URGENT -- EPA Review of Regulations

We have only six more days to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implementation of the President's Executive Order 13777. Comment now!

On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people.

Section 3(a) of the EO directs federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). One of the duties of the Task Force is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” The EO further asks that each Task Force “attempt to identify regulations that:

(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriates Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or
(vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.”

I wrote to Caryn Muellerleile, of the EPA Office of Policy requesting further information on the task force and how it would conduct its review. Here is my email, followed by her response.

Dear Ms Muellerleile;

Would you please tell me who the members of the EPA regulations review “task force” are, what their qualifications are, and what scientific techniques they will employ to adjudicate the criterion measures on your website.

Thank you,

/s/

Dear Mr. Badalamente,

Thank you for your interest in EPA’s regulatory reform efforts. 

In accordance with Executive Order 13777 on Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda, which is designed to reduce the regulatory burdens agencies place on the American people, EPA has established a Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) and a Regulatory Reform Task Force. Administrator Pruitt has charged Samantha Dravis, Senior Counsel and Associate Administrator for Policy, to serve as RRO and Ryan Jackson, Chief of Staff, to serve as chairman of the Task Force. Other members of the Task Force include Byron Brown and Brittany Bolen, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Office of Policy Deputy Associate Administrator, respectively.

The Task Force is charged with evaluating existing regulations and making recommendations to the Administrator regarding rules that can be repealed, replaced or modified to make them less burdensome. Their recommendations will be informed by a public participation process that includes state, local and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations and trade associations. At the Administrator’s directive, EPA’s Offices of Air and Radiation, Land and Emergency Management, Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Water, Environmental Information, Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations and Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization are consulting with their specific stakeholders for their input.

You can find more information about EPA’s regulatory reform activities on our website. 

Thank you again for your interest in this important issue.

Sincerely,

Caryn Muellerleile

Office of Policy

US Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-2855

muellerleile.caryn@epa.gov

Note that Ms Muellerleile failed to address my question regarding the qualifications of the task force members, nor the scientific techniques they would emply to judge the merits of the reulations. However, U.S. Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wrote to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in April 2017 demanding answers to this and other questions regarding Pruitt's planned review. They pointed out that Pruitt has placed political appointees in the position of adjudicating what is and what is not sound science, and wrote;

"Neither you, nor Associate Administrator for Policy Samantha Dravis, nor Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson, nor Deputy Chief of Staff Byron Brown, nor Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy Brittany Bolen, have any meaningful scientific background. We therefore fail to see how your background will allow for the proper evaluation of the rigorous methodologies and quality of evidence that are the foundations of sound science.”

Sen Sheldon Whitehouse pointing out SDcott Pruitt's ties to the fossil industry during confirmation hearings

Those of you wishing to comment on Pruitt's directive might reiterate this point.

The Schatz/Markey/Whitehouse letter also demanded that Pruitt provide written assurances on the following points:

·         EPA’s Regulatory Reform Task Force will fully engage with public health, consumer protection, and environmental groups, as well as the general public, in order to better understand the scale and scope of the benefits associated with each regulation under consideration.

·         EPA will make public, on its website, the names and affiliations of all participants that provide input to the Task Force.

·         EPA will transparently disclose its calculations of both costs and benefits in considering the merits or any particular regulation.

·         Political appointees will not interfere with routine and non-controversial regulatory actions informed by career EPA scientists acting in the best interest of the public.

·         Going forward, you will justify all decisions you make that ignore the advice of EPA scientists with the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature relied upon in arriving at your decision.

 

These are worth reiterating in your comments.

 

Scott Pruitt is counting on the apathy of Americans as he goes about dismantling the agency he sued multiple times. Disappoint him. Comment, and keep fighting!

Goodbye to the Climate

by Robert N Stavens

The International New York Times

Smog trapped in the valley of Sandy, Utah. Credit George Frey/Bloomberg

Donald J. Trump once tweeted that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.” Twitter messages may not be clear signs of likely public policies, but Mr. Trump followed up during the campaign with his “America First Energy Plan,” which would rescind all of President Obama’s actions on climate change.

