Latest news with #E.P.A.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Admin Plans to Delay, Eliminate Limits on ‘Forever Chemicals' in U.S. Drinking Water
The Trump administration announced on Wednesday that it plans to eliminate and postpone rules aimed at reducing 'forever chemicals' contaminating drinking water across the country. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A), exposure to PFAS — a class of highly toxic, long-lasting compounds also known as 'forever chemicals' — has been linked to cancer, decreased fertility in women, developmental effects in children, immune system issues, interference with the body's natural hormones, and more. At least 45 percent of America's tap water is estimated to have one or more types of PFAS. Last year, former President Joe Biden set first-ever limits on PFAS, requiring water utilities to begin bringing down contamination levels of six types of PFAS chemicals — while setting a strict limit of four parts per trillion for two of those chemicals, PFOA and PFOS. Despite the plethora of research warning against the dangers of forever chemicals in water, the E.P.A. said that while it will uphold the limits for those two types of PFAS, it will extend a deadline requiring water utilities to meet those limits to 2031. The E.P.A. also said it plans to eliminate and reconsider the limits for the other four chemicals — PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS — listed.'We are on a path to uphold the agency's nationwide standards to protect Americans from PFOA and PFOS in their water,' Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A. administrator, said in a statement. 'At the same time, we will work to provide common-sense flexibility in the form of additional time for compliance. This will support water systems across the country, including small systems in rural communities, as they work to address these contaminants.' President Donald Trump and his allies have escalated attacks on clean water protections. Through E.P.A. deregulations and cuts, Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and bills in Congress, Trump and conservatives are systematically eroding rules aimed at providing Americans with clean, healthy water. In March, Zeldin said he would look to significantly reduce a significant portion of the waterways, such as wetlands, rivers, and streams, that are protected under the Clean Water Act, a 1972 law that regulates the discharge of pollutants in water. Trump's Office of Management and Budget separately withdrew a proposed EPA rule in January to set limits on the discharge of forever chemicals in wastewater. The president's administration did so based on Trump's executive order on Day One freezing all regulations in progress pending review. 'This agenda to deregulate, this agenda to gut the federal government, to dismantle the federal government, eliminate core functions of our government, remove these protections, it's just an ideology,' Mary Grant, Public Water for All Campaign Director at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, previously told Rolling Stone. 'And they're acting on it without without care for how it impacts people, for how it impacts our access to safe water.' More from Rolling Stone 10 Terrible Policies in Trump and the GOP's Bill to Cut Taxes for the Rich Robert De Niro Drags Trump, Calls Art 'Threat to Autocrats' in Cannes Speech Trump's ICE Used a Woman's Kids and Grandchild as 'Bait' to Arrest Her Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why would Trump's EPA shut down the successful Energy Star program?
If you've ever shopped for appliances — refrigerators, dishwashers, even computers — you've probably noticed the blue star on the box, letting consumers know that the product meets the government's energy efficiency standards. That label is part of the Energy Star program, and for more than three decades, it hasn't been controversial in the slightest. Nevertheless, during Donald Trump's first term as president, the Republican White House unveiled a budget plan that eliminated the Energy Star program, for reasons the administration struggled to explain. The industry backlash was swift: Exactly eight years ago this week, The Associated Press reported that more than 1,000 U.S. companies, including some of the nation's largest manufacturers, urged policymakers to preserve the program. The AP's report added at the time, 'The program costs about $50 million per year to administer, while saving consumers more than $34 billion per year in reduced energy costs.' In 2017, the lobbying campaign succeeded, and the Energy Star program lived to see another day. Eight years later, as The New York Times reported, Trump and his EPA are apparently eager to finish the job: The Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate Energy Star, the popular energy efficiency certification for dishwashers, refrigerators, dryers and other home appliances, according to agency documents and a recording of an internal meeting. E.P.A. managers announced during a staff meeting on Monday that divisions that oversee climate change and energy efficiency would be eliminated as part of an agency reorganization. That includes the E.P.A.'s climate change office as well as the division that oversees Energy Star. According to a recording obtained by the Times, Paul Gunning, the director of the EPA's Office of Atmospheric Protection, told employees, 'The Energy Star program and all the other climate work, outside of what's required by statute, is being de-prioritized and eliminated.' (The reporting has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News.) An EPA spokeswoman did not confirm that the program was being eliminated. She told the Times that the EPA had announced 'organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people and better advance the agency's core mission.' Note, eight years ago, the Republican administration set out to zero out the Energy Star