WASHINGTON D.C. – Doctors, scientists and professional organizations are suing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for replacing publicly-funded scientists with others who advocate for polluting industries.

According to the lawsuit, of Pruitt's 18 new appointees to the EPA's Science Advisory Board, seven are now employed by industries the EPA regulates, four have a history of taking money from polluters and five have histories of rejecting mainstream science in favor of industry talking points.

Neil Gormley, staff attorney at the environmental law firm Earthjustice, says ironically, Pruitt claims the academic scientists are being removed because they have financial ties to the EPA.

"By barring people just because they've received competitive research grants from the agency, they're pushing out some of the most qualified experts," he says.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., calls the policy an illegal override of federal ethics rules that will introduce a pro-polluter bias in EPA decisions.

Environmentalists fear that the new appointees also will undermine the integrity of EPA science. Gormley points out that some of the replacements on the advisory board have espoused opinions that fall into the category of junk science.

"Claiming that air pollution is good for you or denying that smog causes asthma - ideas that are way outside the scientific mainstream and that just serve a corporate agenda," he explains.

He says the scientists being removed from the board are experts in fields such as cancer, children's health, respiratory diseases and the risks of chemicals in the home.

Gormley says the lawsuit asks the court to rule that the new policy is unlawful and arbitrary, and to halt the discharge of scientists on the basis of having received agency funding for their work.

"We're also asking for the reinstatement of discharged scientists to these science boards to restore their ability to render objective, high-quality scientific advice to the agency," he adds.


get more stories like this via email

A Pennsylvania group warned progress on environmental protections could be at risk under a second term for President-elect Donald Trump.

The state's Climate Action Plan aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26% by 2025 and 80% by 2050.

Tom Schuster, director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Sierra Club, said it is important for Pennsylvania to continue to curb fossil fuel pollution to prevent severe climate effects. He highlighted the state's growing shift to cheaper renewable energy, noting Trump might not stop it but it could slow down.

"Donald Trump, as president, has pledged to encourage more drilling for and burning of fossil fuels and some rollback policies that are aimed at transitioning to clean energy faster," Schuster pointed out. "That is definitely bad news for the effort to protect our communities."

Schuster added the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure law has provided major funding for climate initiatives. He argued Pennsylvania has effectively utilized these resources for both emissions reduction and climate adaptation efforts.

Schuster emphasized the urgency of utilizing the current available funding, as the longevity of some programs is uncertain with the new Congress and administration. He stressed the need for Pennsylvania to implement state-level policies such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is currently before the state's Supreme Court.

"If the court rules in favor the Department of Environmental Protection and the environmental groups such as the Sierra Club that are supporting it, we need to quickly implement that program to help reduce climate disrupting pollution from the electricity sector and create an investment fund for new clean energy investment," Schuster outlined.

Schuster pointed out Gov. Josh Shapiro's proposals aim to boost renewable energy requirements for utilities, spurring solar and wind development. The state's RISE PA plan, tied to the Inflation Reduction Act, focuses on cutting industrial climate pollution -- the largest source in Pennsylvania -- while preserving jobs and industry.

By Allison Frost for Oregon Public Broadcasting.
Broadcast version by Isobel Charlé for Oregon News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

When Matt Swihart started Double Mountain Brewery in Hood River, Oregon, in 2007, his vision was to sell beer in the most ecologically sustainable way possible: in reusable bottles, which would be returned, cleaned and refilled to be sold again.

The numbers, he says, help make his case.

“A single-use beer bottle, as well as a single-use aluminum can, involves a certain amount of carbon through its life cycle … a reusable beer bottle, like the one we use in Oregon, is about 69 times less than a single-use recycled beer bottle.”

That number is based on the glass bottle being reused about 20-25 times, but even reusing it a single time, he claims, cuts the carbon nearly in half, because of how much carbon is used in the original manufacturing.

Reusable beverage containers are also not a particularly novel idea.

“In the ‘70s, it was the norm, ubiquitously, throughout the United States and still is across the world, where reusable beer bottles and soda bottles are used throughout many countries.”

Market forces shifted beverage manufacturers away from refillables and into unique containers that could be more effectively branded for consumers, and the infrastructure fell away.

Swihart began small and is now engaged in building a regional infrastructure that any beer brewer in Oregon can choose to access, with the help of the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative, which partnered with the company in 2018 to make standard refillable glass beer bottles.

One Oregon company that was inspired by Swihart’s efforts is Revino, which is based in Newberg and launched just last year. It’s working with a number of vintners to put their wine into Revino’s returnable, refillable bottles.

Willamette Valley Vineyards recently announced a rollout of over 1,500 cases of a Pinot Noir it makes in Revino’s bottles. Customers will get a 10-cent wine credit for every bottle they return to the winery.

Revino co-founder Adam Rack says only about a third of glass bottles are even recycled, so getting reusable bottles into the process is key. He also thinks Oregon’s landmark Bottle Bill should be updated to include wine bottles.

“California has already added wine bottles, Maine as well,” he said. “We used to be the leaders in the Bottle Bill, but now we’re kind of falling behind. So it’s about time to modernize.”

Both Rack and Swihart say they believe reducing and reusing will play an increasingly important role in helping lower carbon emissions and transform a single-use mindset into one of true sustainability. That’s something they think everyone can drink to.

Wisconsin ranks 26th in the nation for wind energy, generating far less than neighboring states.

Wisconsin has about 900 megawatts of installed wind capacity, compared to neighbors that produce more than 10,000 megawatts.

Experts say better wind resources in neighboring states and lower solar costs enticing the state to invest in other projects contribute to the lag.

Wisconsin farms are also smaller than those in the Great Plains states, said Sam Dunaiski - executive director of Renew Wisconsin - which he called a unique challenge.

"You can't just put two turbines right next to each other, right?" said Dunaiski. "The atmospheric dynamics requires a little bit more spacing in between turbines - and in order to do that, you know, you need a little bit more land."

But Dunaiski said the state's wind potential is high. Some Wisconsin utilities have already added wind options to their portfolios, and all have set goals to reduce carbon emissions.

At least a handful of wind energy projects are planned for Wisconsin in the coming year.

Another challenge is misinformation - that wind turbines are noisy, negatively affect property values, or pose health risks. Dunaiski said most of those claims are not supported by scientific evidence.

What has been proven, he said, is that wind energy is less harmful to wildlife and the environment than traditional power generation.

"We have the potential here to do our own energy, in our own state," said Dunaiski, "to add great-paying jobs, like wind turbine technicians, to the mix. And we also give landowners kind of a lifeline in this aspect."

He explained that farmers, who have been hit hard economically in recent years, could benefit from gaining an additional income stream by leasing land for these projects.

Dunaiski said building momentum will require more education and training, added transmission - to help get energy from rural areas where it's produced to Wisconsin residents - and advances in technology to help update old equipment and capitalize on current installations.

"As we continue to grow these turbines and make this technology better and more efficient" said Dunaiski, "that wind resource - that lacking wind regime that we have in Wisconsin - becomes less of a problem, and we're able to access what wind resources we do have in our state better."

There are 10 wind projects generating electricity in Wisconsin. The oldest started in 1999 - and the newest, the Red Barn Project, started last year.




get more stories like this via email