Since Trump stumbled into the White House, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and related government organizations have become less concerned with climate change and more worried about Trump’s wild, ill-informed wants.

The EPA’s data purge

In late April, the EPA website underwent an extreme update. The organization billed this update as merely a “change” that would help “better represent the new direction the agency is taking,” The Washington Post reports.

One part of the site that vanished challenged statements made by Scott Pruitt, the EPA’s new administrator.

“Another provided detailed information on the previous administration’s Clean Power Plan, including fact sheets about greenhouse gas emissions on the state and local levels and how different demographic groups were affected by such emissions,” the Post adds.

The website overhaul also included the “scrutiny” of a two-decades old page that explained climate change.

On a September 21, 2017 search of the EPA’s site, we could not find any information related to climate change.

How cities are stepping up

Earlier this year Grist recently reported that 14 cities republished deleted EPA information on their municipal websites. Chicago was the first city to repost the information. The city’s officials also posted a cheeky, but all-too-real “Climate Change is Real” guide.

The last city that reportedly posted the EPA’s deleted information was Burlington, Virginia. “Climate change is real, and deleting federal web pages that contain years’ worth of research does not alter this global, scientific consensus,” Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger said in a statement regarding the city’s move.

And thankfully, this is not the only way cities across the United States have committed to fighting climate change, Grist adds. Other cities have “pledged to go 100 percent renewable.” And other major cities have joined to help uphold the Paris Agreement’s objectives.

This information is needed

A Washington Post piece reported that people who have questioned some mainstream climate research are on a list of 132 possible candidates for EPA positions on the Science Advisory Board. The board has 47 members. Fifteen members have terms ending in September. This agency is open for public comment until September 28.

Related on EcoSalon
How Will Coral Handle Climate Change? [Video]
15 of the Best Responses to Trump Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
The Climate Change Coloring Book Brings Art and Science Together [Video]

The post The Reason These Cities are Becoming Climate Change Data Warriors appeared first on EcoSalon.

For millions of Americans still in shock over Donald Trump winning the Presidential election last week, fasten your seat belts, because there’s plenty more where that came from. Case in point: Myron Ebell, Trump’s climate change denier pick to head up the Environmental Protection Agency transition.

There’s still much to be ironed out for the forthcoming Trump administration, but it’s important to know what’s at stake, not only for our country, but the planet as well.

Here’s what you need to know about Myron Ebell.

1. Ebell is the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which, among other things, runs the  website, SafeChemicalPolicy.org, that, according to Tom Philpott at Mother Jones, “exists to downplay the health and ecological impacts of chemicals.”

2. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is largely funded by the coal industry, which would mean good news for coal producers under an Ebell-led EPA and bad news for the environmental policy, the Clean Power Plan, that regulates electricity producers, including coal. Ebell has even gone so far as to call the Clean Power Plan “illegal.”

3. Ebell’s beliefs (or lack thereof when it comes to climate change) have him so vilified, he was featured on a poster plastered around Paris during the UN climate talks last year, naming him one of seven “climate criminals”responsible for destroying our future.

4. Ebell is also the head of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group “focused on dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.”

5. According to the New York Times, Ebell “frequently mocks climate leaders like Al Gore,” and has called the movement the “forces of darkness” because “they want to turn off the lights all over the world.” That’s right, turn off all the lights?!

6. Ebell worked with a Republican congressman from Arizona, John Shadegg, in an effort to retool the Endangered Species Act—not to further protect threatened and endangered plants and animals—but to benefit property owners instead. In other words, to give them free reign to put endangered species in jeopardy for the sake of profits.

7. He’s not a fan of bees, either. According to Mother Jones, Ebell’s Competitive Enterprise Institute refutes the mounting data pointing to neonicotinoid pesticides as having a devastating effect on bee populations around the world. “CEI completely denies any harm to bees from the chemicals and rejects any role for government action in protecting bees,” notes Philpott.