program through the budgetary process. In 2025, however, Team Trump is apparently taking a more direct and unilateral approach, overhauling the EPA's structure and scrapping the offices that oversee the project. There is no constituency for such a move. Support for the Energy Star program has long been bipartisan — it was created under George H.W. Bush's presidency — and it's one of only a handful of landmark energy policies that have been celebrated by environmentalists and industry advocates alike. It costs almost nothing to administer, and it's delivered massive annual savings every year for decades. The Times' report added that Energy Star 'has helped households and businesses save more than $500 billion in energy costs and to get rebates and tax credits, according to the program's 2024 report. At the same time, it has also prevented four billion metric tons of greenhouse gases from being released into the atmosphere.' Even from a conservative perspective, this is precisely the kind of public-private partnership that the right has championed for many years. No one, in other words, would benefit from this kind of change. So if the Times' reporting is correct, why in the world is this happening? By all appearances, it's because much of the modern Republican Party has embraced the idea that taking energy efficiency seriously is ridiculous. We've seen overwhelming evidence of this among GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill in recent years — see the 'Refrigerator Freedom Act,' the 'Liberty in Laundry Act,' the 'Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act,' the 'Clothes Dryers Reliability Act,' et al. — and the same perspective has clearly been embraced at the White House. There was a time when the so-called 'culture war' focused on abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. In contemporary politics, however, energy efficiency has been added to the list. This article was originally published on
New York Times
05-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
18 States Sue Over Trump's Halting of Wind Power Projects
Eighteen states sued the Trump administration Monday over its halting of permits for wind-energy projects, arguing that its actions posed an existential threat to the burgeoning industry. 'This administration is devastating one of our nation's fastest-growing sources of clean, reliable and affordable energy,' said Attorney General Letitia James of New York, which is one of the plaintiffs. She said the halt threatened 'the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in investments' and was 'delaying our transition away from the fossil fuels that harm our health and our planet.' The halt on federal permits for wind energy was first laid out in a Jan. 20 executive order, one of a barrage that President Trump signed immediately upon taking office. It directed agencies to stop all permits for wind farms pending federal review. The lawsuit says that, by complying, federal agencies have put major investments that have already been made at risk. The order also instructed the United States attorney general and the interior secretary to explore 'terminating or amending' existing leases to wind farms, further increasing uncertainty for companies. The wind industry provides about 10 percent of the nation's electricity, and has many new projects under development, particularly in the Great Plains and the Atlantic Ocean. Last month, the Trump administration halted a major wind farm under construction off the coast of Long Island, the Empire Wind project. It was designed to provide enough electricity to power a half-million homes. It had already received the permits it needed, but Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggested the Biden administration's analysis during the approval process was rushed and insufficient. Ms. James noted that Mr. Trump had also declared an energy emergency. Energy experts have called that declaration overstated. Nevertheless, she said, the moratorium on wind permits is harming the ability to provide a new source of energy. New York also has a new law on the books requiring it to dramatically increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewable sources. Achieving that goal will become more complicated without wind sources. The lawsuit names numerous federal officials and agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department. The E.P.A. didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, accused the Democratic attorneys general who sued of using 'lawfare' to thwart the president's energy agenda. 'Americans in blue states should not have to pay the price of the Democrats' radical climate agenda,' she said. The Interior Department said in a statement that it was committed to 'overseeing public lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans, while prioritizing fiscal responsibility for the American people.' The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, asks a judge to prevent federal agencies from taking any action to block wind-energy development and to declare the executive order unlawful. 'The Trump administration's directive to halt the development of offshore wind energy is illegal,' said Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California. His office said the federal policy would 'derail the clean energy transition' and lead to higher costs for Americans. In addition to onshore wind sites, the state has five federal offshore wind leases, the office said. Offshore operations are more complicated and expensive to operate. ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington consulting firm, said that it expected the lawsuit to face an 'uphill climb' in convincing the court to block the executive order. The firm's 'best-case scenario' for the offshore wind industry is that facilities that are already operating, or far along in development, may continue without opposition from the Trump administration, it said.
