the most attention to.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">&nbsp;The results, drawn from experts in a broad range of disciplines including business, happen to be very different from what company CEOs specifically see as the biggest threats they face.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">As a&nbsp;<a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-9wMkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word;">philosopher</a>, I found the differences curious. They highlight two contrasting ways of seeing the world – with significant consequences for our ability to address societal risks.</font></p><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Two perspectives on the biggest risks</font></h2><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The World Economic Forum’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2020" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Global Risk Report</a>&nbsp;consolidates the perceptions of about 800 experts in business, government and civil society to rank “the world’s most pressing challenges” for the coming year by likelihood and impact.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2020, extreme weather, a failure to act on climate change and natural disasters topped the list of risks in terms of likelihood of occurrence. In terms of impact, the top three were climate action failure, weapons of mass destruction and a loss of biodiversity.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The specific perspective of corporate leaders, however, is captured in another survey that highlights what they perceive as the biggest risks to their own businesses’ growth prospects.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-agenda/ceosurvey/2020.html" style="outline: none; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Conducted by consultancy PwC</a>&nbsp;since 1998, it also holds sway in Davos. I’ve been involved in that report as well when I used to work for the organization.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">In sharp contrast to the World Economic Forum’s risk report, the CEO survey found that the top three risks to business this year are overregulation, trade conflicts and uncertain economic growth.</b></font></p><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Economic or ethical</font></h2><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What explains such a big difference in how these groups see the greatest threats?</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I wanted to look at this question more deeply, beyond one year’s assessment, so I did a simple analysis of 14 years of data generated by the two reports. My findings are only inferences from publicly available data, and it should be noted that the two surveys have different methodologies and ask different questions that may shape respondents’ answers.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">A key difference I observed is that business leaders tend to think in economic terms first and ethical terms second. That is, businesses, as you’d expect, tend to focus on their short-term economic situation, while civil society and other experts in the Global Risk Report focus on longer-term social and environmental consequences.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For example, year after year, CEOs have named a comparatively stable set of narrow concerns. Overregulation is among the main three threats in all but one of the years – and is frequently at the top of the list. Availability of talent, government fiscal concerns and the economy were also frequently mentioned over the past 14 years.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In contrast, the Global Risk Report tends to reflect a greater evolution in the types of risks the world faces, with concerns about the environment and existential threats growing increasingly prominent over the past five years, while economic and geopolitical risks have faded after dominating in the late 2000s.</b></font></p><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A philosophical perspective</font></h2><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Risk surveys are useful tools for understanding what matters to CEOs and civil society. Philosophy is useful for considering why their priorities differ, and whose are likelier to be right.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Fundamentally, risks are about interests. Businesses want a minimum of regulations so they can make more money today. Experts representing constituencies beyond just business place a greater emphasis on the common good, now and in the future.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When interests are in tension, philosophy can help us sort between them. And while I’m sympathetic to CEOs’ desire to run their businesses without regulatory interference, I’m concerned that these short-term economic considerations often impede long-term ethical goals, such as looking after the well-being of the environment.</font></p><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-rendering: optimizelegibility;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An uncertain world</font></h2><p style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Experts agree on at least one thing: The world faces dire risks....</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">trump eco rules killed tally over 100?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">120</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-clean-water-protection-2644896051.html"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-clean-water-protection-2644896051.html</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>To<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">day, the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="self" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Trump administration</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">will finalize its replacement for the Obama-era</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-water-rule-2478809628.html" target="self" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Waters of the United States</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">(WOTUS) rule in a move that will strip protections from more than half of the nation's wetlands and allow landowners to dump</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides" target="self" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">pesticides</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">into waterways, or build over wetlands, for the first time in decades.</span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</span></font></div><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body css-listicle-body-2644896051" style="margin-top: -15px; line-height: 1.5;"><div class="body-description" style="clear: both;"><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-3" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-clean-water-protection-2644896051.html?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3" data-id="3" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem3"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">President&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;has been working to undo the 2015 rule since he took office, but his replacement goes even further,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/climate/trump-environment-water.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1roTH9vFuerkgo5Oa06NuFrjy10T3gZfIrApaMhgtX8WQZA4wZveAmWeM" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">The New York Times explained</a>. In addition to rolling back protections for some wetlands and streams that run intermittently or temporarily underground, it will also get rid of a requirement that landowners seek permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">EPA</a>), which had considered permits on a case-by-case basis before 2015.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"This will be the biggest loss of clean water protection the country has ever seen,"&nbsp;<a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Southern Environmental Law Center</a></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;lawyer Blan Holman told The New York Times.&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">"This puts&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">drinking water</a>&nbsp;for millions of Americans at risk of contamination from unregulated pollution. This is not just undoing the Obama rule. This is stripping away protections that were put in place in the '70s and '80s that Americans have relied on for their health."</span></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-admin-repeals-protections-for-smaller-streams-and-wetlands-2640338564.html" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">announced the repeal</a>&nbsp;of the WOTUS rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule, in September of 2019. That rule had expanded the definition of "waters of the United States" under the 1972 Clean Water Act from larger bodies of water to include streams and wetlands. The rule was controversial before Trump took office.<b>Many farmers and businesses thought it gave the federal government too much power, and court rulings had suspended it in 28 states.</b></font></p><p /></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-4" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-clean-water-protection-2644896051.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4" data-id="4" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem4"><p /><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Trump appealed to this logic when he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-american-farm-bureau-federation-annual-convention-trade-show/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">touted his repeal</a>&nbsp;Sunday at the&nbsp;<b>American Farm Bureau Federation&nbsp;</b>Annual Convention and Trade Show in Austin, Texas.</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration's disastrous Waters of the United States rule," he said. "Thank you. It's gone. That was a rule that basically took your property away from you."</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>However, the rule was also based on a review of 1,200 scientific studies that found that streams and wetlands were connected to waters downstream. And legal experts say Trump's replacement goes even further than repealing the 2015 rule to deny decades-old protections to smaller headwaters.</b></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"This is rolling back federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act further than it's ever been before," Vermont Law School environmental law professor Patrick Parenteau told The New York Times "Waters that have been protected for almost 50 years will no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act."</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-5" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-clean-water-protection-2644896051.html?rebelltitem=5#rebelltitem5" data-id="5" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem5"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The science behind Trump's new rule is already being challenged, including by some of Trump's own appointees.</b></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Late in 2019, the&nbsp;<b>EPA's Scientific Advisory Board</b>, which is staffed with many Trump picks,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-science-panel-rollbacks-2643546700.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="self" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">questioned the science</a>&nbsp;behind three of the administration's deregulatory moves, including its WOTUS repeal</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. The board wrote that the administration's proposed replacement "neglects established science" by "failing to acknowledge watershed systems,"&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/climate/epa-science-panel-trump.html" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">The New York Times reported at the time</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. The board also said it found "no scientific justification" for denying protections to certain bodies of water.</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The board's comments will likely prove useful to environmental groups and the attorneys general of several states, who are expected to sue to block the new rule, The New York Times reported.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The legal standing all has to do with whether you have a rational basis for what you're doing," Parenteau told The New York Times. "And when you have experts saying you're not adhering to the science, that's not rational, it's arbitrary."</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></div><div class="rebellt-item col1" data-basename="particle-1" data-href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-clean-water-protection-2644896051.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" data-id="1" data-is-image="False" data-reload-ads="false" id="rebelltitem1"><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The rule is also already being challenged by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.peer.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility</a></b>, which has called for an investigation into how it was finalized,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062132563" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">E&E News reported Monday</a>.
