Activism

10 Ways The Current U.S. Administration Has Undone Environmental Policy

by

Photo by Ella Ivanescu on Unsplash

Since the election is coming up, here are some important facts about changes to federal environmental laws and policies that the mainstream press does not typically cover. A 2018 analysis  published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the Trump administration’s rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely “cost the lives of over 80,000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people.”[1] Since then, the Executive Branch has taken further actions to undo environmental protections despite scientific evidence, favoring industry over human health.

The NY Times has been tracking a list of exactly 100 rollbacks of environmental laws that are either completed or in the works right now. There are 68 completed and 32 in progress.[2] We will focus today on just 12 of the actions the current administration has taken since entering office:

  • Abandoning The Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement is a non-binding framework for global climate action, (non-binding meaning countries cannot be penalized for not following it). It includes the mitigation of and adaptation to climate changes, extra support for developing nations, and the strengthening and transparent reporting of climate goals including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, by member countries. As of 2020, 190 of 197 countries, representing more than 97% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified or agreed to the Agreement, including China, the United States and India. When the Trump administration withdraws the US, it will join Iran, Iraq Libya, Yemen and Turkey as the only major countries that have not ratified the agreement.

  • Naming of Andrew Wheeler as Secretary of the US EPA in 2018

Andrew Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist who has expressed doubt regarding climate change and has questioned the legitimacy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is commissioned by the UN and made up of thousands of scientists from around the world. The IPCC issues a status report on global climate science every 5 years, and is considered the leading documentation of current climate science.

  • Overhauling the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

President Trump announced in July 2020 an overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act, a fundamental environmental protection law established in 1970 that requires environmental impact statements to be developed for all major projects. The administration’s new rule speeds up construction permitting for freeways, power plants and pipelines, no longer requiring federal reviews of their environmental impact. The new rules shorten the time frame for completing environmental studies, limit the types of projects subject to review, and no longer require federal agencies to account for a project’s cumulative effects on the environment.

  • Weakening Key Parts of the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act was established in 1973 by President Nixon, and has prevented the vast majority of listed species from going completely extinct. The Trump administration has changed how the Act is applied, weakening effective protections for threatened species of animals and plants, discouraging the designation of critical habitats, and allowing for economic factors when evaluating species-listing decisions, rather than basing those decisions solely on ecosystem science.

  • Replacing the Clean Power Plan

The current administration is replacing previous policy with the “Affordable Clean Energy (ACE)” rule,[3] allowing states more power to determine how emissions are regulated, instead of establishing a set target for each state. This now allows for uneven regulation of emissions from state to state. It also determined that heat rate improvement (HRI) measures are the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for existing coal-fired generating units rather than actual carbon capture and storage technology. This was challenged by New York and 21 other States with the concern that ACE does not truly reduce emissions. It is estimated that this change could lead to as many as 1,400 additional air pollution deaths a year by 20302

At the announcement, the then acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney for the White House said that US emissions are “flat or down.” That is actually incorrect . In fact, prior to the covid pandemic, energy-related greenhouse gas emissions were rising, reversing a previous three-year decline—for example they rose in 2018 by 3.4 percent, the second-largest margin in 20 years.[4]

On a related note: In 2019, the Trump administration Repealed Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Light bulbs. This means withdrawing standards that were to be put in place to make commonly used bulbs more efficient. The original standards were included in energy legislation implemented under President George W. Bush and finalized under the Obama administration. They were set to go into effect in January 2020 and gradually phase out incandescent and halogen bulbs, replacing them with highly energy-efficient, LED versions. Critics of the reversal say it will mean higher energy bills and more pollution.

  • Rolling back safeguards to limit methane leaks in the transmission and storage of natural gas

Methane very effectively traps heat in the atmosphere, making it one of the most potent greenhouse gases. A change to EPA rules has reduced the frequency by which oil and gas companies must detect and repair methane leaks. Scientists say that the scale of methane pollution could be driving the planet toward a climate crisis faster than expected.

