Thoughts: Pause before reacting to news regarding 'Proposed Changes' to EPA and other Federal Agencies

Source: EPA (Twitter)

One model of the popular news is based on 'fear' -- propagating/inciting fear -- to get the most 'eyeballs' on a given story.  The thought is to produce news which is extremely controversial in nature and install fear into the story, while receiving the most 'eyeballs' from a given audience.  Don't forget to run ads on the sides of the articles to generate revenue.  Each of us react differently to news.  Take for instance the headline shown below of a recent news article from USA Today shown below:

Source: USA Today

Regardless of the degree of reaction (negative/positive), each of us would be well served to take a pause and consider the degree of threat each story poses to our daily life/safety or to our environment.   In the blog post below, I offer a video in which a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency offers an opinion on the degree of truth behind news bites regarding 'Proposed' changes by either a federal agency (EPA, FDA, USDA, CDC, etc.) or a presidential administration (such as President Trump's administration currently).

Repeal or Not Repeal?

The news is good at producing eye-catching headlines like the one displayed above.  Further, at first sight the headline implies that the 'proposal' to 'repeal' or 'make changes' is absolute and without question.  In previous blog posts on this site, this is not the case at the outset.  More complications come into play when changing or repealing a law which has been enacted.  I came to the understanding of this reality last year while listening to a series of online webinars from the American Association of the Advancement of Science(AAAS).  The Facebook page for the AAAS has a series of webinars which can be viewed on demand.



Dr. Rush Holt, the current CEO of AAAS engaged in a discussion in which he described the reality of repealing or changing a current law enacted by a federal agency or congress -- which was extremely informative.  But why should we be listening to Dr. Rush Holt -- the CEO of AAAS?  The reason is that prior to a career spent in research at Princeton University, Dr. Rush Holt (who is a physicist) served as a U.S Representative for New Jersey's 12th congressional District from 1999 to 2015.  During his tenure in congress, Dr. Holt learned a tremendous amount regarding the processes which turn the wheels moving the country forward on a day to day basis.  Therefore, when Dr. Holt says that laws are in place which can only be replaced by laws which are "better" for the environment -- then I tend to believe him.



Although, what if people (readers) choose not to believe him.  Fair enough.  You may choose to believe the next source I have to provide.  Below is a video of a recent interview between veteran reporter Stephanie Ruhle and former EPA Administrator Christine

Wow.



In the video above, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out the overall complications with the previous EPA Administrator - Scott Pruitt.  Namely, that on a day to day basis, Administrator Pruitt would announce publicly that he was going to 'repeal back an Obama administration regulation'.  Although, as pointed out by former congressman Rush Holt above, that statement is usually followed by legal action -- especially, if the new guidelines put the nation at greater risk of environmental damage.



Remember, to repeal or replace a regulation, the new proposed regulation cannot due more damage to the environment than the previous (or replaced) regulation did.



Additionally, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out that the overall approach to changing (repealing or modifying) an existing regulation has to be done by the following approach: "This is why we think that the existing regulation is bad for the environment and here is the study to back up this assertion" -- along that avenue of reasoning.  Otherwise, the regulation will not be changed at all.

Example-Court Rules against Electric Companies?

Yes, the headline is written correctly.  For all of the news of 'roll-backs' or 'repeals' happening in the Trump Administration, the reality is the opposite.  An example is a lawsuit just ruled against by a panel of judges in Massachusetts.  Here is the news brief from 'Politico Energy' sent yesterday morning via e-mail to subscribers:

COURT SAYS MASSACHUSETTS CARBON CAP APPLIES TO UTILITIES: Massachusetts' top court on Tuesday ruled that electric utilities are indeed subject to the state's major climate change law, including a shrinking cap on carbon emissions imposed last year following an order from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. The New England Power Generators Association and GenOn argued that the cap cannot apply to the electric sector because it is already regulated under another part of the state law. But the seven-member Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the two parts of the law "complement each other," adding: "Given that the electric sector is one of the largest in-state greenhouse gas emission sources, it would make little to no sense for the Legislature to have excluded it from the critical emission reduction requirements."

