Latest news with #JoshuaA.Bickel
Boston Globe
14-05-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
What the EPA's partial rollback of the ‘forever chemical' drinking water rule means
Now, we know the EPA plans to rescind limits for certain PFAS and lengthen deadlines for two of the most common types. Here are some of the essential things to know about PFAS chemicals and what the EPA decided to do: Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Please explain what PFAS are to me Advertisement PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation's air, water and soil. They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry. The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment. And why are they bad for humans? Environmental activists say that PFAS manufacturers knew about the health harms of PFAS long before they were made public. The same attributes that make the chemicals so valuable – resistance to breakdown – make them hazardous to people. Advertisement PFAS accumulates in the body, which is why the Biden administration set limits for two common types, often called PFOA and PFOS, at 4 parts per trillion that are phased out of manufacturing but still present in the environment. Vials containing samples of forever chemicals, known as PFAS, sit in a tray, in April 2024. Joshua A. Bickel/Associated Press There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS. Cases of kidney disease, low-birth weight and high cholesterol in addition to certain cancers can be prevented by removing PFAS from water, according to the EPA. The guidance on PFOA and PFOS has changed dramatically in recent years as scientific understanding has advanced. The EPA in 2016, for example, said the combined amount of the two substances should not exceed 70 parts per trillion. The Biden administration later said no amount is safe. There is nuance in what the EPA did The EPA plans to scrap limits on three types of PFAS, some of which are less well known. They include GenX substances commonly found in North Carolina as well as substances called PFHxS and PFNA. There is also a limit on a mixture of PFAS, which the agency is also planning to rescind. It appears few utilities will be impacted by the withdrawal of limits for these types of PFAS. So far, sampling has found nearly 12% of U.S. water utilities are above the Biden administration's limits. But most utilities face problems with PFOA or PFOS. For the two commonly found types, PFOA and PFOS, the EPA will keep the current limits in place but give utilities two more years — until 2031 — to meet them. Announcement is met with mixed reaction Some environmental groups argue that the EPA can't legally weaken the regulations. The Safe Water Drinking Act gives the EPA authority to limit water contaminants, and it includes a provision meant to prevent new rules from being looser than previous ones. Advertisement 'The law is very clear that the EPA can't repeal or weaken the drinking water standard,' said Erik Olson, a senior strategist at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. Environmental activists have generally slammed the EPA for not keeping the Biden-era rules in place, saying it will worsen public health. Industry had mixed reactions. The American Chemistry Council questioned the Biden administration's underlying science that supported the tight rules and said the Trump administration had considered the concerns about cost and the underlying science. 'However, EPA's actions only partially address this issue, and more is needed to prevent significant impacts on local communities and other unintended consequences,' the industry group said. Leaders of two major utility industry groups, the American Water Works Association and Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, said they supported the EPA's decision to rescind a novel approach to limit a mix of chemicals. But they also said the changes do not substantially reduce the cost of the PFAS rule. Some utilities wanted a higher limit on PFOA and PFOS, according to Mark White, drinking water leader at the engineering firm CDM Smith. They did, however, get an extension. 'This gives water pros more time to deal with the ones we know are bad, and we are going to need more time. Some utilities are just finding out now where they stand,' said Mike McGill, president of WaterPIO, a water industry communications firm.