</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>"The writing of the final Rule was controlled solely by [EPA] Headquarters political appointees,</b>" the complaint, signed by 44 current and former EPA employees, said. "The final Rule contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus on the connectivity of wetlands and waters, and the impacts that ephemeral streams and so-called 'geographically isolated' wetlands have on downstream navigable waters."</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The group filed the complaint with the EPA's Office of Inspector General and asked it to determine if the rule violated the agency's Scientific Integrity Policy.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The final rule is due to be announced in Dallas, Texas today by EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials, as well as&nbsp;<b>Texas Republican Representatives Louie Gohmert and Ron Wright</b>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-rolls-back-protections-of-streams-and-waterways/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Courthouse News Service reported</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="tagsitem" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" line-height="line-height" border-radius="border-radius" border="border" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" padding="padding">drinking water</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">&nbsp;</span><a class="tagsitem" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" line-height="line-height" border-radius="border-radius" border="border" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" padding="padding">trump administration</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">&nbsp;</span><a class="tagsitem" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" line-height="line-height" border-radius="border-radius" border="border" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" padding="padding">epa</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">&nbsp;</span><a class="tagsitem" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/clean-water-act" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" line-height="line-height" border-radius="border-radius" border="border" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" padding="padding">clean water act</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">&nbsp;</span><a class="tagsitem" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" line-height="line-height" border-radius="border-radius" border="border" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" padding="padding">water</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">&nbsp;</span><a class="tags__item" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" margin="margin" px="px" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" line-height="line-height" border-radius="border-radius" border="border" solid="solid" rgb="rgb" padding="padding">public health</a></p></div><div class="post-pager js-listicle-pager" data-listicle-style="" data-async_load_parameters="platform=desktop&display_ads=1&settings=%7B%22enter_url%22%3A+false%2C+%22no_post_section%22%3A+false%2C+%22ads_breaks%22%3A+null%2C+%22prevent_last_break_repetition%22%3A+false%2C+%22use_numeration%22%3A+false%2C+%22allow_url_change%22%3A+true%2C+%22ads_order%22%3A+%5B%5D%2C+%22pagination_order%22%3A+%5B%5D%2C+%22list_breaks%22%3A+null%2C+%22reorder_voting%22%3A+false%2C+%22cooldown_in_seconds%22%3A+null%2C+%22source%22%3A+%22post_listicle_settings%22%2C+%22next_post_url%22%3A+null%2C+%22up_down_voting%22%3A+false%2C+%22show_columns_on_mobile%22%3A+false%2C+%22numeration_sort%22%3A+-1%2C+%22allow_url_update%22%3A+true%2C+%22use_pagination%22%3A+false%2C+%22body_text_above%22%3A+false%2C+%22use_ads%22%3A+false%2C+%22items_as_posts%22%3A+false%2C+%22multiple_answers%22%3A+false%2C+%22no_redirect%22%3A+false%2C+%22is_guest_voting_allowed%22%3A+true%2C+%22layout_type%22%3A+1%7D" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: table; width: 780px;"><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see lee fang on neo-nics</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Speaking of the best people…</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“A small number of people at a few federal agencies have vast power over the protection of American air and water,” reports The New York Times. “Under the Trump administration, the people appointed to those positions overwhelmingly used to work in the fossil fuel, chemical and agriculture industries. During their time in government they have been responsible for loosening or undoing nearly 100 environmental protections from pollution and pesticides, as well as weakening preservations of natural resources and efforts to curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In related news, “a lobbyist turned senior Agriculture Department official repeatedly shared information with her former industry on policy and enforcement, according to ProPublica. Before being tapped by Trump to serve as a senior Agriculture Department official,&nbsp;<b>Rebeckah Adcock “was the chief lobbyist for the herbicide industry’s trade group.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Adcock had helped her former industry colleagues in a variety of ways. At Dow’s request, for example, she had arranged a meeting between a top company official and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue….</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before the May 2017 meeting, a Dow lobbyist emailed Adcock: “Do you know who will staff the secretary?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Adcock wrote back, playfully, “Yes and u do too.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Roger,” the lobbyist, Hunt Shipman, replied. Then he joked about the potential conflict of a public servant helping former colleagues: “Maybe you can have a chair on both sides of the table…maybe you can staff them both? :)”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">120 icn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">t<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=f35a306209&e=06876ede6b" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span helvetica="helvetica" neue="neue" arial="arial" verdana="verdana" sans-serif="sans-serif">rump Moves to Erase Climate Change from Environmental Reviews</span></a></font></div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font style="background-color: inherit;">BY: MARIANNE LAVELLE</font>
<span helvetica="helvetica" neue="neue" sans-serif="sans-serif">Critics say he’s undermining a bedrock environmental protection law that established the federal government’s duty as "trustee of the environment for succeeding generations."</span></font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">guts NEPA xl</font></div><div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-environment-infrastructure-review-2644664081.html"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-environment-infrastructure-review-2644664081.html</font></a></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1/9/20 NEPA rollback</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">omfg</font></div><div><a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/10/headlines/trump_seeks_to_exempt_large_projects_from_some_environmental_review"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/10/headlines/trump_seeks_to_exempt_large_projects_from_some_environmental_review</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Trump is proposing changing the nation’s oldest environmental law to exempt large infrastructure projects, such as pipelines and power plants, from environmental review. If enacted, the changes would exempt agencies from considering the cumulative environmental impacts of projects, which could include studying the climate crisis.</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/12/03/wall-street-house-democrats-financial-regulations-cftc/">https://theintercept.com/2019/12/03/wall-street-house-democrats-financial-regulations-cftc/</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dodd frank achilles heel</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1119 LCV</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>&nbsp;details: The new rule would prevent policy makers from using any study if the study's data, code, and models aren't made public.</b>

It sounds innocuous enough, but in practice, the EPA currently relies on public health studies based on confidential medical information — data that is incredibly private and should never be made public. These public health studies are absolutely critical to implementing virtually every law that protects the water we drink and the air we breathe.