The case did not meet the criteria for a reversal or repeal on the ban.  Why would it?  As former EPA Administrator points out correctly, a large percentage of large (huge) corporations are actually falling in line with new environmental regulations (even those set in place by the Obama Administration).   Only the 'outliers' who are in jeopardy from not keeping up with the changing (sustainable) measures are crying out and lobbying the Trump Administration.  Which is attempting to 'roll back' or 'repeal' to protect these dying companies.



In fact, a critical statement made in the video above is that the 'route' or 'method' taken by the Trump Administration is not correct and often fails in courts (i.e. a legal battle) - which is not surprising. I have been saying all along over the past two years that the greatest threat to the Trump Administration is the lack toward attention to detail.  Which specific departments like the State Department and other federal agencies can greatly assist in creating legislation which will actually challenge existing regulations.  Although, the change has to be grounded in 'sound science'.



Speaking of regulations and emissions, in the same e-mail sent yesterday by Politico Energy, a short poll was taken on emission standards and pollution linked to higher adverse health incidences.  Here is the excerpt as reported by the journalist shown below:

HOW ACE IS PLAYING OUT: EPA's own estimates on its proposed Affordable Clean Energy plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is turning off voters, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found. When asked whether EPA "estimates that the proposal could, in some scenarios, increase annual premature deaths from certain particulate emissions by up to 1,400 by 2030" would make voters more or less likely to support the plan, 30 percent of respondents said it would make them "much more likely to oppose" the plan. Fifteen percent said it would make them "somewhat more likely" to oppose the ACE plan, while 9 percent and 13 percent said it would make them "much more likely to support" or "somewhat more likely to support" the plan, respectively.

Asked a similar question about agency estimates that the proposal could reduce 2030 carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 1.5 percent from projected levels without the existing Clean Power Plan, 15 percent of voters said that knowledge would make them either "somewhat more" or "much more" likely to oppose the plan, while 45 percent said the opposite. The poll was conducted Aug. 28-31, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. It surveyed 1,964 registered voters.

Not surprising to say the least.

Conclusion...

The overall approach by the Trump Administration has met considerable opposition in courts.  Which is not surprising given the lack of evidence to support such repeals.  If the science was questionable, then a reasonable argument could be made.  But as I mentioned above and in previous blog posts which can be found here, the efforts have been largely unsuccessful -- especially since large corporations are already moving toward investing in sustainable energy technology.  Shell announced earlier this year such efforts.  Still, the Trump Administration chooses to argue with congress over science which is settled.



The world is composed of many parts moving at varying speeds.  Different nations move at different speeds with regard toward implementing more sustainable policies at various levels within their respective government.  The United States is one nation moving forward -- not necessarily leading the sustainability future.  Although, over the past few years, investments into a more sustainable world have been made and are continuing to be realized.  We should be investing in a green future.  With that being said, the next time that news is aired which is counter toward forward progress, take pause and think about the probability of the adverse impact actually becoming a reality.  There are certain steps in place in congress to ensure that forward progress is inevitable. That is where we should spend our focus and energy on.



Related Blog Posts:


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards

Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!

Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?

Source: EPA

The week began with an update (a blog post) regarding the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to hold 'a conference' to explore the dangers of PerFluoroOctanoic Acid (PFOA) and PerFluoroOctaneSulfonic Acide (PFOS).  This conference was in response to the breaking news last week that the White House was suppressing a health report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which was about to be released regarding the safety of the chemicals above.  The levels of the PerFluoroAlkyl compounds which were found in various geographical areas were disturbing as uncovered by Politico news.  Below is the disturbing update regarding the conference at the EPA -- which began with quite a hiccup to say the least -- or was it a hiccup?

Day 1 of PFAS Conference at EPA

As I just stated, the two day conference which was held at the EPA started roughly to say the least.  According to early reports by 'Politico Energy' the following disturbing event occurred at the beginning of the conference:

MAKE SOME ROOM — PFAS SUMMIT ENTERS DAY 2: It's the second and final day of EPA's summit on dangerous chemicals cropping up in drinking water supplies around the country. Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler will deliver opening remarks, but the rest of today's agenda is pretty vague, mostly listing "open discussions" among the state regulators, federal officials and other participants.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced Tuesday that he would take the first step toward regulating PFOA and PFOS. Today's proceedings will be closed to the press, an agency spokesman tells ME. EPA initially tried to bar reporters from most of Tuesday's proceedings, before reversing itself a few hours later, but the outcry over that move overshadowed much of the event (more on that below).