Winnipeg Free Press
07-05-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Energy Star, efficiency program that has steered consumer choice, targeted in cuts
An Environmental Protection Agency plan to eliminate its Energy Star offices would end a decades-old program that gave consumers a choice to buy environmentally friendly refrigerators, dishwashers and other electronics and save money on electric bills, consumer and environmental groups said. The changes, outlined in agency documents reviewed by The Associated Press, are part of a broad reorganization at the EPA that would eliminate or reorganize significant parts of the office focused on air pollution. Those plans advance President Donald Trump's sharp turn away from the prior administration's focus on climate change. The EPA did not confirm directly it was ending the program, first reported Tuesday by CNN, but said the reorganization 'is delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people and better advance the agency's core mission, while Powering the Great American Comeback.' FILE - An Energy Star logo is displayed on a box for a freezer Jan. 21, 2025, in Evendale, Ohio. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel, File) The EPA launched Energy Star in 1992 with the goal of tackling environmental protection and economic growth. It boosts the market for energy-efficient products and benefits companies that design appliances that earn the label. A home that decides to buy Energy Star products can save $450 annually on energy costs, the program's website says. 'People recognize it right away, so they would be like 'oh, it is Energy Star, so I should probably go with this one,'' said Francis Dietz, spokesperson with the trade association Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said the program enjoyed bipartisan support until recently. It promotes efficiency by tightening standards when lots of products are able to meet the label requirements, he said. Big savings in money and pollution Since its start, the program has reduced energy costs by more than $500 billion and prevented about 4 billion metric tons of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, according to its website. Appliances can be responsible for tons of air pollution, but efficiency measures can reduce the carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and fine particulate matter that producing the electricity releases into the atmosphere. These pollutants can harm the heart and lungs, and cause other health issues. Trump's proposed budget asks that Congress eliminate the EPA's entire Atmospheric Protection Program, which houses the offices that run Energy Star. The budget described the program as 'an overreach of Government authority that imposes unnecessary and radical climate change regulations on businesses and stifles economic growth.' But Sarah Gleeson, climate solutions research manager at the climate action nonprofit Project Drawdown, said America's energy independence depends on the ability to meet U.S. energy demands, and cutting the program imperils that and strains households at the same time. Gleeson said losing Energy Star will make it harder for consumers to have trustworthy information about products' energy use. Label is voluntary, and Congress ordered it The Energy Star label is voluntary for products that meet certain efficiency levels, and differs from Department of Energy standards that set minimum efficiency requirements that products must meet to be legally sold. In the 2000s, Congress directed the EPA and Department of Energy to run an energy-efficiency program and promote Energy Star. The DOE did not comment on the changes and its role moving forward, deferring questions to the EPA. According to the program's website, DOE's role includes developing product testing procedures. The EPA is responsible for setting performance levels and ensuring consumers can rely on the label. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers said it supports a streamlined Energy Star program through the DOE. Spokeswoman Jill Notini said that 'would meet the administration's goals of preserving a full selection of products from which consumers can choose, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden.' The move is the latest in the Trump administration's broader deregulatory effort. They've announced plans to slash Biden-era policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prioritized fossil fuels and an energy-dominance policy. Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter Winnipeg Jets Game Days On Winnipeg Jets game days, hockey writers Mike McIntyre and Ken Wiebe send news, notes and quotes from the morning skate, as well as injury updates and lineup decisions. Arrives a few hours prior to puck drop. Sign up for The Warm-Up The president has been particularly keen on eliminating efficiency standards, arguing they result in products that cost more and are less effective, and that they deny consumer choice. Trump has reversed rules restricting water flow for showerheads and other household appliances. Trump targeted Energy Star during his first stint in the White House, but faced backlash. 'For an administration who keeps claiming the country is facing an 'energy emergency,' Trump continues to attack any and all efforts aimed at saving energy through efficiency,' Xavier Boatright, deputy legislative director for clean energy and electrification at Sierra Club said in a statement. 'When we waste energy through inefficient appliances the fossil fuel industry uses it as an excuse to extract and sell more of its product to make more money on the backs of the American people.' ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit
Global News
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Global News
Ontario's new mining bill is a ‘vendetta' against species at risk: environmentalists
Ontario is moving to gut protections for endangered plants and animals as part of a mining bill, environmental groups say, with some calling it the most comprehensive attack on the province's at-risk species legislation in nearly two decades. The province disputes that characterization. Yet, policy advocates who reviewed the proposed legislation say the sweeping changes would erode already loosely enforced protections for more than 200 at-risk species, while giving the government greater power over scientists to decide what gets protected. 'This is really the most comprehensive undermining of the (Endangered Species Act) we've seen,' said Laura Bowman, a staff lawyer with environmental law charity Ecojustice. Last week, the province tabled an omnibus bill it says is aimed at speeding up new mining projects. As part of that bill, the government eyes immediate changes to the Endangered Species Act, which it ultimately plans to repeal and replace with a new law. Story continues below advertisement The process to obtain a permit under the current law is 'slow and complex,' the government's proposal said, and the changes would offer a 'reasonable, balanced approach to protecting species in Ontario.' Environmentalists say there's nothing balanced about the approach. View image in full screen A male Bobolink stands in grass near its nest, Tuesday, June 20, 2023, in Denton, Neb. (AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel). JB The government wants to dramatically narrow what 'habitat' means and do away with requirements to create a strategy for how to recover at-risk species. It also appears to give itself greater power over an independent science-based committee to add and remove species from a protected list. 