8. Even Pope Francis is not safe from Ebell’s criticism. Ebell said of the Pope’s encyclical on climate change that it’s “scientifically ill informed, economically illiterate, intellectually incoherent and morally obtuse,” adding that “It is also theologically suspect, and large parts of it are leftist drivel.”

9. But perhaps most startling is Ebell’s general misconception about climate change. According to the Huffington Post, in 2006, Ebell penned an opinion piece, titled “Love Global Warming,” where he promoted the “benefits” of a changing climate. “Yes, rising sea levels, if they happen, would be bad for a lot of people. But a warming trend would be good for other people,” he wrote.

Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram

Related on Organic Authority

How Will Coral Handle Climate Change? [Video]
Localizing the Billion People March: Adbusters’ Kalle Lasn Is At It Again, This Time Tackling Climate Change
U.S. Landfills Contain Twice as Much Trash as EPA Estimated

The post 9 Things You Need to Know About Myron Ebell, Trump’s EPA Pick appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is somewhat closer to solving its not-so-little problem–and we’re not talking about global warming. How about sexual harassment? Yep.

Sadly, this news isn’t surprising. The EPA’s sexual harassment issue became public a little more than a year ago during a congressional hearing.

Now, an EPA office—specifically the Region 5 office in Chicago, and more specifically, the office also involved with the recent water crisis in Flint, Michigan—will face “an audit of how this office handles sexual-harassment complaints,” Mother Jones reports.

The news was revealed in a letter sent to the EPA’s Region 5 office in August 2016.

The problems

This letter is the result of the damning—and brave—whistleblowers who made an EPA intern’s harrowing experience public.

According to two of the whistleblowers, in 2011 “an intern approached Ronald Harris, the Region 5 Equal Employment Opportunity officer at the time, who helped her file an informal complaint alleging that she had been harassed by Paul Bertram, an environmental scientist then employed at the agency,” Mother Jones reports.

“It bothered her,” Harris said during his testimony to the committee.

“She was strong…She kept saying to me, ‘I just want it to stop. How do I get it to stop?'”

The intern also was subjected to touching, groping and kissing—all initiated by Bertram, said Carolyn Bohlen, Harris’ supervisor at the time.

Both Harris and Bohlen faced retaliation via their supervisors—bullying and intimidation that led to their resignations– because the whistleblowers reported the intern and other women’s sexual harassment allegations.

The results

The jury is still out on this case, but other sexual harassment allegations at the EPA are also gaining attention.

“Three months prior to the July 2015 hearing, the committee heard testimony from EPA officials, including EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins,” which alleged “that a high-level employee in the EPA Office of Homeland Security in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed multiple women,” Mother Jones reports.

“When senior officials in the agency were made aware of the man’s alleged conduct, they ‘did not take any actions’ against him, according to Patrick Sullivan, an official with the inspector general’s office who testified at the April 2015 hearing. The inspector general’s investigation found that the man, Peter Jutro, had ‘engaged in unwelcomed conduct’ with more than a dozen women over the course of 10 years, ‘including touching, hugging, kissing, photographing, and making double entendre comments with sexual connotations,’ according to Sullivan’s testimony before the committee.”

This is one of those things we hate knowing, but are relieved to know is public information.

But let’s not forget: Sexual harassment is rampant in the science industry. So, just because the EPA was correctly called out on its bullshit doesn’t mean that anything will change.

Related on EcoSalon
New Bill to Protect Children from Untested Chemicals
The Audacity of Doing Your Job: Lindsey Graham Steps Up For the EPA
Behind the Label: The Body Shop’s ‘Against Animal Testing’ Campaign

Image of upset woman via Shutterstock

The post Add Sexual Harrasment to List of Things the EPA Can’t Seem to Fix: #NowWhat appeared first on EcoSalon.

How do you think scientists could most effectively look for short-term changes in a population of people? It turns out the answer to this question is kind of crappy… literally.