The plan includes canceling United States participation in the Paris climate agreement and stopping all American funding of United Nations climate change programs. It also includes abandoning the Clean Power Plan, a mainstay of the Obama administration’s approach to achieving its emissions reduction target for carbon dioxide under the Paris agreement.

What should we make of such campaign promises? Taking Mr. Trump at his word, he will surely seek to pull the country out of the Paris pact. But because the agreement has already come into force, under the rules, any party must wait three years before requesting to withdraw, followed by a one-year notice period.

Those rules would seem to be mere technicalities. The incoming Trump administration simply can disregard America’s pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 26 to 28 percent below the 2005 level by 2025. That is bad enough. But the big worry is what other key countries, including the world’s largest emitter, China, as well as India and Brazil, will do if the United States reneges on its pledge. The result could be that the Paris agreement unravels, taking it from the 97 percent of global emissions currently covered by the pact to little more than the European Union’s 10 percent share.

In addition, Mr. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency probably will stop work on regulations of methane emissions (a very potent greenhouse gas) from existing oil and gas operations. Undoing complex existing regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan, will be more difficult, but a reconstituted Supreme Court will probably help President Trump when that plan inevitably comes before the court.

Also, the new president will most likely ask that the Keystone XL pipeline permit application be renewed — and facilitate other oil and gas pipelines around the country.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump promised to “bring back” the coal industry by cutting environmental regulations. That may not be so easy. The decline of that industry and related employment has been caused by technological changes in mining, and competition from low-priced natural gas for electricity generation, not by environmental regulations. At the same time, Mr. Trump has pledged to promote fracking for oil and gas, but that would make natural gas even more economically attractive, and accelerate the elimination of coal-sector jobs.

If he lives up to his campaign rhetoric, Mr. Trump may indeed be able to reverse course on climate change policy, increasing the threat to our planet, and in the process destroy much of the Obama legacy in this important realm. This will make the states even more important players on this critical issue.

Robert N. Stavins is a professor at Harvard, where he directs the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements.

Pssst. Might I have a word with you, Sen. Inhofe...?

by Meteor Blades for Daily Kos
Sun Nov 23, 2014 at 12:00 PM PST

Sorry I'm a few days late giving a nod to you on your 80th birthday, Sen. Inhofe. I suspect you had an extra-special celebration this year since you'll soon be getting back to the chairmanship of the Environment and Public Works Committee after eight years putting up with its Democratic leadership. Not to mention the eye-rolling directed your way every time global warming made it onto the agenda. I'll bet you're all fired up to be in charge again.

Congratulations. You got the power.

Now, how about showing the nation you got a brain?

Look, I know it's a great, long-running gig you've got going. Being on the spigot end of the fossil fuel money pipeline certainly makes it easier to pay the freight for getting re-elected. And all you had to do to keep it flowing was reject the deeply considered conclusions of just about every scientist in the world whose skills matter a damn when it comes to understanding the behavior of the planet's climate.

I'm not saying you didn't once believe the shillery you are engaging in. After all, when you first came to the Senate two decades ago, scientists had only been saying much to the general public about global warming for five years. The loudest voices on the subject were, then as now, those lovingly funded by the coal, oil and gas corporadoes and tended by PR image shapers and meme inventors. You know these guys, the ones who make money fabricating unforgettable and politically damaging catch-phrases like "war on coal."

You got bamboozled. Just like a whole bunch of other Americans got bamboozled. Buried in an avalanche of propaganda that made it conventional wisdom to believe the bamboozlers were telling the truth when they said Arctic ice wasn't melting faster or atmospheric greenhouse gases weren't soaring out of the range of anything since several hundred millennia before the first Homo sapiens took a step on the savanna.