The move was justified by citing E.P.A. data showing that leaks from domestic oil and gas wells have remained steady over the past decade. However an earth systems scientist at Cornell University says that numerous recent studies show that methane emissions from drilling sites in the United States are two to three times higher than the E.P.A.’s estimates.[5]

  • Pesticides

This year 2020, the Trump administration’s EPA Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to developmental disabilities in children. Meanwhile several states have already banned the use of Chlorpyrifos because it is a brain-damaging chemical that can cause reduced IQ, loss of memory, & ADD.

In December 2019 the EPA and Justice Department filed a brief supporting the company Bayer’s argument that Roundup weed killer didn’t require cancer warning. (Bayer has acquired the chemical’s manufacturer Monsanto.) Meanwhile, the World Health Organization, declared the active ingredient glyphosate to be a ‘probable human carcinogen’ in 2015. Besides causing tumors in animal trials, glyphosate exposure has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system.

  • The Trump administration repealed the “Waters of the U.S. “ Rule (also known as “WOTUS”) in September 2019.

The law was established to protect wetlands which are the best natural barriers to storm surges and flooding, and they also help keep agricultural pollution out of our waterways. Instead the rule was replaced with replaced by the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the new rule will remove federal protections for 18 percent of stream and river miles and 51 percent of wetlands in the United States putting protections at their lowest levels since the Reagan administration in the 1980s and leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to polluted water. The Trump administration also revoked a rule that prevented coal and fracking companies from dumping mining debris into local streams.

  • In March 2020, the administration’s EPA Issued new Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (or CAFE) standards for vehicles.

It requires automakers to increase fuel economy across their fleets by 1.5% a year, with a goal of achieving an average of about 40 miles per gallon by 2026. However, that’s a major departure from previous rules, which mandated annual efficiency increases of 5%, reaching an average of 54 mpg by 2025. One report stated that this is projected to result in an additional billion tons of carbon dioxide, increasing annual U.S. emissions by about one-fifth.

Also, California wants to require automakers to be held to higher emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.  The Trump Administration, however is attempting to revoke California’s right to do so. In the agreement between CA and manufacturers on fuel economy standards, automakers pledged to produce passenger vehicles averaging 50 miles per gallon by model year 2026, which is in line with Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards set by the Obama administration. However, as mentioned, the White House wanted to roll back the requirements with a single, federal guideline that sets mileage standards at 40 mpg from 2020 to 2026, or 10 miles per gallon less.

  • Drilling for fossil fuels on Public Lands

In 2018, the US Dept. of Interior announced plans to allow drilling in nearly all U.S. waters, the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed. This Included plans for opening the entire 1.5 million acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is an iconic American natural ecosystem Established in 1960 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, which sustains a diverse wildlife population — including caribou, peregrine falcons, snowy owls, and polar bears. If the Arctic Refuge is opened to drilling, the projected extraction through 2050 would release the equivalent of the annual carbon emissions from over 50 coal plants.[6]

Related, a study published in the journal Science in 2019 noted that in 2017, the Trump administration enacted two of the largest downsizes of protected lands in US history; Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern Utah lost 51% of its protected land, and 85% of Bears Ears national monument, also in Utah lost its protections. With those actions, land twice the size of Rhode Island came out of federal protection. These decisions are currently under litigation. The US government has identified nine other National Monuments in the United States for downgrading or downsizing. In 2019, Trump signed an Executive Order Calling for an increase of Logging on Public Lands.

 

Also see National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment

[1] Cutler D, Dominici F. A Breath of Bad Air: Cost of the Trump Environmental Agenda May Lead to 80 000 Extra Deaths per Decade. JAMA. 2018;319(22):2261–2262. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.7351

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

[3] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/utilities_ria_proposed_ace_2018-08.pdf

[4] https://www.vox.com/2019/1/8/18174082/us-carbon-emissions-2018

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/climate/trump-methane.html

[6] https://www.ran.org/the-understory/arctic-under-threat

Drinking Dark Waters? Learn More About Why YOU Should Care About PFAS Chemicals

by

When out shopping for kitchenware, for those of us tired of food sticking to pans, the words “non-stick” may catch our attention. Similarly, when we want clothing that can handle poor weather conditions, we look for waterproof fabrics. Though these products certainly provide us with convenience, the chemicals utilized to create the non-stick, water-proof phenomena can lead to serious health concerns. As now being shown in the movie Dark Waters, with activist actor Mark Ruffalo, the chemicals are called “PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances),” man-made substances developed as surfactants, which allow water, oils or grease to slip on the surface of the item due to the lower surface tension caused by the chemicals.