A group of researchers at MIT are in the midst of a wastewater tracking experiment that will end in 2017. These scientists think that the components in wastewater could eventually “help communities assess public health and make better-informed policy decisions,” Grist reports.

So, how does this all work? Jennifer Henaghan of the American Planning Association’s Green Communities Center, has the poop.

“Good data is key to making good planning decisions, which are essential in creating sustainable policies,” Henaghan says. “Knowing the number of people in an area can tell communities when and where investments in public services and infrastructure, especially transit infrastructure, are needed. It can also help public officials ensure that public services [like police and fire] are meeting the needs of the area.”

The old research

Your next question is probably, “will scientists be hanging out in my bathroom to, uh, collect this data?” No, you guys. The process is much more sophisticated than that.

In 2012, Christian Daughton, an EPA scientist, published conceptual research that was in the EPA’s Pathfinder Innovation Projects program. Daughton’s research concerned Sewage Chemical Information Mining (SCIM). “SCIM relies on biomarkers, scientific shorthand for certain biological compounds our bodies produce when something happens in our cells,” an EPA blog reports. And all this data could easily be collected via a network of sensors.

The new research

Now, back to the beginning…

Daughton’s research is currently being examined at MIT—the multi-year project is called Underworlds. The research is taking place under the streets of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and MIT associate professor Eric Alm is exploring the data from the sewage.

“Several labs at the school are collaborating on a ‘smart sewage platform’ that would incorporate tools for measuring and analyzing data,” Grist reports. “Their goal is to make it easier for communities to use this ‘vast reservoir’ (of knowledge, not sewage) to predict and mitigate disease outbreaks and to develop a new type of census. The data in question would not be traceable to any specific person — news that will come as a relief to some.”

What’s next

If this research is successful, scientists will be able to develop parameters for a community’s normal biomarker range, the EPA reports. “If you have a community in the normal range and another far beyond it, you have some important questions to pursue at that point,” Daughton adds. “Key factors could include healthcare availability and exposures to toxic substances or to physical stressors such as noise and heat.”

When the experiment wraps, Kuwait City, Kuwait will be the home of the full-scale Underworlds testing site.

“For a future best-case scenario, sewage streams would become reliable data streams that translate to change at ground level,” the EPA blog adds.

Now, that sounds like the shit to us.

Related on EcoSalon

Who Knew a Pooping Unicorn Could Improve Your Health? [Video]

23 Thoughts Every Woman Has During Her Period

Harmful Bacteria Are Lurking on the Bottom of Your Shoes (Like, Right Now)

Image of man in the bathroom via Shutterstock

The post Could Tracking Poop Help Your Neighbors Stay Healthy? appeared first on EcoSalon.

A new study shows that U.S. landfills contain more than twice as much solid waste as we previously thought based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

Researchers found that we throw away 289 million tons of solid waste, which is more than twice as much as the EPA’s original 135 million ton estimate. In fact, the number even exceeds the World Bank’s predictions for waste totals in 2025, according to Live Science.

The new figures differ drastically from former estimates because they’re based on actual landfill waste weights rather than the figures EPA used to make its estimations from industry associates, businesses, and the U.S. Census. This is because in 2010 a new Greenhouse Gas Reporting rule began requiring that large landfills start reporting the weight of the trash entering their facilities. Of the 1,200 landfills included in the study, 900 were still accepting waste.

“I think the disposal rate and capacity numbers are interesting on their own, but I think in the bigger picture, it provides us a distinct, data-driven roadmap for where we can target emissions reductions in the waste sector,” study lead author Jon Powell, a doctoral student of chemical and environmental engineering at Yale University, said in a statement.

We will still have enough space for the onslaught of waste that our consumption-driven economy throws away, but we may need to transport it longer distances, according to LiveScience:

The country won’t run out of landfill space anytime soon, but sometimes the landfills that have more space are far away from cities that need their services, said Morton Barlaz, a professor and head of the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University, who was not involved with the study.