New York Times
02-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Out at the E.P.A.: Independent Scientists. In: Approving New Chemicals.
The Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday that it would disperse scientists from its independent research office to other divisions where they among other things will be tasked with approving the use of new chemicals. Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the changes to the E.P.A. in a video, saying the agency was 'shifting its scientific expertise' to focus on issues he described as 'mission essential.' Most of the immediate changes will affect the Office of Research and Development, the E.P.A.'s main research arm that conducts studies on things like the health and environmental risks of 'forever chemicals' in drinking water and the best way to reduce fine particle pollution in the atmosphere. An internal document previously reviewed by The New York Times outlined the Trump administration's recommendation to eliminate that office, with plans to fire as many as 1,155 chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists working on health and environmental research. That didn't happen on Friday, but the agency's new priorities were made clear: One hundred and thirty jobs will be moved to an office at the agency tasked with approving new chemicals for use, Mr. Zeldin said. Chemicals industry groups have long complained of a backlog in approvals, which they say is stifling innovation. At an all-hands staff meeting late Friday, Nancy Beck, a former lobbyist at the American Chemistry Council who now heads the E.P.A.'s chemicals office, told stunned scientists that it was 'a very exciting time.' 'I encourage everyone throughout the agency to apply for these positions,' she said. Trump administration officials indicated that more changes were in store for the research office. Scientists who were on the call said they were left with the impression that if they did not move into one of the new areas, their current jobs might be eliminated. Also on Friday, the E.P.A. extended a deadline for accepting a deferred resignation offer to May 9. 'This feels like the Hunger Games,' said one employee of the research office who spoke on condition of anonymity, for fear of retaliation. Other scientists will move into the administrator's office as part of a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, which Mr. Zeldin said would 'put science at the forefront of the agency's rule making.' Democrats and environmental activists warned the move would politicize scientific research. 'This so-called 'reorganization' is a thinly veiled attempt to extinguish the agency's world-renowned scientific expertise by shuffling scientists to process chemical reviews for industry,' Representative Chellie Pingree, Democrat of Maine, said in a statement. The research office 'is intentionally separate from E.P.A.'s policy offices, ensuring it produces unbiased studies,' said Chitra Kumar, the managing director of the climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. Moving the scientists into policy offices 'could subject those experts to political influence, particularly in this administration,' she said. The changes come amid a major deregulatory drive at the agency. The E.P.A. under Mr. Zeldin is revising or repealing more than 30 regulations aimed at protecting the air, water and climate. The administrator also is overseeing an effort to dismantle the legal underpinning for most climate regulations, known as the endangerment finding.
New York Times
29-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump's 100 Days of Upending Climate Policy
Before President Trump returned to office, it was widely expected that his administration would again reduce support for clean energy, promote fossil fuels and disengage from global efforts to combat climate change. But during his first 100 days, Trump's efforts to roll back regulations and stop climate action have shocked even those who were raising the alarm in the months before the election. 'Full-on fight club' is how one environmental lawyer described it to us last month. Some of the moves coming out of the White House were well telegraphed. Yet, in several other cases, they have gone far beyond what was expected. For example, we reported on Monday that the Trump administration has dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the National Climate Assessment, the federal government's flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country. There are two big reasons for this: First, Congress has not passed a comprehensive environmental law in more than three decades, ceding climate policy to the executive branch. And, in his second term, Trump has stretched the limits of presidential power, withholding spending, firing workers and upending years of climate action. 'This is worse than any previous administration,' said Gina McCarthy, the E.P.A. administrator under President Obama. 'He can do a lot of damage to the agency, and when he leaves, he will have left devastation in his wake.' Trump, who has called climate change 'a hoax,' took more than $75 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests, and campaigned on a pledge to 'drill, baby, drill.' And, in the first months of his second term, he has made good on his promise to promote the oil and gas industry. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