Some common household items that may contain PFAS (which may be identified on labels as “Teflon”, originally developed by Dupont) are:

  • Nonstick cookware (i.e. pots, pans, etc.)
  • Microwave popcorn bags; Fast food wrappers and takeout containers, grease-resistant baking paper, pizza boxes 
  • Personal care items (nail polish, mascara, shampoos, body soaps, detergent, deodorants)
  • Coatings used in upholstery, carpets, or rugs that resist stains
  • Cleaning products (polishes), Paints (spray or liquid), car waxes, varnish
  • Water-resistant clothing (i.e. boots, raincoats, etc.)

Additionally, PFAS has been detected around airports, military bases, firefighting training sites, and industrial plants. The areas surrounding these locations often show high PFAS levels due to the firefighting foams used for training or emergency purposes. PFAS contaminates ground water which, on Long Island, becomes our homes’ tap water. 

As consumers, we regularly interact with PFAS due to how many products contain the chemical. However, it usually takes prolonged exposure to PFAS before it begins to impact one’s health (usually via drinking water). When ingested, PFAS chemicals linger within the body for long periods of time due to their slow rate of molecular break down, gradually increasing their levels and the risk of disease over time. Studies have found that PFAS chemicals (as well as the variants PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) and PFOA (perflorooctonoic acid) induce the following at varying levels of exposure:

  • Increased cholesterol levels
  • Kidney and liver toxicity 
  • Endocrine disruption
  • Increased risk of developing tumors (mostly kidney and testicular cancers)
  • Low infant birth weights

Though continually drinking PFAS contaminated water could eventually cause a greater risk of developing diseases, water filters such as Carbon (GAC), Ion Exchange, and Reverse Osmosis filters can reduce the PFAS levels in our drinking water to counteract the risks of acquiring illnesses. To reduce our exposure, it is also important to try and limit our daily use of products that contain these chemicals. Here are some ways we can avoid these risks:

  • Limit eating food stored in grease-resistant food wrapping such as fast food take-out containers;
  • Carefully read the ingredients of personal care products;
  • Purchase PFOA-free and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-free cooking wares such as stainless steel or ceramic;
  • Use less toxic cleaning products;
  • Contact your local health department or water district if you are not sure if your area is contaminated with these chemicals.

In regard to water filters, please be aware of the pros and cons of each filter type: 

  • Carbon is effective for long—chains (PFOA & PFOS) but has difficulty with shorter-chains (PFBS & PFBA); [1]
    • Cost of purchase and installation is less than Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis filters; 
    • Limited to the faucet the device is attached to. 
  • Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis are effective against long and short-chain PFAS; [2] 
    • Cost of purchase, installation and annual maintenance is more expensive than a carbon filter in the long run; 
    • Rather than specific faucets, Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis filters can be applied to the entire house.
  • NSF International tests and certifies products and systems, so check if your filter follows the NSF standards. [3]
    • Look for the following terminology on the product label: “NSF P473” or “NSF Certified to Standard P473.”

 See also:

  1. EPA: Reducing PFAS in Drinking Water with Treatment Technologies
  2. EWG: Removing Toxic Fluorinated Chemicals From Your Home’s Tap Water
  3. MSU Extension: List of household filters approved for certain PFAS removal

Fair Trade and What It Means to You

by

I had the fortune to be able to attend the 15th International fair Trade Summit in Lima, Peru this past month, along with members of the NYC Fair Trade Coalition, and gained a deeper understanding of the importance of fair trade certified products. Products that are produced with a Fair Trade certification mean that care is taken to ensure workers are paid fairly, working conditions are humane, no child labor is used, and environmental sustainability is factored into production. They are usually “artisanal,” hand-made or in small batches. Some common fair trade products are coffee, chocolate, and sugar, as well as clothing, jewelry, rugs, and handcrafts. Guests brought beautiful examples of all of the above from all around the world! Quite incredible to see.