Scientists within the EPA are raising the alarm. This policy has been designed and pushed forward by lobbyists for the oil industry and big tobacco. Politically-appointed leaders within the EPA have pushed aside the agency's&nbsp;<b>Science Advisory Board&nbsp;</b>in an end-run to stop the EPA from fulfilling its mission.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">but of course 1119</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/4/headlines/epa_slated_to_roll_back_rules_to_protect_waterways_from_toxic_coal_ash">https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/4/headlines/epa_slated_to_roll_back_rules_to_protect_waterways_from_toxic_coal_ash</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>aha not mine</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/its-springtime-for-grifters-paul-krugman-explains-how-trump-is-bad-for-us-business-but-good-for-scams/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/its-springtime-for-grifters-paul-krugman-explains-how-trump-is-bad-for-us-business-but-good-for-scams/</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>‘It’s springtime for grifters’: Paul Krugman explains how Trump is bad for US business — but good for scams</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Cody Fenwick<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>September 5, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have claimed that he is essentially the savior of American business, but economist Paul Krugman argued Thursday in a New York Times column that he is, in fact, the exact opposite.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">With his trade wars and</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">&nbsp;</span><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">aggressive deregulatory policy, Trump is creating substantial economic burdens and uncertainty&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">that appear to be creating serious a drag in the economy.</span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Many have made similar arguments, but the point about the risks of deregulation — which, unlike tariffs and trade wars, we would have expected from any GOP president elected in 2016 — is often missed:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Imagine yourself as the head of a business that plans and expects to be around for a long time. Sure, you’d like to pay less in taxes and not have to comply with costly regulations. But you also want to invest in your company’s future. And to do that, you need some assurance that the rules of the game will be stable, so that whatever investments you make now aren’t suddenly made worthless by future shifts in policy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Business leaders aren’t do-gooders, but they are realists. Most of them understand that climate change is happening, that it’s dangerous, and that we’ll eventually have to transition to a low-emissions economy. They want to spend now to secure their place in that future economy; they know that investments that worsen climate change are bound to be long-run losers. But they’ll hold off on investing in our energy future as long as conspiracy theorists who consider global warming a gigantic hoax — and/or vindictive politicians determined to erase Obama’s achievements — keep rewriting the rules.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Indeed, Krugman noted that, to the surprise of some, fossil fuel companies have opposed Trump’s efforts to roll back Obama-era environmental regulation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>We should be careful here, because “business uncertainty” is a buzzword that is often used to attack progressive policies.</b>&nbsp;President Barack Obama was frequently criticized for supposedly creating uncertainty in his efforts to regulate carbon emissions and other harmful externalities (though in reality, the biggest economic problem during his tenure was a shortfall in demand driven by austerity). But some uncertainty may be worth it if it’s the cost of imposing regulations that are actually good for the country and the world. In this case of deregulation, however, Republicans argue that rolling back rules is good for business; if, in fact, the uncertainty created by the changes actually hurts business, their entire putative purpose is undermined.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Krugman added that uncertainty isn’t actually bad for all business. One type of business doesn’t mind Trump’s antics?&nbsp;<b>Scams:</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">To be fair, however, some kinds of business do thrive under Trumpism — namely, businesses that aren’t in it for the long run, operations whose strategy is to take the money and run. These are good times for mining companies that rush in to extract whatever they can, leaving a poisoned landscape behind; for real estate speculators sponsoring dubious ventures that take advantage of newly created tax loopholes; for for-profit colleges that leave their students with worthless degrees and crippling debt.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In other words, under Trump it’s springtime for grifters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Of course, we shouldn’t be too surprised to find ourselves in these conditions, Krugman argued, when we elected the founder of<b>&nbsp;Trump University.</b></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/climate/endangered-species-act-changes.html"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/climate/endangered-species-act-changes.html</font></a></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">aug 12, 2019</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WASHINGTON —&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Trump administration on Monday announced that it would&nbsp;<b>change the way the Endangered Species Act is applied</b>, significantly weakening the nation’s bedrock conservation law credited with rescuing the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the American alligator from extinction.</span></font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The changes will make it harder to consider the effects of climate change on wildlife when deciding whether a given species warrants protection. They would most likely shrink critical habitats and, for the first time, would allow economic assessments to be conducted when making determinations.</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The rules also make it easier to remove a species from the endangered species list and weaken protections for threatened species, a designation that means they are at risk of becoming endangered.</font></b></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Overall, the new rules would very likely clear the way for new mining, oil and gas drilling, and development in areas where protected species live.</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Interior Secretary David Bernhardt</b>&nbsp;said the new rules would modernize the Endangered Species Act and increase transparency in its application. “The act’s effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation,” he said in a statement Monday.</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement the revisions “fit squarely within the president’s mandate of easing the regulatory burden on the American public, without sacrificing our species’ protection and recovery goals.”</font></b></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The new rules are expected to appear in the Federal Register this week and will go into effect 30 days after that.</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Environmental groups denounced the changes as a disaster for imperiled wildlife. A recent United Nations assessment, they noted, has warned that human pressures are poised to drive one million species into extinction and that protecting land and biodiversity is critical to keep greenhouse gas emissions in check.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climate change, a lack of environmental stewardship and mass industrialization have all contributed to the enormous expected global nature loss, the United Nations report said.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...Ever since President Richard M. Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act into law 1973, it has been the main United States legislation for protecting fish, plants and wildlife, and acted as a safety net for species on the brink of extinction. The peregrine falcon, the humpback whale, the Tennessee purple coneflower and the Florida manatee all would very likely have disappeared without it, scientists say.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Republicans have long sought to narrow the scope of the law, saying that it burdens landowners, hampers industry and hinders economic growth. Mr. Bernhardt wrote in an op-ed last summer that the act places an “unnecessary regulatory burden” on companies.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">They also make the case that the law is not reasonable because species are rarely removed from the list. Since the law was passed, more than 1,650 have been listed as threatened or endangered, while just 47 have been delisted because their populations rebounded.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over the past two years Republicans made a major legislative push to overhaul the law. Despite holding a majority in both houses of Congress, though, the proposals were never taken up in the Senate. With Democrats now in control of the House, there is little chance of those bills passing.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Trump administration’s revisions to the regulations that guide the implementation of the law, however, mean opponents of the Endangered Species Act are still poised to claim their biggest victory in decades.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One of the most controversial changes removes longstanding language that prohibits the consideration of economic factors when deciding whether a species should be protected.</font></b></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under the current law, such determinations must be made solely based on science, “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of determination.”</font></b></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gary Frazer, the assistant director for endangered species with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, said that phrase had been removed for reasons of “transparency.” He said the change leaves open the possibility of conducting economic analyses for informational purposes, but that decisions about listing species would still be based exclusively on science.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Environmental groups saw a danger in that. “There can be economic costs to protecting endangered species,” said Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization. But, he said, “If we make decisions based on short-term economic costs, we’re going to have a whole lot more extinct species.”</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The new rules also give the government significant discretion in deciding what is meant by the term “foreseeable future.” That’s a semantic change with far-reaching implications, because it enables regulators to disregard the effects of extreme heat, drought, rising sea levels and other consequences of climate change that may occur several decades from now.