But the larger issue becomes the impact that landfills may have on global climate change. As waste decomposes in landfills, methane is emitted into the atmosphere. In fact, landfills are the third largest source of methane in the U.S. Methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. And greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane slow the absorption of heat into space. Meaning, as they trap heat in our atmosphere, it can cause global climate change. So beyond waste management, landfills are a significant contributor to the greenhouse gases that can cause global climate change.

At a personal level, if you want to reduce your household trash, waste reduction should be your first priority followed by reuse and then recycling and composting. Just because it can go in the recycling bin doesn’t mean you should necessarily give yourself a pat on the back. And since plastic never decomposes, it’s best to avoid it completely because often times it doesn’t even make it to landfills, rather, it ends up crowding our oceans instead.

Related on EcoSalon

Climate Change is Making You Depressed (But Not for Obvious Reasons)

Is it ‘Global Warming’ or is it ‘Climate Change’?

On the Front Lines of Global Climate Change and Women’s Rights

Image of a totally full trash truck in a landfill from Shutterstock

The post U.S. Landfills Contain Twice as Much Trash as EPA Estimated appeared first on EcoSalon.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed the strongest actions yet to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed regulations would cut emissions by as much as 30 percent by 2030.

States could meet the new standards through a variety of methods that include energy efficiency, wind and solar alternatives, shifting from coal to natural gas, power plant upgrades, and encouraging a shift in electricity use during off peak hours. EPA says the approach will allow states flexibility in how they abide by the new regulations.

“This proposal is all about flexibility. That’s what makes it ambitious, but achievable,” said EPA administrator Gina McCarthy in The Washington Post.  McCarthy received two standing ovations and did a fist bump with Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) before starting her speech. “For the sake of our families’ health and our kids’ future, we have a moral obligation to act on climate.”

Ever since the carbon bill failed in Congress, environmental advocates have been pressing President Obama to take executive action under the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed regulations will cut carbon emissions by 500 million metric tons. The draft proposal is open to public comment.

“This momentous announcement raises the bar for controlling carbon emissions in the United States,” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, a Washington research organization, reported in The New York Times, adding, “These new standards send a powerful message around the world.”

These are the strongest actions ever taken by the U.S. to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere; scientists warn they are to blame for global climate change. Burning coal is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. In all, 600 antiquated power plants may have to close if they can’t meet the new regulations, especially considering that some were built when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president. As a result, the proposal is sure to have to withstand a host of lawsuits and legislative attacks.

This sets the U.S. on track to meet U.N. emission reduction targets set in 2009. Over the long term the U.S. has been the largest emitter of greenhouse gas, but today China is the largest emitter.

“I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, said.

Related on EcoSalon

How Many Trees Should You Plant to Offset Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Win for the Clean Air Act 

Will Regulating Emissions Through the Clean Air Act Be the Dawn of a New Era?

Image: Thure Johnson

The post EPA Proposes Strongest Actions Yet to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions appeared first on EcoSalon.

A federal appeals court ruled that the EPA can regulate the emissions of large power plants in a recent and critical ruling for the environmental movement. It’s a big setback for conservative states and energy trade groups that had been challenging the power of the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that coal and oil fired power plants must be equipped with mechanisms to reduce mercury emissions by some 91 percent under the Clean Air Act.

The opposition was led by a group of conservative states including Michigan, Alaska, and Idaho that claimed the new regulations would cost $9.6 billion and 16,000 jobs in all.

“Congress was focused on the health hazard of emissions and the slowness of EPA regulation of them, and concluded it was reasonable to make decisions without considering costs,” Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote in the opinion, reported in The Washington Post. There was no congressional requirement for the agency to focus on the economic hit.