'NOBODY EVER ASKED US': Ahead of today's meeting, Pro's Annie Snider and Emily Holden confirmed that a controversial — and still unreleased — HHS chemical safety assessment will find that the contaminants can be dangerous at much lower exposures than EPA has previously said were safe. "Nobody ever asked us to change the numbers," Patrick Breysse, the head of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within HHS, told POLITICO. Breysse, who worked on the study, said the agencies involved were "getting close to finalizing it in January," but paused its release to come up with a better communications strategy to describe its findings. At the time, as POLITICO reported last week, a White House official worried of a "public relations nightmare" if the study were made public and asked EPA to intervene. While speaking on a panel at EPA's summit Tuesday, Breysse said the minimum risk levels reported last week for PFOA, PFOS and two other similar chemicals will remain the same when the assessment is released "soon."

Following up: Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito told reporters she is "not totally pleased" with EPA's response to the blocked release of a health study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis and would be following up with agency later this week after a national summit on the issue. "I think the health study that HHS put forward needs to be released," she said. "I want to have the full information and I want to find out what kind of levels are acceptable and then remediate the problems." And does she think Pruitt can adequately respond to her concerns? "Time will tell, honestly," she said.

— Separately, Sen. Tom Udall demanded to know why EPA tried to bar reporters from Tuesday's session — a decision that was eventually reversed a few hours later. Udall sent a letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt to express concern over EPA's "disturbing treatment" of journalists. "This intimidation of journalists seeking to cover a federal official presiding over important policy-making is un-American and unacceptable," Udall wrote, calling on Pruitt to apologize to reporters.

But EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox defended the agency in a statement, noting an Associated Press reporter who had been physically removed from EPA headquarters, "showed up" after being told ahead of time the event was at capacity. "When we were made aware of the incident, we displaced stakeholders to the overflow room who flew to Washington for this meeting so that every member of the press could have a seat," he said.

Which was after the evening reporting by news agencies which resulted in a tweet by Senator Tom Udall shown below:

Here is the 6 and 1/2 minute video below from CNN:

Wow.  Read more about the event (barring of news) from two additional news sources -- Politico and Reason Blog.  According to reporting on the website 'Reason' the conference was proposed based on chemical levels reported earlier by Politico as shown below:

The Summit is being held on the heels of the revelation in Politico that the EPA is apparently suppressing a new report on the safety of PFAS from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. That report suggested that the EPA's safe level of exposure at 70 parts per trillion is about six times too high. Most of the concerns about exposure to PFAS are based on a large number of epidemiological studies that detect fairly subtle health effects. Subtle, however, does not mean no effects.

Wow.  That was only on the first day of the conference.

Day 2 of PFAS Conference at EPA

After the press being thrown out of the EPA hosted conference on the first day, the EPA took a few heavy hits from congressional leaders and the press -- and rightfully so.  One would think that the possibility of throwing the press out of the conference on the second day would be not possible.  But, leave it to the Pruitt Administration to have the gull to attempt the ejection of the free press from the conference again as reported by Politico:

EPA staff Wednesday morning barred POLITICO and reporters from at least two other publications from entering a national summit on toxic chemicals, a day after a partial media blackout at the same event brought criticism from congressional Democrats and a pledge by the White House to investigate the incident.

The agency on Tuesday had allowed a select group of reporters to cover the first hour of the summit's introductory remarks, including comments by Administrator Scott Pruitt, but then escorted press out. EPA reversed its decision to ban media after news coverage of the policy and reports from the Associated Press that one of its journalists was forcibly ejected from the building by a security guard. Reporters were invited back for Tuesday afternoon.

But on Wednesday, the agency again said no reporters would be allowed to attend.

The event, where attendees are discussing whether and how to regulate a class of chemicals linked to immune disorders and certain cancers, included federal and state officials, health groups and industry interests on Tuesday. On Wednesday, it is limited to the agencies that handle chemical oversight and state regulators, according to an EPA statement.