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When questioned about that change and its implications in the era of climate change, Mr. Frazer said the agency wanted to avoid making “speculative” decisions far into the future.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among the animals at risk from this change, Mr. Caputo listed a few: Polar bears and seals that are losing crucial sea ice; whooping cranes whose migration patterns are shifting because of temperature changes; and beluga whales that will have to dive deeper and longer to find food in a warmer Arctic.</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Jonathan Wood, a lawyer at the Pacific Legal Foundation,</b>&nbsp;a conservative group that has represented landowners in opposing endangered species designations, said he believed the changes would improve the law by simplifying the regulatory process and making the law less punitive.</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s a shift away from conflict in favor of more collaboration and cooperation,” he said.</font></span></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">related</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-extinction-united-nations.html"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-extinction-united-nations.html</font></a></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09082019/epa-fast-track-pipeline-permits-clean-water-act-rule-change-trump-executive-order"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09082019/epa-fast-track-pipeline-permits-clean-water-act-rule-change-trump-executive-order</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div class="content" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The Trump administration is proposing changes to federal regulations that could fast-track the approval of natural gas pipelines and other energy infrastructure. Environmental advocates say the move will weaken the ability of states and tribes to protect their waters.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-08/documents/cwa401certification_2060-af86_nprm_20190807_prepublication_version.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">proposed changes</a>&nbsp;to Clean Water Act permitting rules, announced Friday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, would limit the amount of time states and tribes can take to review new project proposals to a "reasonable period" of no more than one year, with the definition of "reasonable period" left to federal agencies to determine and the clock starting from the inital request for a permit, with no pauses or restarts.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It also would limit states to considering only water quality and allow the federal government to override states' decisions to deny permits for projects in some situations.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"This proposed rule change would hobble the most important tool that states have to protect significant waters, from prized trout streams to essential drinking water sources," said Bradley Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">States need time and access to information to properly analyze the potential water quality impacts of proposed infrastructure projects, particularly pipelines. "Putting limitations on that and the types of information they can consider is a problem," said&nbsp;Matthew Gravatt, deputy legislative director for the Sierra Club.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gravatt said the changes also would limit states' authority to protect their waterways from effects such as erosion and sedimentation by restricting their permit decisions to only considering the potential for discharges into the water from a point source. When Washington state rejected a water quality permit for a coal terminal in 2017, it cited&nbsp;<a href="https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Get-to-know-us/News/2017/Sep-26-Key-permit-denied-for-Longview-coal-termina" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">several environmental repercussions</a>&nbsp;of the project,&nbsp;including air pollution and the findings in an environmental impact statement that included&nbsp;<a href="http://millenniumbulkeiswa.gov/sepa-eis.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">climate change</a>.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">The proposed rule changes follow an</span><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-energy-infrastructure-economic-growth/" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" background-color="background-color" transparent="transparent" box-sizing="box-sizing" inherit="inherit" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none">executive order</a><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">&nbsp;</span><span times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">President Donald Trump issued in April directing his administration to accelerate and promote the construction of pipelines and other energy infrastructure.</span></font></b></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Specifically, Trump directed the EPA to propose revisions to the rules for permits issued under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which gives states and some tribes the authority to assess the potential impact infrastructure projects might have on rivers and other navigable waters within their borders.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Our proposal is intended to help ensure that states adhere to the statutory language and intent of [the] Clean Water Act," EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former fossil fuels lobbyist, said in a written statement. "When implemented, this proposal will streamline [the] process for constructing new energy infrastructure projects that are good for American families, American workers, and the American economy. "</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Industry groups said the rule change would provide project developers with greater regulatory certainty.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"A well-defined timeline and review process for water quality certifications are integral to developing infrastructure that reliably provides clean and affordable energy to American families and businesses every day," said Robin Rorick, vice president of midstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, blasted the proposal.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"President Trump and EPA Administrator Wheeler like to tout that this administration has made 'crystal clear water' a top priority," Carper said in a written statement. "But the only thing today's proposed rule makes crystal clear is that this administration prioritizes the false promises of 'energy dominance' over clean water, even if it means defying the intention of Congress, undermining the Clean Water Act and abandoning all pretense of cooperative federalism to do so."</font></p><h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Expect Legal Challenges</font></h3><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Once finalized, the proposed changes face inevitable legal challenges. &nbsp;</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EPA's plan conflicts with decades of legal precedents, said Jennifer Danis, a staff attorney at Columbia Law School's Environmental Clinic. "There is a vast body of precedent that confirms the critical importance of states' primacy over and expertise in protecting their own waters," she said.&nbsp;</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Carper and two other Democratic senators, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Cory Booker of New Jersey, expressed similar views in a letter to the EPA following&nbsp;<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11042019/trump-pipeline-executive-order-environmental-review-keystone-xl-clean-water-act-states-rights" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Trump's executive order</a>&nbsp;this spring.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"After nearly five decades and multiple opportunities to amend the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Congress has never seen the need to significantly revise Section 401(d)—even after the Supreme Court's 1994 decision explicitly affirming state authority to impose conditions based on state law,"&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-democratic?ID=05F9595A-E532-4947-A663-D1B0FD0283D8" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">the letter</a>&nbsp;stated.&nbsp;</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Our concern is that your purported deference to states and tribes flies in the face of your mandate to speed up federal permitting, and there is nothing cooperative about robbing states and tribes of the time and careful analyses they require to protect their invaluable water resources," the senators wrote.</font></p><h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A New York Pipeline Rejected Over Water Issues</font></h3><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Significant delays in pipeline projects due to state water permits are rare, with most projects certified by the state and federal regulators within a year, Danis said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"I think any delays in the large gas infrastructure projects are largely a result of shoddy and incomplete applications or route selection that's going to imperil fragile and protected resources," she said.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wheeler, in an interview with the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-proposes-changes-to-clean-water-act-rules-11565343001" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Wall Street Journal</a>, pointed to the Constitution Pipeline, a proposed 124-mile pipeline that would transport natural gas from Pennsylvania into New York, as an example of a pipeline that was stopped. The project was denied a water quality permit by state officials in New York, a decision that has since been appealed by the Williams Companies, Inc., the project developer.&nbsp;</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Christopher Stockton, a spokesperson for the company, praised the&nbsp; proposed rule changes.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Williams supports efforts to foster coordination, predictability and transparency in federal environmental review and permitting processes for energy infrastructure projects," Stockton said in a written statement.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA will accept public comment on the proposed rule changes for the next 60 days. In his executive order, Trump wrote that the EPA should have the rule change finalized by May 2020.