The bamboozlers used sophisticated techniques and primitive ones. All united around raising doubt to generate opposition to any kind of climate-related policy choices that might affect the bottom line of the bamboozler funders. The money poured out the door into campaign funds and the wallets of credentialed prevaricators and scientific outliers. The media cooperated by giving this cabal equal time with the people who actually knew what they were talking about. Their scheme worked.

Just look around you. You're surrounded by colleagues—more of whom will show up in six weeks—who say human-caused global warming ain't happening. Senators determined to stand in the path of any attempt to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. True believers and opportunists alike.

None of them, of course, has gone so far as you. I mean, wow! An entire book that from the title onward claims a huge conspiracy invented global warming. That it is all a giant hoax. Not the first time you've made that claim, of course. You even went Godwin in an interview eight years ago during an Oklahoma heat wave when you said of scientists speaking out on global warming:

It kind of reminds ... I could use the Third Reich, the big lie. You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their strategy.

 

Do you know what projection is, Senator? But I digress.

 

 You probably believed what you were told in 1994 when you were first elected. A youthful misjudgment back when you were a mere 60. And you maybe even believed it in 2004 when you chaired the committee previously. But in 2014?

Sorry, I don't believe you still believe it. If you ever truly did. Because you've had plenty of time to read and interview and follow the ever-grimmer assessments of the International Panel on Climate Change. You know what's really going on. You know this is no put-up job. Oh sure, I realize your The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future was only just published in 2012.

I know how eager you must be to get back to leading hearings to trash greenhouse gas emissions regulations by the EPA, the agency you once compared to the Gestapo.

I'm sure you enjoy rubbing elbows and comparing stock tips with your pals in the oil biz.
And you probably get a kick out of the adoring letters you receive from people who gobble up every bit of baloney you offer them about climate change.

But—gimme a wink here, Senator—you know that human-caused global warming is for real. You know its consequences are going to be devastating and  that that word won't half describe the ongoing results unless a broad range of actions are taken and quickly. You know this because if you didn't know it after all your experience, you'd have to be stupid. And we all know that you can't be stupid and get to be a United States senator. Right?

So, do us a favor, okay? All of us. Your wife and 20 kids and grandkids. Your fellow Oklahomans. The nation. The whole planet. Come January, when you gavel that first EPW committee into session, 'fess up. Come clean. Tell everyone you had a revelation. Say that you did some reading and thinking over the holidays—and some praying—and that, consequently, you now accept the scientific consensus on global warming. Tell the nation you plan to use your whole remaining time in the Senate advocating ambitious programs to limit greenhouse gas emissions and build green infrastructure.

And then do it.

I know that you don't believe in bipartisanship except as a means to prank Democrats who keep letting themselves get played on that hoax. I realize you're eager to continue doing what Rush Limbaugh urged you and the rest of the GOP to do in January 2009: Block everything the Obama administration tries to do to make it fail. I get it. But you need to bite the bullet now and tell everyone you're going to make an exception for global warming. After all your previous obstructionism, you should now epitomize cooperation and far-sightedness. Maybe show up to applaud your committee colleagues Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse when they deliver their frequent climate change speeches on the floor of the Senate.

Perhaps you can even get a piece of legislation with your name on it to spur rooftop solar, electrify a portion of the nation's rail lines or ban coal exports.

This change of direction certainly will shock most of your constituents and campaign contributors. But don't worry. If you decide to run again when you're 85, you will find plenty of financial support that isn't dependent on the fossil fools. Let the Koch Bros. bring it on! A match made in heaven. Your legacy will be heroic. Generations of your offspring will praise your name.

Before you say "no way, I have a reputation to keep up," please recognize that taking this step doesn't mean you have to give up the nuttiness comprising the rest of your politics. Not at all. I'm not suggesting a personality transplant. But come January, please, just sit down, lean into the microphone and tell everyone you've seen the light. Play it right and your epiphany will get more attention than Jesus' did.

You're 80 now, Senator. How about demonstrating some of the wisdom that is supposed to come with all those years?