This was such an outrageous action that Politico's Editor even made a statement on behalf of the press about the restriction of access to the conference:

"The summit was focused on an important public health crisis that has affected drinking water supplies across the country, and chemicals that are present in the bloodstreams of nearly all Americans," she said. "We believe it is important that the news media have access to the entirety of this discussion to keep the public informed with fact-driven, accountability coverage of this important issue — we would much rather be writing about the agency's efforts to address this health problem than about reporters being excluded."

Even more congressional leaders took to their twitter accounts.  Senator Tom Carper of the Environmental and Public Works Committee posted on twitter:

"I can’t believe I have to say this two days in a row, but @EPA works for the American people," Carper wrote. "Unfortunately, it’s clear that this EPA is more concerned with protecting the EPA chemical summit from the public than it is with protecting the public from harmful chemicals."

I am really amazed at the obvious lack of understanding of the current Administration that the government works for the people of the United States.  Their actions are funded by tax-payer money.  The actions of the EPA over the last couple of days have called on the Society of Environmental Journalists to take action and send a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt which is shown below:

May 23, 2018

Scott Pruitt, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 1101A

William Jefferson Clinton Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20460

via e-mail: Pruitt.scott@Epa.gov

Dear Administrator Pruitt:

The Society of Environmental Journalists strenuously objects to the Environmental Protection Agency’s selective barring of news reporters from your “National Leadership Summit” on per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water, and to the EPA physically forcing an Associated Press reporter from the premises.

It beggars understanding that the EPA would prevent any reporters from covering a topic of such intense nationwide interest and concern. But these are just the latest additions to your pattern of antagonism toward the press, and disregard for the public’s right to know what EPA is or is not doing to protect their health and the environment.

This meeting, organized well in advance to gather input on a critical public health policy initiative, as a matter of course should have admitted news reporters in order to inform the public about what occurred. But as recently as a couple weeks ago, your staff was informing reporters that there would be no room for the press at this invitation-only event, because there was not enough space in the room selected for it.

This is patently ridiculous. Surely, larger rooms were available at the EPA headquarters or in a nearby federal building or hotel.

Evidently your staff relented at some point on May 22 and agreed to admit reporters for some news organizations. But not all: The Associated Press, CNN and E&E News, all highly respected news outlets serving enormous national audiences, were turned away at the door.

A female AP reporter has recounted that when, in response to being barred, she asked to speak with a public affairs staffer, guards instead laid hands on her and removed her from the building by force. This is completely unacceptable.

The livestream of the May 22 event provided by EPA - which has been offered as some sort of alternative to on-the-scene coverage - turned out to be highly selective as well, with most of the summit’s morning session held without being broadcast online.

Finally, though you allowed press coverage the afternoon of the summit’s first day, your agency once again excluded at least some reporters on the session’s second day, May 23.

While informing the public via news media is just good policy, holding the meeting open to the public is also legally required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 USC § 1-16) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. §552b). According to your own agency’s press release, the summit included representatives from more than 40 states, tribes and territories, 20 federal agencies, congressional staff, industry groups and non-governmental organizations, and the agency intends to use information from the summit to help it develop a management plan. There is no justification for secrecy here.

On behalf of SEJ’s 1,400 members and all other journalists covering the EPA, we urge you to:

• Repudiate this hostile approach to dealing with the press and public.

• Consistently open up important meetings, announcements and events to the public and press.

• Never discriminate against a news outlet based on the content or editorial slant of its coverage.

• Make arrangements to accommodate rather than restrict access by the press and public — and to answer their questions.

• Withdraw your objections to the publication by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of a draft assessment of water contamination by these chemicals. According to news reports, that study is still being withheld from the public.

Your failure to release this report, along with the difficulties inflicted on reporters trying to cover the summit, inhibit public understanding of how the EPA is regulating water quality and constitutes an abuse of the free press and the public’s right to know. We emphatically urge you to end these practices immediately.

The behavior described (the actions of the EPA officials toward the press) are unprofessional and violate unwritten rules and regulations within the government.  Since when does any EPA official have the right to handle another personal in a physical capacity.  The EPA official could be brought up on charges of assault.  At the very least, the EPA official should have called a security official.  But the above removal of a person in the press are just another reminder that this administration believes that they exist outside or above the law -- which is very unfortunate.