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Published Aug. 9, 2019</font></span></p></div></div></div></div><div class="tagged-with" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1em;"><label style="box-sizing: inherit; display: block; line-height: 1.2;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PUBLISHED UNDER:</font></label><div class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/regulation" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">REGULATION</a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div>&nbsp;<div class="field-item odd" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/oil-spillspipelines" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">OIL SPILLS/PIPELINES</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topic/clean-water-act" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">CLEAN WATER ACT</a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div>&nbsp;<div class="field-item odd" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topic/epa" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">EPA</a></div>&nbsp;<div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/andrew-wheeler" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">ANDREW WHEELER</a></div></div></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Corporations like Exxon are using spurious free speech claims to fend off regulation</b></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></font></font></div><div>Updated by Jeff Clements and John Coates&nbsp; Feb 14, 2017, 8:40am EST</div><div>http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/14/14601932/exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming</div></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">not new but important to remember</font></div><div><p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">see also J&J:</font></p><h2 dir="ltr" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d6e-854e-2113-368bf57ad31d"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Drug Corporation’s Free Speech “Rights” Trump FDA’s Approval Process</font></span></h2><p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="line-height: 16.26px;"><a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3">https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3</a></span></font></p><div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; line-height: 16.26px;"><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b">In early&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>August 2015</b>&nbsp;</span><span style="font-weight: 700;">a&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-weight: 700;">U.S. District Court judge in New York City held that the First Amendment protects a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;</span></span><span style="font-weight: 700; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">drug corporation’s right to market drugs to doctors for purposes not approved by the Food and Drug Administration</span>&nbsp;(Amarin&nbsp;Pharma, Inc vs. U.S. FDA).</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“This is huge,” said Jacob Sherkow, an associate professor at New York Law School. &nbsp;“… This is the first time that any federal court has held in such a clear, full-throated way that&nbsp;<b>off-label marketing is protected by the First Amendment."<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3#1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">¹</a></b></font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The decision technically applies only to the district in which it was made and will likely be appealed by the agency. &nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The FDA has limited pharmaceutical corporations’ claims about its products to only the approved “intended use.” &nbsp;Any additional uses for the drug, known as “off label” uses, must undergo clinical trials before approval</span>.<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3#2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">²</a></font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Amarin Pharma</b>&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Inc.&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">won this ruling in regard to its drug Vascepa used to treat high fat levels in the blood. &nbsp;Doctors are being advised by the company to prescribe it to patients with lower blood fat levels. &nbsp;The drug was neither tested nor approved for such use. &nbsp;The court said the “off label” promotion must rely on “truthful” information, a condition that critics believe is open to interpretation. &nbsp;Companies could cherry-pick the studies to put their product in a favorable light</span>.<sup style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3#3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">3</a></sup></font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Harvard Medical School professor, Jerry Avron found the decision very troubling. “It’s a big push onto… a very steep, slippery slope toward removing government’s authority to limit the claims that drug companies can make about the effectiveness of their products.</b>”</font></span></p><h3 dir="ltr" style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">First Amendment Rights for Corporations?</font></span></h3><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-weight: 700;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b">This ruling by a federal court is<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">&nbsp;another example of corporations claiming their rights of legal “personhood”--</span>&nbsp;in this case, the right of protected speech, and&nbsp;</span>commercial speech at that.</span>&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;It reminds us again how important it is for us natural persons to understand the consequences of our corporate creations, mere legal fictions, having been granted such powers. &nbsp;</span></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">How can we protect ourselves from risk-laden drug marketing schemes when we have no authority to prevent such corporate assaults at the doctor’s office or behind the prescription counter? &nbsp;The regulatory agency at issue is, once again, behind events not in charge of them.</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></span></p><h3 dir="ltr" style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What is the purpose of the First Amendment and to whom or what institutions does it apply? &nbsp;Is it meant for political speech? Should it reach to commercial speech? &nbsp;</font></span></h3><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alexander Meiklejohn, a scholar of the First Amendment, wrote that<b>&nbsp;freedom of speech “does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage. &nbsp;It intends only to make men free to say what, as citizens, they think, what they believe, about the general welfare.”</b><a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3#4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">⁴</a></font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clearly these are matters that call for people’s attention and engagement. &nbsp;In our commercial culture driven by corporate profit, an increasing number of people are contesting the growing power of private interests over public interests.</font></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Move to Amend invites us to act against such private, corporate takings of people’s rightful authority and to join its work toward democratic possibility.</font></span></p><h3 dir="ltr" style="margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b" style="font-weight: normal;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To learn more:</font></span></h3><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><a name="1" id="1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1.</a><b>&nbsp;National Constitution Center</b></span><b>&nbsp;</b>-&nbsp;<a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/constitution-check-is-the-first-amendment-a-threat-to-the-safety-of-medicines/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/constitution-check-is-the-first-amendment-a-threat-to-the-safety-of-medicines/</a></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><a name="2" id="2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">2.</a>&nbsp;The New York Times</span>&nbsp;-&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/business/dealbook/fdas-off-label-drug-policy-leads-to-free-speech-fight.html?r=0" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/business/dealbook/fdas-off-label-drug-policy-leads-to-free-speech-fight.html?r=0</a></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><a name="3" id="3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">3.</a>&nbsp;The New York Times</span>&nbsp;-&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/business/court-forbids-fda-from-blocking-truthful-promotion-of-drug.html?r=0" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/business/court-forbids-fda-from-blocking-truthful-promotion-of-drug.html?r=0</a></font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><a name="4" id="4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">4.</a>&nbsp;Alexander Meiklejohn,&nbsp;</span><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Political Freedom: the Constitutional Powers of the People</em>, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.&nbsp;</font></p><p dir="ltr" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span id="docs-internal-guid-02113238-6d67-74cf-3aa7-d835fd74e80b"><a name="5" id="5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">5.</a>&nbsp;Exploring Constitutional conflicts -</span><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm</a></font></p></div><p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span helvetica="helvetica" neue="neue" arial="arial" verdana="verdana" sans-serif="sans-serif">T<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=626bda13dc&e=06876ede6b" style="text-decoration-line: none;">rump EPA Proposes Weaker Coal Ash Rules, More Use at Construction Sites</a></span>
<span helvetica="helvetica" neue="neue" sans-serif="sans-serif">BY: JAMES BRUGGERS
The latest proposed rule change would also relax safeguards intended to prevent water contamination from that type of dumping of toxic ash.&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=76c98f75ff&e=06876ede6b" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Read More</a></span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/how-deregulation-led-to-the-opioid-epidemic"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/how-deregulation-led-to-the-opioid-epidemic</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The opioid abuse epidemic is one of the worst public-health crises in American history. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 1999 and 2017, almost 400,000 people died in the U.S. from an overdose of either prescription or illicit opioids. In 2017 alone, opioids, more than one-third involving prescriptions, killed more than 47,000 individuals. And today, on average 130 people die each day from opioid overdoses.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This article originally appeared on The American Prospect.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The root cause of most cases of opioid addiction, particularly prescription-initiated addiction, is pain, a devastating but sometimes overlooked symptom. As a recent American Industrial Hygiene Association paper argues, “the opioid crisis should be seen primarily as a pain crisis, much of which is related to work.” Addressing that crisis precipitated another: treatment regimes that relied heavily on opioids. Today there’s little awareness that almost two decades ago, conservative members of Congress, in a burst of anti-regulatory zeal, championed the fight to eliminate the very ergonomics standard that was designed to reduce the high incidence of a number of common workplace injuries.