Several conference workshops focused on climate change and the impacts to farmers producing the materials needed to create Fair Trade products. The Cool Farm Alliance spoke about their Cool Farm Tool – an online greenhouse gas, water, and biodiversity calculator. One workshop I attended had a lively debate on whether all Fair Trade products should be organic, with arguments on both sides—while most people would love to see all products produced using materials that are certified organic, sometimes it is not practical depending on market conditions, and this can sometime be due to the cost of certifying and maintaining farmland organically when it comes to food products, for example. The topic of upcycling (transforming unwanted materials into higher value items) and circular economy (an economic system aimed at eliminating waste) were discussed in terms of ways to reduce waste in production, and also issues of race and class in international trade—who is producing for who? Is the system truly fair?

We visited a Fair Trade Certified pottery shop, a chocolate factory making candy from jungle cacao, and a textile weaving company. All incredible to see. When you see the work, time and detail that goes into making items, and the faces behind that labor, it gives you a much deeper appreciation for the products they produce. The final leg of our journey led us to the magical heights of the lost Incan city of Machu Picchu and many sightings of llamas and alpacas, the fur of which is used to make a plethora of Peruvian textile products. Overall an unforgettable experience that taught me never to take hand-made items in our stores for granted. You can make a difference — what we buy does matter—so always look for the Fair Trade symbol whenever possible. #FairTradeSummit

How to Help Groups Directly Fighting the Amazon Fires

by

Do you feel concerned about the Amazon fires in the Amazon? We would like to share our research on the causes of this problem, as well as ideas on how you can help to make a change.

The Amazon Rainforest remains an integral symbol to our planet’s natural history. This massive rainforest that encompasses most of the Northern sections of South America is one of the last vestiges of ancient rainforest life we have left on the planet. Historically speaking, as a species, we have had a shared, yet complex relationship with the Amazon. It is important to add that to this day, numerous indigenous cultures live within its biome.

Unfortunately, due to the gradually increasing changes in climate over the last hundreds of years, and questionable relationships between governments, economies, and their people, the Amazon Rainforest has seen a sharp decline in its expanse, and its health. According to the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), the recent increases in fires are directly correlated with the increase of deforestation instances. The dry season months (May through August) commonly have forest fires, but not to the extent measured thus far.

Deforestation is the act of clearing a wide area of trees to change the purpose of the land. This practice was implemented on a concerning scale starting in the 1970s to increase their export rates of beef, soy and other agricultural crops by creating space for cattle ranching and the development of more fertile soils. In order to make these clearings, slash-and-burn techniques are mainly used. In the hands of a farmer inexperienced with the technique, or in a program regulating a mass scale of the practice, these fires can spread recklessly. After a decade of regulations which gradually decreased the incidence of fires in Brazil, the number spiked again in 2019 with instances as of this recent Summer season reaching an appalling 84,000+.

On a grand scale, if we do not save the burning Amazon, our “Earth’s lungs”, the rate of carbon emissions polluting the atmosphere will increase. We encourage our readers to take the time to research this alarming sequence of fires and what can be done to help contribute to the healing process of the afflicted lands, organisms, and peoples. Below are several nonprofit
organizations dedicated to such goals:

Vote for the Environment on Election Day

by

 

The 2018 November midterm election is Tuesday, November 6th and is crucial as we vote for congressional leaders that that can either strengthen or weaken national environmental laws. As voters, we should be aware that our votes have far-reaching consequences. Though not well reported by mainstream media, the current federal leadership has been actively rolling back multiple environmental policies within the United States established by prior administrations over the last 2 years. The Trump administration has been responsible for changes through the following acts, including, but not exclusive to:

  • EPA: Cutting major departmental funding to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 31% (a roughly $2.5 Billion decrease), resulting in the loss of about 50 government-issue programs and 3,200 jobs that protect our air, water and endangered species;
  • Energy: Trump removed the United States from an International Climate Agreement that had taken decades to develop, leaving the U.S. as the only major nation not to participate in agreed upon greenhouse gas reductions; and also removed the Clean Power Plan which would have lowered the carbon dioxide emitted by electric power generators. This administration is emphasizing more resilience on coal, which is a high soot and carbon emitting fuel, rather than investing in cleaner renewable methods of energy sources, despite documented economic growth in the clean energy sector;
  • Water: enacted an executive order to allow the Administrator of the EPA to revise or rescind the Clean Water Rule, a section of the Clean Water Act offering protections for streams and wetlands;
  • Climate Change: Refusal of recognizing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading scientific body on the subject, and other authoritative scientific research in energy policy creation. Instead The administration relies on a partisan non-for-profit organization, the Institute for Energy Research, as their informational basis. Trump’s first pick for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has since resigned due to an ethics related controversy, had a history of supporting pro-fossil-fuel interests;
  • Parks & National Monument Lands: Reduction in protected acreage, and opening up public lands and bodies of water (including breaching Native reservations) to access coal and oil reserves;
  • Vehicle Fuel standards: rolling back the Obama administration’s fuel efficiency and emissions standards for passenger and light duty vehicles which would have increased the average fuel economy of manufacturers’ fleets to 50MPG by 2025.
  • Lead paint: though experts agree lead regulations need to be made stricter, Pruitt asked for a waiver to delay revising current regulations for 6 more years;
  • Pesticides: Pruitt denied a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide, though research has shown that even small amounts of chlorpyrifos can disrupt the development of fetuses and infants;
  • Endangered Species: Cut funding to States for protections of endangered species;
  • Plastics: However, on one good note, in October, Trump signed Save Our Seas Act targeting plastic marine waste. More of this would be welcome;

Voters should hold our elected officials accountable for policies that pose a threat to human health and the sustainability of our water, air, land, and wildlife. We have the power to choose nominees that help create positive dialogues in Congress towards a cleaner environment. Please share this information and be sure to vote at your designated polling place on November 6, 2018. (Green Inside and Out is a non-partisan organization.)

85% of Textiles- That’s What We Waste

by

At the recent Textile Waste Summit in New York City, there were fashion designers creating patterns that produce fewer fabric scraps, the NYC Department of Sanitation talking about their Donate NYC app to find clothing collection bins around the city, and nonprofit organizations helping to educate and create markets for recycled fabrics. It was all to address a major area of waste—textiles.

According to the NYS Association for Reduction, Reuse and Recycling (NYSAR)’s Re-Clothe NY Campaign, the average NY resident puts 70lbs of clothing, shoes and other textiles in the trash each year (it’s an average 80lbs/pp nationwide). That adds up to:

  • 1.4 billion lbs of clothing and textile waste per year in NY (NYSDEC)
  • 15 million tons wasted annually in the U.S. on whole.

Almost all fabrics can be recycled – pure fabric fibers can easily be recycled into new fabrics, and fabric blends (meaning those that combine cotton with polyester, for example) are a bit more difficult to recycle because the materials must be separated out, but it can be done. Unfortunately most of this waste is put in landfills, some is incinerated, and some is used to make car seat stuffing and insulation materials.

What is the best option for consumers? Only buy what you need and make it last. The second best option is clothing donation. Clothing that is clean and wearable can be donated to various thrift stores for resale such as Goodwill or Salvation Army. Anything that does not get sold within a certain time period is usually sent to developing nations for their second hand market.

For more info see:

Hear my radio interview with Dan Lilkas Rain of NYSAR here.

Live in NYC?

Apartment buildings with 10 or more units can sign up for refashionNYC, a partnership between NYC and Housing Works that provides convenient, in-building drop-off service for clothing, accessories, and textiles. Free donation bins available. NYC has a goal of zero waste to landfills by 2030! #0X30