But the panel may have been swayed by groups like the American Lung Association stating that mercury regulation could prevent some 11,000 premature deaths, 5,000 heart attacks , and 130,000 asthma attacks due to polluted air.

“Today’s legal victory is another giant step forward on the road to cleaner, healthier air,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund said to The Hill. “The court recognized that mercury and other dangerous air toxins from coal-fired power plants are a threat to public health, and that we should all be protected from them. Now we must complete the essential work to achieve these clean air protections for our children and for all Americans.”

Related on EcoSalon

Mercury in Seafood: How Do You Know How Much You Can Safely Eat?

Will Regulating Green House Gas Emissions Be the Dawn of a New Era?

EPA Found Guilty of Violating Their Own Clean Air Act Standards

Image: Martin Nikolaj Bech

The post Win for the Clean Air Act: Court Decides EPA Can Regulate Mercury Emissions appeared first on EcoSalon.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that air pollution is a threat to public health. So why are the leaders of 17 states trying to rollback the EPA’s new greenhouse gas regulations?

You’d think everyone would agree that clean air is essential for a healthy, prosperous nation, but recent action by industry and GOP leaders proves otherwise. Industry groups and over a dozen Republican-led states are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to block the EPA’s newest round of greenhouse gas regulations–claiming that they represent a “brazen power grab” by the Obama administration.

The new greenhouse gas regulations were adopted during the Congressional gridlock of 2011. The new rules require new power plants, factories and other such stationary facilities to limit carbon emissions. According to a 2007 SCOTUS ruling, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are air pollutants, making them subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act. According to the LA Times, the fossil fuel industry claims that “the law covered only air pollutants that make it hard to breath, such as smog, not those that act to trap solar energy in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change.” At the time, four Supreme Court justices agreed with this claim, which is why GOP leaders feel confident enough to resurrect the fight.

“Texas, Florida and 15 other Republican-led states joined with business and energy groups in accusing the president and his EPA of overstepping their authority. California, Illinois and 13 other Democratic-led states joined with environmentalists in supporting the EPA’s rules,” reports the LA Times.

The main complaint of these politicians and their industry supporters is that such regulations are bad for business. Namely, the coal-fired power plant business. Rather than protect the long-term health and welfare of the air we all breathe (yes, even Big Oil and Coal executives), these politicians would rather mortgage public health for a few more years of climate-changing energy extraction.

In the end, this issue comes down to two things: 1) the GOP and its friends in industry are upset that they EPA was able to circumvent the joke that is our Congress, and 2) they don’t want to change, especially if it means losing a single cent of their already massive profits.

That’s right, as always, it all comes down to money. As predicted, those in the fossil fuel industry are trying to frighten the public (and bully the EPA) by saying that compliance with the greenhouse gas regulations will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Environmentalists say this is a gross exaggeration.

“The Democratic-led states, in a brief filed with the court, pointed to the ‘recent practical experience’ in California and New York showing that switching to low carbon energy sources can produce ‘more efficient and less polluting industrial processes, delivered at a reasonable cost,'” reports the LA Times.

Ultimately, the decision will come down to a divided SCOTUS, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely holding the deciding vote. He was the difference maker when the court faced this issue in 2007, but since then has voiced concern about over-regulation by the administration.

What do you think? Are the new greenhouse gas emissions necessary to protect public health or evidence of a power-hungry President? Share your thoughts in a comment.

Related on Ecosalon:

How Many Trees Should You Plant To Offset Greenhouse Gases?

8 Tips for Reducing Your Carbon Footprint

The Dirt on Clean Coal: Looking Beyond The Alternative Fuel Hype

The post GOP Is Blocking Greenhouse Gas Regulations. Again. appeared first on EcoSalon.

An environmentally-friendly alternative to dry clean only instructions, wet cleaning, could soon be showing up on our care labels. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in an effort to reduce environmental and social health impacts, will hold a public roundtable discussion on March 28, 2014 about the expansion of clothing care labels to include wet cleaning.