EPA's Emissions Target for Washington is Right On Target

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5) wrote in her July 22 op-ed for the Seattle Times that the EPA’s 72% target emissions reduction for Washington is “counterintuitive.” It may appear so, but EPA’s methodology for determining each state’s reduction is based on a state’s ability to cut their emissions. Washington has a head start on other states. Furthermore, Washington’s only coal-fired power plant, which accounts for 70% of electric power emissions, will phase out by 2025, making it a cinch to meet EPA’s target.

We do have alternatives to EPA’s regulations. Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s legislative’s proposal would place a nation-wide fee on carbon and return all revenues to households as a monthly dividend. This would level the playing field for low-carbon energy, including nuclear, and the monthly dividend would offset increased costs to consumers. A recent study by an independent economics modeling organization showed that such an approach would reduce emissions by 33% by 2025, and 52% by 2035, and add between 2 and 3 million jobs.

As a parent and grandparent, I share Representative McMorris Rodgers’ concern that we leave a “stronger America for our children and grandchildren,” and I urge her to work with her colleagues to reign in emissions by passing carbon fee and dividend legislation.

What the EPA Proposes for Washington State

From EPA's Web Site

Climate change threatens our health and economy 

Carbon pollution leads to long-lasting changes in our climate, such as rising global temperatures, rising sea level, and changes in weather and precipitation patterns. The Third U. S. National Climate Assessment outlines how climate change will impact states like Washington.  

States are taking action

Before issuing this proposal, EPA heard from states, utilities, labor unions, nongovernmental organizations, consumer groups, industry and others to learn more about what programs are already working to reduce carbon pollution.  We learned that states are leading the way– especially through programs that expand energy efficiency and renewable energy. Washington already has programs in place that could be part of its individual or regional plan to reduce carbon pollution, including: 

• Greenhouse gas performance standards in the form of emission limits, emission rates for electricity purchased, or requirements to capture emissions
• Energy efficiency standards or goals
• Demand-side energy efficiency programs that advance energy efficiency improvements for electricity use
• Energy efficiency codes (meeting 2006 International Energy Conservation Code) for residential buildings
• Energy efficiency codes (meeting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004) for commercial buildings
• Appliance and equipment efficiency standards
• Renewable energy portfolio standards or goals

Proposed state goals build on state leadership

To set state-specific goals, EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states and utilities are already using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector. These include improving energy efficiency, improving power plant operations, and encouraging reliance on low-carbon and zero-emitting electricity generation. Together, these make up the best system for reducing carbon pollution. They achieve meaningful reductions at a lower cost. 

The Agency applied these strategies consistently, but each state’s energy mix ultimately leads to a different goal that is unique to the state.

In 2012, Washington’s power sector CO2 emissions were approximately 7 million metric tons from sources covered by the rule. The amount of energy produced by fossil-fuel fired plants, and certain low or zero emitting plants was approximately 19 terawatt hours (TWh)*. So, Washington’s 2012 emission rate was 763 pounds/megawatt hours (lb/MWh).  

EPA is proposing that Washington develop a plan to lower its carbon pollution to meet its proposed emission rate goal of 215 lb/MWh in 2030. This amounts to a 72% reduction (Note that 70% of Washington's electric power emissions are generated by one coal-fired plant and it is being phased out by 2025),

*includes existing non-hydro renewable energy generation and approximately 6% of nuclear generation. The 2012 emission rate shown here has not been adjusted for any incremental end-use energy efficiency improvements that states may make as part of their plans to reach these state goals. 

States decide how to cut carbon pollution 

The state goals are not requirements on individual electric generating units. Washington will choose how to meet the goal through whatever combination of measures reflects its particular circumstances and policy objectives. A state does not have to put in place the same mix of strategies that EPA used to set the goal.

Washington may work alone or in cooperation with other states to comply with the proposed rule.  EPA estimates that states could achieve their goals most cost effectively if they work with others.  