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The tale of that misguided effort begins with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, following decades of unregulated, preventable workplace deaths, injuries, and illnesses. Its goal was to “assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women” and included “authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under the Act.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The act incorporated existing industry safety standards and adopted new ones to cover an array of workplace hazards, such as work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). These disorders included a wide range of conditions like carpal tunnel syndrome, back pain, and tendonitis that are related to repetitive stress, or sustained or sudden exertions resulting from lifting, pushing, and pulling; carrying many or irregularly shaped objects; maintaining awkward or unnatural positions; or handling vibrating machinery and tools.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">00:01</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">00:33</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By the 1980s, labor health and safety activists recognized that alarming rates of disabling WMSDs were occurring in a wide variety of workplaces, including auto manufacturers, garment factories, office environments, and meatpacking and poultry plants. New modes of assembly line production exacerbated these long-standing problems. The need to implement an ergonomics standard, one that would require employers to systematically address the hazards that give rise to musculoskeletal injuries suffered by their workers, became even more urgent.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There were several false starts for the controversial provisions, but OSHA began working in earnest on the standard in 1993. However, the resulting proposals soon ran into trouble on Capitol Hill. The Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, and Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” heralded the new Republican majority’s deregulatory push. Bemoaning the costs that an ergonomics standard would entail for the private sector, industry lobbyists derided OSHA’s ergonomic proposal as the poster child for government overregulation. The agency estimated that the new rule would require $4.5 billion in annual compliance costs, but would generate $9.1 billion in benefits every year in the first ten years, and prevent hundreds of thousands of musculoskeletal disorders each year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gingrich’s acolytes fought the development of the standard tooth and nail, despite a 1997 General Accounting Office report that found that “billions of dollars are spent by private sector employers on workers’ compensation claims associated with WMSDs,” and that “employers can reduce these costs and injuries and thereby improve employee health and morale, as well as productivity and product quality” by implementing effective ergonomics programs in their workplaces.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After a decade of research and heated political debate, OSHA finally prevailed. On November 14, 2000, during the final weeks of the Clinton administration, the agency issued its ergonomics regulation. It applied to more than six million worksites covering 102 million workers and required all general-industry employers (excluding the agriculture, maritime, and construction sectors) to establish an ergonomics program if triggered by reports of a worker’s WMSD or persistent evidence of WMSDs in the workplace.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ADVERTISING</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">inRead invented by Teads</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Report Advertisement</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The standard went into effect days before George W. Bush was inaugurated. But a few months later, Congress used the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to obliterate the regulation, the first and only time the act had been used to rescind an agency regulation (until President Trump began to make frequent use of it). Usually, if a new administration dislikes a regulation and wants it revised or revoked, it needs to engage in rulemaking all over again and must justify the desired changes. The ergonomics standard escaped this process. In his first legislative act as president, Bush signed the rescission resolution on March 20, 2001, taking the standard off the books and prohibiting OSHA from ever issuing a substantially similar one. A regulation designed to protect workers from debilitating workplace injuries—that frequently required painkilling treatment regimes—had been completely destroyed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Bush administration paid lip service to the value of ergonomics programs. Administration officials noted that employers who ignored obvious problems with WMSDs might be cited under OSHA’s “general duty” to provide a workplace reasonably free from recognized hazards. But, as a June 2004 memo to OSHA’s regional administrators made clear, any new guidelines for the prevention of WMSDs “are not new standards or regulations and do not create any new OSHA duties for employers” (emphasis in original). Today, no federal ergonomics regulation exists. (Some states run their own OSHA programs, with federal financial and technical assistance and oversight. They are required to provide worker protections at least as vigorous as federal OSHA&nbsp; regulations require. Of these states, only California has specific ergonomics regulations currently on the books.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the hazardous workplace conditions that give rise to musculoskeletal injuries, and the chronic pain that so often accompanies those injuries, haven’t gone away. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, musculoskeletal injuries are the most prevalent occupational injury in the United States today, totaling, in 2017, 32 percent of serious nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses. The CDC, meanwhile, continues to claim that “together, employers, workers, and other parties with an understanding of ergonomics can design effective programs to prevent and minimize WMSDs.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2017, there were 344,970 cases of workplace musculoskeletal injuries involving days away from work. How many of those cases represent workers who are being treated or are self-medicating with opioids today? How many are addicted? And how many of their injuries could have been prevented with an effectively enforced standard designed to reduce the hazards that cause WMSDs, like the short-lived 2001 rule?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Today, the CDC points out that the best ways to prevent opioid overdose deaths include improving prescribing through revamped clinical-practice guidelines and treatment and preventing opioid use disorder. But there’s little discussion even now about preventing the workplace injuries that cause the pain that contribute to opioid use and abuse. Federally enforceableworker-informed ergonomics programs continue to be urgently needed in every workplace where these hazards exist. If only Congress and President Bush had understood that 18 years ago.</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>dereg and corruption --> AGW:</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://yyy.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/amazonian-rainforest-near-unrecoverable-tipping-point</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">guk no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Amazon deforestation accelerating towards unrecoverable 'tipping point'</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Data confirms fears that Jair Bolsonaro’s policy encourages illegal logging in Brazil</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Watts in Altamira</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;@jonathanwatts</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thu 25 Jul 2019 17.40 BST Last modified on Thu 25 Jul 2019 21.37 BST</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Amazon rainforest turned into farmland. An area the size of Greater London has been lost this month. Photograph: Nacho Doce/Reuters</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon has surged above three football fields a minute, according to the latest government data, pushing the world’s biggest rainforest closer to a tipping point beyond which it cannot recover.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The sharp rise – following year-on-year increases in May and June – confirms fears that president Jair Bolsonaro has given a green light to illegal land invasion, logging and burning.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Clearance so far in July has hit 1,345 sq km, a third higher than the previous monthly record under the current monitoring system by the Deter B satellite system, which started in 2015.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">With five days remaining, this is on course to be the first month for several years in which Brazil loses an area of forest bigger than Greater London.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The steady erosion of tree cover weakens the role of the rainforest in stabilising the global climate. Scientists warn that the forest is in growing danger of degrading into a savannah, after which its capacity to absorb carbon will be severely diminished, with consequences for the rest of the planet.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“It’s very important to keep repeating these concerns. There are a number of tipping points which are not far away,” said Philip Fearnside, a professor at Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research. “We can’t see exactly where they are, but we know they are very close. It means we have to do things right away. Unfortunately that is not what is happening. There are people denying we even have a problem.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>It may also complicate ratification of Brazil’s biggest ever trade deal with the European Union if EU legislators decide the South American nation is not keeping its side of the bargain, which includes a commitment to slow deforestation in line with the Paris climate agreement.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The official numbers from the National Institute for Space Research are a growing embarrassment to Bolsonaro, who has tried to fob them off as lies and criticised the head of the institute.<b>&nbsp;Earlier this week, the president insisted the numbers should be screened by the ministry of science and technology and shown to him before being made public so that he did not get “caught with his pants down”</b>.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>This has raised fears that the data could be vetted in future rather than automatically updated online each day as is currently the case.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In his first seven months in power, Bolsonaro, who was elected with strong support from agribusiness and mining interests, has moved rapidly to erode government agencies responsible for forest protection.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>He has weakened the environment agency and effectively put it under the supervision of the agricultural ministry, which is headed by the leader of the farming lobby</b>.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;His foreign minister has dismissed climate science as part of a</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">&nbsp;global Marxist plot.