'I don't think this is a major benefit to any industry. I think… it's just an irrational vendetta against species that some industrial players are blaming for their delays,' said Bowman. The definition of habitat would change from the entire area needed for a species to survive, to just its nest or den and the area immediately surrounding it. The changes would also strip the government of a responsibility to develop recovery strategies and management plans for at-risk species. Story continues below advertisement They would also allow companies to start developing a project that could destroy habitat or kill at-risk species without first getting a permit. Instead, the government is proposing to move to a not-yet-defined 'registration-first approach' for all projects, which it says is already in place for most. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Critics fear registrations will only require broad, standardized measures to mitigate impacts to at-risk species, rather than project-specific permits that require a company to show how they plan to help. 'It's very simplistic, it's not rooted in the latest science,' said Anna Baggio, conservation director of Wildlands League. 'They're not even trying to pretend anymore, nature and biodiversity is just something in the way of development.' A spokesperson for Environment, Conservation and Parks Minister Todd McCarthy said the proposed Species Conservation Act, which will replace the Endangered Species Act, will establish 'robust environmental protections by creating clear, enforceable rules for businesses to follow and strengthen the ability to enforce species conservation laws.' 'This includes creating a mandatory requirement to register their project and tough fines for non-compliance – there will be no tolerance for bad actors,' said Alex Catherwood. 0:54 Northumberland Land Trust secures large wetland in Brighton, Ont. The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario, also known as COSSARO, would continue to provide science-based advice on the listing of species, Catherwood said. Story continues below advertisement Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said the new bill has caused him to rethink his plan to support the government's moves to help workers in the face of the US trade war. 'That goodwill gets undermined when you then use it to completely dismantle vital environmental protection and Indigenous consultation and consent,' Schreiner said. 'If you're an animal or plant in Ontario, this is a pretty bad day for you, but it's a bad day for people too because healthy ecosystems are vital to human survival and to undermine that I think is just reckless, dangerous, and short sighted.' Many First Nations have come out against the proposed changes designed to speed up mining in their traditional territories, though some are in support. The mining industry supports the changes. An industry association representing Ontario homebuilders also welcomed the changes and blamed permit delays in part on what it called a process that is 'expensive, slow, and unnecessarily complicated.' The new legislation would clear up the definition of endangered species and help 'increase protections while allowing approvals for vital projects to go forward in a timely manner,' said Andres Ibarguen, a spokesperson for the Ontario Home Builders Association. Between 2015 and 2021 it took on average 851 days to complete a development-related permit process, but as of August 2020 that number had come down to 256 days, the province's auditor general reported in 2021. Companies that complained to higher levels within the Environment Ministry were found to have received permits 43 per cent faster. Story continues below advertisement Permits were also delayed for some conservation work and fast-tracked for some developers, the audit found. Ministry staff suggested delays to a permit to help conserve the Massasauga rattlesnake likely contributed to the species becoming locally extinct, the report said. Premier Doug Ford's government has feverishly overhauled Ontario's nature protection and oversight rules in recent years in what it suggests is a bid to speed up the construction of homes, mines, highways and other infrastructure in Ontario. Ford teed off last year when asked about curbing environmental protections to get Highway 413 built, which included shrinking protected habitat for the red side dace, a fish in the project's path. 'Let's build the damn highway,' he said. 'There's millions of people stuck in their cars, backed up from here to Timbuktu, and you're worried about a grasshopper jumping across the highway. We need to start building and we're going to start building, simple as that.' Ontario's endangered species law, once considered a gold standard for its automatic protection for critical habitat and science-based assessments, has been repeatedly weakened by regulations, environmental groups say. Forestry companies have been exempted from the law since it was passed, a carveout made permanent during the pandemic despite the possible risks to endangered caribou. Since 2021, developers have been allowed to pay into a conservation fund instead of taking on-site measures to protect species. Story continues below advertisement That fund will now be wound down since the registration approach won't include the option to pay a fee, the government's proposal said. To date, none of the money had been spent on species protections. The government says the funds will still go toward activities 'in alignment' with species protection and conservation goals. It's also quadrupling a species conservation program to $20 million annually to support 'efforts to conserve and protect listed species,' said Catherwood, the minister's spokesperson. What protections do exist in law for at-risk species have been found to be laxly applied and enforced. The Environment Ministry has never turned down an application to harm a species or its habitat, the auditor general reported in 2021. Most approvals were granted automatically without review and no inspections were carried out to make sure companies followed their conditions once work started. The ministry also didn't consider the cumulative impact of permitting activities that could repeatedly harm the same species, the audit found. Blanding turtles, which have seen their numbers decline by 60 per cent over three generations largely due to habitat loss, had been impacted by more than 1,400 approvals from 2007 to 2021, the report found. Bobolink, a grassland songbird whose numbers have collapsed by 77 per cent since the 1970s, had been impacted by more than 2,000 approvals. Story continues below advertisement A 2023 follow-up report found the government had fully implemented four of the auditor's 52 recommendations. Seventeen had seen little or no progress and 22 would not be implemented.