EPA encourages states to look broadly across their electricity system to identify strategies for their plans to reduce carbon pollution.  Strategies can include:   

• Demand-side energy efficiency programs
• Renewable energy standards
• Efficiency improvements at plants
• Dispatch changes
• Co-firing or switching to natural gas
• Construction of new Natural Gas Combined-Cycle plants
• Transmission efficiency improvements
• Energy storage technology
• Retirements
• Expanding renewables like wind and solar
• Expanding nuclear
• Market-based trading programs
• Energy conservation programs

Washington's Energy Mix in 2012 (Source: The EIA form 923)

U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS POLLUTION

The politicizing of the carbon management debate by monied interests has prevented thoughtful debate

by Jon Phillips

A critical topic for us, our children, their children and so forth for generations.

US carbon emissions in the energy sector have dropped since 2007 and will remain under the 2007 peak for the next few decades if projections on natural gas hold and exports fail to materialize. Historically cheap natural gas, enabled by hydro fracture drilling technology has granted a temporary reprieve through the economic destruction of the US coal generation industry.

The politicizing of the carbon management debate by monied interests has prevented thoughtful debate over optimal economic approaches to manage carbon such as tax and dividend with tariffs on trade. Instead, in a surprising SCOTUS decision, the Clean Air Act will be used to manage carbon through emission cap regulation. The problem is that it's a rather blunt instrument. With any luck, the new regulation proposed by the Administration will engage shortly. New coal plants will be constrained to operate with emissions comparable to small natural gas turbine plants. This implies that to build a new coal plant, you'll have to put ~40% effective carbon capture and sequestration on the plant or you can't get a license.

Declining power generation from coal, January 2007 to January 2012 (EIA)

There's really no more thermal efficiency that can be pulled out of new super-critical coal plants except by going to co-generation. Usually, the capital risk economics don't work out on that. The short answer is that this will likely block most new coal generation. Meanwhile, old coal plants are struggling to meet new emission limits on mercury and the cost of upgrades is not competitive against decommissioning and building a combined cycle natural gas plant. Old plants are retiring at a steady clip and new plants will be blocked. If this continues, in a couple decades, the coal era will end in the US. You can imagine the angst in the coal States.

Unfortunately, this won't solve our most serious threat. It won't even touch it. Non-OECD carbon emissions have doubled since 2005 and global emissions have gone up 50% in the same decade! Global emissions are set to rise another 40 to 50% by 2025 while OECD emissions remain essentially flat since 2007 (the US among them).

 If we can't drastically bend down the curve in the developing world, it's game over. They're now producing twice the carbon of the developed world and there's nothing suggesting that their explosion in emissions will retrench. The real question is how to get the developing world's house in order.

Meanwhile, 'Mericans scrabble with each other about how to go to lower numbers domestically, but the globe's pants are being pulled down in the developing world. The only solution is to quickly get serious, put our own house in order and launch a climate change "Marshall Plan." We have to go all in against coal. Otherwise it's the future until the climate is truly toast. But what does that mean? 

Renewables? Yes! Nuclear? Yes and lots of it! Natural gas? Yes! But to execute a Marshall Plan we need to disconnect the advantage of cheap coal in the developing world. In the first instance that means carbon tariffs on trade (perhaps the most important mechanism of all since we're the dumping ground of cheap products based on coal electricity). It also means getting our natural gas glut into the international market to get the price of electricity up high enough to convert the infrastructure.

Hopefully President Obama's big push on new LNG terminals will move forward quickly because of the Ukraine geopolitics. Monied interests, fat and lazy sucking down cheap US natural gas, and a few odd confused environmentalists lacking a global perspective, have battled the Administration all the way. We need low carbon technology. All of it at massive scale right away.
___________________________________
Jon Phillips, PhD, is a Senior Technology Expert at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, and is the Director of the Sustainable Nuclear Power Initiative at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, in Richland, Washington. The opinions expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the IAEA or PNNL.