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">&nbsp;The president and other ministers have criticised the forest monitoring agency, Ibama, for imposing fines on illegal land grabbers and loggers. The government has also moved to weaken protections for nature reserves, indigenous territories and zones of sustainable production by forest peoples and invited businesspeople to register land counter-claims within those areas.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">This has emboldened those who want to invade the forest, clear it and claim it for commercial purposes, mostly in the speculative expectation it will rise in value, but also partly for&nbsp;<b>cattle pastures, soya fields and mines.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Earlier this month, it was reported that&nbsp;<b>thousands of gold miners illegally invaded Yanomami indigenous territory near the border with Venezuela. Elsewhere, illegal loggers have mounted at least two attacks in response to Ibama enforcement operations,&nbsp;</b>according to the Folha newspaper. On 4 July, they reportedly burned an Ibama truck in Espigão d’Oeste, Rondônia state and last week they were said to have burned bridges in Placas, Pará state.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Rather than defend his officials, the environment minister Ricardo Salles appeared to side with the loggers when he gave a speech to a group of them in Rondônia soon afterwards, in which he reportedly told them: “The timber industry deserves to be respected … What happens today in Brazil, unfortunately, is the result of years and years and years of a public policy of producing laws, rules, regulations that are not always related to the real world. What we are doing now is precisely bringing the legal part of the real world that happens in every country from north to south.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">During a recent G20 meeting, Bolsonaro told the German chancellor Angela Merkel that she had no right to criticise because Brazil’s conservation record was superior to that of Europe’s. This is a dubious claim, according to Climate Observatory, which cites World Bank data that shows Germany has given protected status to a bigger share of its land than Brazil.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>Brazil is also going backwards fast.</b>&nbsp;After an 80% reduction in the rate of deforestation between 2006 and 2012, successive governments have relaxed protections. Clearance has been creeping up. Last year, deforestation rose 13% to the highest level in a decade. This year is on course to be far worse and the trend is back towards the dark days of the early 2000s.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Unfortunately, it is absurd, but it should not catch anyone by surprise. President Jair Bolsonaro and minister Ricardo Salles are dismantling our socio-environmental policies,” said Carlos Rittl, the executive secretary of the Climate Observatory, an NGO formed by a coalition of environmental groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">He said Salles had eradicated the department responsible for policies to combat deforestation, that no leaders have been appointed in eight of the nine Ibama regional offices, and that operations to combat environmental crimes declined 70% between January and April 2019 compared with the same period last year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Deter satellite data is considered preliminary, but it is usually a guide to the longer-term trends. More detailed annual figures are usually released towards the end of the year, after the National Institute for Space Research has calculated data from the more powerful Prodes satellite system.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Trees are considered essential to climate stability. Earlier this month, a study indicated that planting a trillion trees could remove two-thirds of all the emissions that have been pumped into the atmosphere by human activities.&nbsp;<b>But scientists say maintaining existing forests, particularly in the tropics, is far more important.</b></font></div></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bryan keogh</font></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><div class="content-header-block" style="margin: 0px; padding: 4px 0px 0px; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 24px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-left-style: solid; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: initial; border-left-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-image: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); display: inline-block; left: -12px; line-height: normal; position: relative;"><h1 class="entry-title instapaper_title " itemprop="name" style="margin: 0px; padding: 4px 0px 6px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; line-height: normal; display: inline;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); left: -12px; position: relative;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Strict Amazon protections made Brazilian farmers more productive, new research&nbsp;shows</font></span></h1></div></div><time datetime="2018-11-05T11:43:58Z" itemprop="datePublished" content="2018-11-05T11:43:58Z" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px -12px; padding: 6px 12px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; display: inline-block;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">November 5, 2018&nbsp;</font></time></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://theconversation.com/<b>strict-amazon-protections-made-brazilian-farmers-more-productive</b>-new-research-shows-105789</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new president, will make many decisions during his four-year term, from combating violence to stimulating a stagnant economy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Those decisions will have large impacts on Brazilians, who remain deeply divided over the controversial election of this far-right populist.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But some of Bolsonaro’s decisions will affect the entire world, namely his promises to cut environmental protections in the Brazilian Amazon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Amazon’s uncertain fate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The Amazon is the world’s largest tropical rainforest and a major global food exporter.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Amazon Basin also provides the rains that nourish Brazil’s productive croplands to the south, a breadbasket for the world. The rainforest’s destruction could cause large-scale droughts in Brazil, leading to nationwide crop losses.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An estimated 9 percent of Amazonian forests disappeared between 1985 and 2017, reducing the rainforest’s ability to&nbsp; ...partic cattle ranching ...<b>strict environmental protections passed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2004. His Workers Party cracked down on illegal land clearing in the Amazon, making Brazil a world leader in rainforest protection.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">But deforestation in the Amazon has begun to climb again recently.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Brazilian President Michel Temer, a conservative who entered office in 2016 during a deep recession, has loosened enforcement of federal anti-deforestation laws, slashed the environmental ministry’s budget and opened the Amazon to mining.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Satellite data reveal that between August 2017 to 2018, 1.1 million acres of Brazilian Amazonian forest were cleared – the highest deforestation rate since 2007.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brazil’s next president.]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">President-elect Bolsonaro has promised to further slash environmental protections in Brazil, saying that federal conservation zones and hefty fines for cutting down trees hinder economic growth.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Specific plans include eliminating protections for&nbsp;<b>indigenous</b>&nbsp;territories that safeguard forests from private developers and reducing fines for illegally clearing land.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Bolsonaro also wants to dismantle Brazil’s Ministry of the Environment, which enforces environmental laws.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Brazil’s agricultural innovations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The president-elect’s deregulatory agenda is supported by the Bancada Ruralista, a powerful congressional caucus that defends Brazilian agribusiness interests.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Despite the lobby’s stance that regulation hurts business, Brazil’s strict environmental laws have actually helped Amazonian farmers, my recent research shows.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">From 2004 to 2014, Brazil’s federal government employed a host of tactics to reduce Amazonian farmers’ incentives to clear land. It increased penalties for deforestation, making it far more expensive to create new grazing land. Simultaneously, it offered state-subsidized, low-interest financing for farmers who adopted more sustainable practices.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Those policies encouraged innovations that have made Amazon farmland much more productive. In a co-authored study published in October in the journal Global Environmental Change, my colleagues and I found that food production in the Amazon has substantially increased since 2004.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Amazonian farmers are now planting and&nbsp;<b>harvesting two crops – mostly soybean and corn – each year, rather than just one. This is called “double cropping.”</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our study found that land in double cropping in Brazil’s most important agricultural state, Mato Grosso, increased from 840,000? acres in 2001 to more than 10.6 million acres in 2013, boosted by improved environmental laws.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Farmers are getting richer</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Environmental regulation of the Brazilian Amazon has helped farmers improve business in other ways too, our research found.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Improved pasture management in Mato Grosso state led the number of cattle slaughtered annually per acre to double, meaning farmers are producing more meat – and therefore earning more money – with their land.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Ranchers who add crops into pasture areas can more than quadruple the amount of beef produced because cattle raised in integrated crop and livestock systems gain weight more quickly. That spares remaining Amazonian forests from deforestation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>These sustainable ranching practices also reduce the greenhouse gases associated with beef and leather production. Better nourished cows are slaughtered sooner, meaning fewer burps per cow per lifetime, leading to lower methane emissions.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brazil’s progressive environmental protections have even pushed corporations that operate in the Amazon to adopt more sustainable practices.