“This suggests that the vast majority of garments currently labeled ‘dry clean’ or ‘dry clean only’ could be labeled with a wet cleaning instruction,” the Coalition for Clean Air says.

What is better about wet cleaning?

Professional wet cleaning services actually use less water than dry clean methods, and save on energy, detergents and soaps. Plus, delicate fabric like wool, silk and leather can still undergo professional wet cleaning processes.

More over, dry cleaning is a dirty businesses full of toxic chemicals. The most dangerous being perchloro ethyele used throughout all dry cleaning businesses.

“Perchloro ethylele, which is sometime called perc, is a very highly toxic substance,” says Mark Myles, Training Manager of the Toxics Use Reduction Institute at UMass Lowell. “And yet it is the most commonly used substance by dry cleaners.” In fact, the EPA recently approved a ban on the use of perchloro ethylele, in the state of California, effective by 2020.

Currently, professional wet cleaning services do not comply with the Care Labeling Rule due to lack of standardization. But since 2000, when the FTC first denied the expansion, “standards-setting organizations and other interested participants in this proceeding appear to have been working independently to resolve these outstanding issues,” said the FTC in a detailed report.

Now with greater pressures from environmental organizations, and the growing expansion of wet cleaning services as an environmentally friendly alternative to dry cleaning, the FTC will revisit the issue.

Under the Care Labeling Rule, “manufacturers and importers [are required] to attach labels with care instructions for dry cleaning washing, bleaching, drying and ironing of garments and certain piece goods,” says the FTC. If the rule were to change, the FTC would add professional wet cleaning services as an alternative to dry cleaning.

Opening up the conversation

“In our members experience, a dry clean label is interpreted to mean ‘do not wash’ by many, if not all, consumers,” the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute wrote in comments to the FTC.

But just because a label says dry clean only doesn’t mean you can’t get the garment wet. The labeling even deters some customers from purchasing certain clothing so as not to deal with dry cleaning.

“There is a subset of consumers that will not buy anything with a dry clean label. If all methods of care are required to be on the label, this consumer might be willing to purchase the item,” the group said.

Before the FTC moves forth into a decision they want to ensure customers have access to such facilities before changing the labeling.

“We want to know the extent to which professional wet cleaning is available to consumers,” FTC attorney Robert Frisby said.

The discussion on March 28th, 2014 will focus on the economic costs of implementing wet cleaning instructions, what instructions and details need to be on wet cleaning labels, the availability of wet cleaning and consumer awareness around alternative.

Take part in the discussion by filing a comment to the FTC.

Related on Ecosalon

Wet Cleaning Vs. Dry Cleaning

Dry Clean Only? An Eco Expert Tells Us When It’s Safe to Ignore Labels

9 Ways To Wash Your Delicates Without Dry Cleaning

10 Myths About Dry Cleaning

image: Juliette Donatelli

The post Is This The End of Dry Clean Only Labels? appeared first on EcoSalon.

A round-up of what we’re reading right now.

NASCAR and environmentalism? Stranger partnerships have happened… we think. [via Triple Pundit] 

Bill Clinton weighs less than he did in high school, and he has veganism to thank. [via Girlie Girl Army]

Looking to clear out your refrigerator? This vegetarian African peanut stew includes everything but the kitchen sink. [via Big Girls Small Kitchen]

Treehugger founder Graham Hill’s minimalist 420-square-foot studio incorporates every space-saving tip in the book. [via Curbed]

Before you dedicate your next vacation to playing with orphans or building a school, ask yourself if “voluntourism” is really the best way to make a difference. [via HuffPost Impact]

We always thought it was strange that Election Day falls on a Tuesday. Turns out, the answer is as dated as the horse and buggy. [via Take Part]

Image: The U.S. Army

The post Link Love: Vegan Diets and Voluntourism appeared first on EcoSalon.