The Hell with Future Generations!

A House spending bill passed in February 2011 would stop the EPA from enforcing new limits on toxic emissions, such as mercury, from cement plants and from updating air pollution standards on dust and other coarse particulate matter that exacerbate asthma and lung ailments. It withdraws funding for the enforcement of dredge and fill regulations that the EPA recently used to halt a big mountaintop-removal coal project in West Virginia. And of course, it removes funding for climate change mitigation efforts.

Coal ash pond rupture near Kingston, TN, late 2008.

Using the Nation's budget crisis as their cudgel, Republicans are moving aggressively to rollback government policy, regulations, and programs that they have long held in contempt, including programs put in place (with bipartisan support) to protect the health and safety of Americans, and preserve America's incomparable natural beauty.

One of their key targets is the Environmental Protection Agency and its program to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and to boost climate-related research.

Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, will head the House Appropriations Committee. He will reign in dollars allocated to the "run amok" EPA and their efforts to deal with climate change; efforts Rogers claims will "devastate" Kentucky's coal industry.

The incoming Chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee (believe or not) is 87 year-old Ralph Hall, R-Texas, a major recipient of oil money, who is willing to spend time and money investigating climate scientists, but apparently not on climate research. At his age, he's probably thinking, "why worry?"

Hall's Vice Chair, Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, says climate scientists are frauds and fascists (does it take one to know one?). Paul Broun, R-Georgia, Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Committee, supports his colleague's view, stating that climate change concerns are a hoax perpetrated by a scientific community bent on getting federal dollars (and no doubt by the perfidious Al Gore, trying to sell his books).

Perhaps my favorite climate change denier is Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, who heads the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, He tells us that global warming isn't something to worry about because God said he wouldn't destroy the earth after Noah's flood.

But Republicans aren't satisfied with gutting climate research; they want to rollback regulations on clean air, clean water, and endangered species.

Nothing "endangered" about these species. Rep. Paul Broun, R-GA, has them preserved in his office.

Representative Broun seems to equate his ideological opponents with terrorists. In his invocation for a GOP-sponsored barbecue in Cobb County he prayed, "Father, there are many who want to destroy us from outside this nation. Folks like al-Qaeda and the radical Islamists. But there are folks that want to destroy us from inside, the progressives and the socialists..."

Broun and his Republican cohorts have devised a plan for countering the Progressives radical attack on America; they will defund clean air and clean water regulations. Apparently, Republicans plan to hunker down in cigar lounges drinking single malt scotch, so will be safe from air or water pollution. Who knows what these wingnuts are thinking?

Toxic 100 Air Polluters

The Toxic 100 Air Polluters index identifies the top U.S. air polluters among the world's largest corporations. The index relies on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI), which assesses the chronic human health risk from industrial toxic releases. The underlying data for RSEI is the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), in which facilities across the U.S. report their releases of toxic chemicals. In addition to the amount of toxic chemicals released, RSEI also includes the degree of toxicity and population exposure. The Toxic 100 Air Polluters ranks corporations based on the chronic human health risk from all of their U.S. polluting facilities. The top ten polluters are listed below.

Bayer Group

ExxonMobil

Sunoco

E.I. du Pont de Nemours

Arcelor Mittal

Steel Dynamics Inc.

Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM)

Ford Motor Co.

Eastman Kodak Co.

Koch Industries

Full list of Toxic 100 Air Polluters

from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), U. Mass.

Scamming the Public on Climate Change

On April 14, 1994, top executives from Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and other major cigarette companies testified before a federal court that nicotine was not addictive.

A few weeks ago, 12 states joined in an ongoing lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to block regulation of carbon dioxide, citing faulty scientific data. Legislators in state government are not immune to corporate influence. A story in Truthout, an independent, on-line investigative journalism organization, points out the long history of corporations using deceptive tactics and outright lies to prevent or delay government regulations against their harmful products. This blog contains a similar story.