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Since 2006, hundreds of multinational food and timber companies, including&nbsp;<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Cargill and Nestle</span>, have adopted “zero-deforestation commitments” – pledges that they will never again source products from farmers who continue to deforest their land.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The commitments started in the Brazilian Amazon and have since extended to all forests on the planet, including the Indonesian and Malaysian rainforests.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Brazilian law, which restricts Amazonian farmers from clearing more than 20 percent of their land and requires them to&nbsp;<b>federally register their property for monitoring</b>, has made it easier for zero-deforestation companies to drop producers who cut down trees.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Saving the Amazon</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Strong environmental protections are necessary to save the Amazon, protecting Brazil and the world from the loss of this critical, fragile habitat.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If Brazil’s next president dismantles its environmental laws, corporations could abandon their zero-deforestation standards in the Amazon. That could have ripple effects in other threatened habitats worldwide.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Far from being bad for business, Brazil’s Amazonian protections help sustain the country as a global breadbasket.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If Bolsonaro scraps them, he won’t just imperil a legendary rainforest. He’ll hurt Brazilian farmers, too – and the consumers worldwide who depend on them.</font></div></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see other stories of nuke dereg scam? remember CTW blowback on arsenic? everyhwere drink vs limited to out there others?</font></p><div class="mag-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px 0px 19px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><h3 class="magcat-titlte entry-title" open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" px="px" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/with-congress-limiting-what-can-be-dumped-at-nuke-sites-the-energy-department-may-just-redefine-what-its-dumping/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; display: block; letter-spacing: 0px; line-height: 1.4;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">With Congress limiting what can be dumped at nuke sites, the energy department may just redefine what it’s dumping</font></a></h3><div class="grid-post-box-meta mag-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="author-italic author vcard" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/jillian-s-ambroz/" title="Posts by Jillian S. Ambroz" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Jillian S. Ambroz</a>&nbsp;/&nbsp;<a href="https://www.alternet.org/author/dc-report/" title="Posts by DC Report" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">DC Report</a></font></span></div></div><div class="mag-excerpt entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Hanford Nuclear Site has been dubbed the most toxic place in America<span style="font-style: italic;">.</span></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">i put this in a record number of nodes, seems to be some sort of shift/tipping point?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sci not so much suppressed as ignored, SAB</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">trump epa fail</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2019/07/a-total-disgrace-outrage-as-trump-epa-says-it-wont-ban-pesticide-linked-to-brain-damage-in-children</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">' A total disgrace’: Outrage as Trump EPA says it won’t ban pesticide linked to brain damage in children</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Written by Jake Johnson / Common Dreams July 19, 2019</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a move environmentalists denounced as yet another case of the Trump administration putting industry profits over public health, the Environmental Protection Agency announced on Thursday that it will not ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to brain damage in children.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“By allowing chlorpyrifos to stay in our fruits and vegetables, Trump’s EPA is breaking the law and neglecting the overwhelming scientific evidence that this pesticide harms children’s brains,” Patti Goldman, attorney with Earthjustice said in a statement. “It is a tragedy that this administration sides with corporations instead of children’s health.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA chief Andrew Wheeler’s decision to reject a petition by environmental groups calling for a ban on the neurotoxic chemical ignores the assessments of his agency’s own scientists, said Tiffany Finck-Haynes, pesticides and pollinators program manager for Friends of the Earth.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The EPA’s refusal to ban chlorpyrifos ignores decades of science showing that this pesticide has irrevocable effects on human health and the environment,” said Finck-Haynes. “The EPA is endangering the lives of children to protect pesticide industry profits.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Friends of the Earth</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">@foe_us</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Today Trump's @EPA announced that it will not #BanChlorpyrifos — a brain-damaging pesticide that EPA's own scientists have deemed unsafe at any level.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The EPA is endangering the lives of children to protect pesticide industry profits."https://foe.org/news/trumps-epa-continues-delay-federal-ban-brain-damaging-pesticide-chlorpyrifos-leaving-states-take-action/ …</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trump’s EPA continues to delay federal ban on the brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos, leaving...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it will not ban the neurotoxic, brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos. Last summer, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">foe.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chlorpyrifos has been banned for household use since 2000, but the pesticide is still used by farmers on “more than 50 fruit, nut, cereal, and vegetable crops,” according to the New York Times.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“In 2016,” the Times reported, “more than 640,000 acres were treated with chlorpyrifos in California alone.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Obama administration in 2015 proposed banning use of the pesticide on food crops, but former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt authorized its continued use in 2017.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This is a total disgrace,” Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) tweeted in response to the EPA’s decision on Thursday.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Finck-Haynes of Friends of the Earth said that as the federal government continues to work on behalf of chemical interests, states must take immediate action to protect the public and the environment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“While the federal government refuses to act, we urge states to step in, ban chlorpyrifos, and demonstrate that they will safeguard public health and the environment,” said Finck-Haynes. “We call on [New York] Governor [Andrew] Cuomo to sign the chlorpyrifos ban bill sitting on his desk and protect New Yorkers from this toxic pesticide.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a statement on Thursday, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) highlighted the Trump administration’s ties to Dow Chemical, the largest producer of chlorpyrifos in the United States.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The relationship between President Trump and Dow Chemical… has been called into question,” the group said. “Among other things, the chemical manufacturing giant reportedly donated $1 million for Trump’s inauguration, and its CEO previously played a chief advisory role to the president, heading up his now defunct American Manufacturing Council.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Erik Olson, senior director of health and food at NRDC, said the effort to achieve a ban on chlorpyrifos will continue.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Until EPA gets this stuff out of our fields and off our food,” said Olson, “this fight is not over.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bad: new EPA plan will gut pollution permit appeals …for the public. Not for industry.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Environmental Protection Agency sets legal limits, called permits, on how much a particular power plant or factory can pollute.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When a person or community wants to challenge that permit for being too spew-friendly, they can appeal it to the EPA’s “Environmental Appeals Board.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The permit holders, meaning the operators of factories or power plants, can also appeal to increase the legally allowed pollution limit.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Under a plan being developed by the Trump EPA, exactly half of this process would change:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The public would lose the ability to challenge a pollution permit.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Permit-holders would still be able to appeal to increase in their pollution.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Three people familiar with the plan” leaked it to The New York Times, which notes that it would be finalized following President Trump’s speech last week “in which he sought to frame himself as a conservationist and protector of public land.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As I wrote last week, Trump’s pushing this particular Big Lie to try and blunt Republican voter discontent with his actual record of giving polluting industries, including petroleum, coal, minerals mining, chemical, and energy companies, the keys to the agencies that regulate them.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Environmental law experts tell the Times that “the propose rule change would not only grant industry a broader role in influencing the EPA to issue more lenient pollution permits, but could disproportionately harm poor and minority communities, which are statistically more likely to be located near polluting sites.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The plan is just about ready to be released, and EPA must by law allow the public to comment on it before it’s finalized.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So far this administration seldom halts or changes an environmental rollback in response to public opposition.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read all about it in The New York Times, where veteran environmental reporter Coral Davenport broke this story last week.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div></div></div>