Conclusion...

I would hope that after the unfortunate events, the nation can move on and learn from the events of the past.  The current Administration at the EPA needs a strict reminder from congress regarding the behavior toward the public.  Each public official should remember that ultimately the tax-payer is deciding their course in the future.  Based on the actions over the last few days, the EPA seems to have been taken over and funded exclusively by the Private sector.



The blatant disregard for the public should make any citizen sick to their stomach.  After all, the fall-out of the decisions being discussed and made result in resources which we need for every day living.  No person should have to drink or be exposed to contaminated water just because the federal regulating agency (i.e. EPA) is unwilling to do their job.  Further more, disease needs not be spread due to a lack enforcement on government, state, and local facilities.




Related Blog Posts:


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?


What Does America Drinking Water Look Like With Little-to-No Regulation?


Why Is The Science March Important?


Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?


Should Pollution Concern Us?


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


STEM Outreach Is Useful For All Participants!


20 Questions Politicians Answer Regarding Science Issues


How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!


A Perfect Example Of Why Science Outreach Is Critical: Science Needs Simplification!

President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health

Source: WCAI

Of all of the cuts to the federal government, the one that seems obvious to withstand are any attempts to put the safety of the public (and specifically children) health in jeopardy.  Although, that is exactly where the nation is headed with the following news from an article on the website 'Yubanet' titled "EPA to Close Toxics Research Center that Protects Children’s Health":

WASHINGTON, D.C. Feb. 27, 2018 – Yesterday, it was announced that the Environmental Protection Agency is closing the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER). The program provides millions of dollars in grants each year, and through fellowships, studies the effects of chemicals on children’s health.

This closure is not the first time Trump’s EPA has stood by the chemical industry. Last year, EPA administrator Pruitt rejected a ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to reduced IQ, developmental delay and increased risk of learning disabilities in children. The EPA recently reversed restrictions on the use of this pesticide, called chlorpyrifos, shortly after meeting with officials from Dow. Trump nominated Michael Dourson to head the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution, the division that oversees the chemical industry. Dourson spent much of his professional career writing studies that undermine existing science and concerns about toxic chemicals calling for weaker regulations on chemicals like pesticides, and was previously paid by Dow Agrosciences to downplay safety concerns about chlorpyrifos. Dourson later withdrew his name from consideration for the position. Dow Chemical, the parent company of Dow Agrosciences, contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

In the same article, the author include the response from the Sierra Club, an environmental group greatly concerned with the news and rightly so:

In response, Sierra Club Melinda Pierce Federal Lobby and Advocacy Director released the following statement:

“By shutting the door on the research operation that keeps our kids safe from toxic chemicals all while making dangerous policy decisions that pump more chemicals into our air and water, Scott Pruitt is taking the health and safety of our families as seriously as playground games. From his failure to ban the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, to his attacks on rules that cut mercury and arsenic in our water, to halting research that protects children from toxic threats, it’s clear that when it comes the health of our families, Scott Pruitt simply does not care.”

Wow!  That is my initial reaction to the news.  I understand the intention of privatization on part of this administration.  Although, I do not understand where or how this save us money in the long run.  There is no substitute for the health of our children who will grow up to be tomorrow's consumers and advocates.  Now, they have no choice.  Later they will be in a situation where the decisions of today have greatly affected the climate (and environment) of tomorrow.



Conclusion...



This measure is unacceptable.  Really, talk about environmental justice.  The decision to close the National Center for Environmental Research is quick and not well thought out.  The following questions need to be seriously entertained:


Who benefits besides industry with this closure?  


How much money do we save on an annual basis compared to the amount of money which will have to be spent on treating the adverse health effects of today's decision?



These are the questions that we as a nation should be asking ourselves and our elected officials when the Trump Administration decides to throw our country into an environmental disarray.  Our health should not be compromised by elected officials who have no knowledge of the gravity of their decisions.  When these conversations come up at the dinner table, be sure to weigh in on the disastrous effects on children's health -- tomorrows leaders.