HARRISBURG, Pa. – The Trump administration's proposal to slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 30 percent would put Pennsylvanians at great risk, according to a new report.

Over the past five years, the Keystone State has received more than $225 million in grants from the EPA.

The report from the Environmental Defense Fund says the administration's proposal would cut the agency to its lowest funding level in 40 years.

Bill Becker, former head of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, says cuts of that magnitude would be catastrophic.

"More people would die prematurely, and many more would get sick unnecessarily, and that would be tragic because all of these illnesses are preventable," he states.

The administration maintains that EPA regulations impose burdens on industry that slow development. But critics of the funding cuts argue that they ignore the costs in health, lives and productivity caused by pollution.

Patrice Tomcik, a field organizer with Moms Clean Air Force, notes that more than 3,400 Pennsylvanians are saved every year by EPA programs that cut air pollution and toxic mercury.

"These EPA protections help reduce the occurrence of 'Code Red' days,” she points out. “This is when air pollution is so bad that children and seniors are advised not to spend time outside."

More than 1 million adults and 300,000 children in Pennsylvania have asthma, but the Trump administration would cut state and local air quality monitoring by nearly a third.

Becker points out that Superfund and Brownfield site cleanup funds would also be cut by 30 percent, and millions of federal dollars to control pollution from rainwater runoff and to clean up water flowing into the Chesapeake Bay would be eliminated entirely.

"It is a small price to pay to equip state and local officials with the financial and regulatory tools to clean up the environment when you fully understand the impacts that could occur if you don't provide these resources," he states.

The report says EPA funding has been cut repeatedly in recent years and is currently little more than two-tenths of 1 percent of the total federal budget.




get more stories like this via email

As people head to the polls tomorrow, groups are working to ensure Georgia's Black and brown communities understand the energy saving benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Payback Campaign is a public awareness initiative led by creative firm AB and supported by Georgia Interfaith Power and Light. It is helping educate congregations and communities on Inflation Reduction Act incentives, including solar energy tax credits to lower utility costs, reduce carbon emissions and build resilience.

Jay Horton, communications manager for Georgia Interfaith Power and Light, explained access to resources is especially meaningful for congregations in underserved areas.

"One of the main advantages of the Inflation Reduction Act was that congregations and faith communities, houses of worship, can now benefit from the tax credits available for solar and battery storage," Horton explained. "Especially low wealth communities."

The group helps congregations with low-cost solar assessments, connections to vetted installers, and a zero-interest loan through its Solar Wise program. To date, the initiative has completed 23 installations in Georgia, totaling 540 kilowatts and offsetting more than 3,200 metric tons of carbon emissions annually.

Horton pointed out Georgia power bills will increase by an average of $44 over two years and solar installations can help mitigate rising energy costs. Beyond saving money, he noted solar power also reduces reliance on fossil fuels, leading to cleaner air and a smaller carbon footprint. He added congregations would be able to redirect the savings into community services, all while making a positive environmental impact.

"For example, Trinity Episcopal Church in Statesboro, they had a 30-kilowatt system through the Georgia Bright program but their utility bill savings over next 20 years, $196,000, net savings of $60,000," Horton outlined. "That's equivalent to 705 tons of CO2 offset. "

He emphasized the offset is equivalent to 1.5 million miles driven in a car, or 10,000 trees planted. The Payback Campaign also highlighted how environmental and economic benefits can inform voter choices, encouraging support for leaders who prioritize clean energy initiatives.


get more stories like this via email

On this year's California ballot, Proposition 4 has not received much attention but it could have a huge effect on the Golden State.

The $10 billion bond measure would be the largest conservation investment in state history. Opponents argued the state cannot afford to take on billions more dollars in debt.

Pamela Flick, California program director for the nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife, said the measure would be an effective way to address some of California's biggest problems.

"California faces devastating wildfires, vulnerable drinking water supplies, extreme summer heat and other major threats from a changing climate," Flick pointed out. "Proposition 4 tackles our most urgent climate needs today, before the damage becomes too costly and unimaginable."

Prop 4 would dedicate $3.8 billion for ensuring drinking water and increasing water supplies. It earmarks $1.5 billion for wildfire prevention, $1.2 billion to protect important wildlife habitat, and $1.2 billion to protect the coastline and prepare for rising sea levels. The rest of the money would go toward energy infrastructure, parks and programs to help farmers combat extreme heat.

Flick acknowledged California's ecosystems have evolved with fire for millennia but a series of megafires over the past decade have devastated some forest ecosystems.

"Severe fires pose the biggest impact to wildlife and its habitat," Flick asserted. "Because it's so much harder for those areas that were burned severely to bounce back and provide important habitat for species."

The heightened wildfire risk in California has already led some insurance companies to raise rates steeply or stop insuring homes altogether in certain areas. Backers said Prop 4 is an important step to protect the value of people's homes.

A proposed project to build a refinery on an estuary along the Columbia River is getting pushback from the public.

NEXT Renewable Fuels is proposing a diesel refinery in Clatskanie, Oregon, with a capacity of up to 50,000 barrels of fuel a day. The Texas-based company said the fuel comes from renewable sources such as organic waste materials.

Dan Serres, advocacy director for the nonprofit Columbia Riverkeeper, said the energy source is not as clean as the company claims and would in fact be a major source of pollution for the river and nearby homes and farms.

"What they heard from the community during public comment was a sharp rebuke and they heard tough questions that they failed to answer," Serres asserted. "That's why DEQ needs to move forward and deny this project."

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality was accepting public comments on water quality permits for the project. In addition to opposition submitted to the agency, 23 organizations sent a letter to Gov. Tina Kotek urging her to oppose the refinery. NEXT Renewable Fuels said the project supports the state's clean energy goals.

Serres countered the company's assertion the project will be good for the environment are dubious as well.

"It's a tremendous negative carbon impact in terms of undermining the state of Oregon's greenhouse gas reduction goals," Serres contended. "It would be one of Oregon's largest polluters on day one, producing over one million tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year."

Serres also noted NEXT's own assessment of the project said it will likely affect fish and fish habitat. He stressed the area near the project is important for the endangered salmon of the region.

"Most of the salmon that folks see swimming all the way up the Columbia River come right by Port Westward," Serres pointed out. "That fact is not lost on the people who are now weighing in with the project and pointing out that there's a major threat here."

Serres argued the state should wait for an environmental impact statement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before moving forward.