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

Ohioans are raising questions about the future of fracking and its environmental and community impacts, following the ARCH2 hydrogen hub open house held Thursday in Canton.

Advocates and residents voiced concerns about the potential risks of expanding fracking infrastructure.

"No community should be saddled with more environmental burdens and less environmental benefits," said Ashtabula resident Julie Boetger, who co-chairs the board of directors for the Buckeye Environmental Network.

Boetger noted that such areas as Ashtabula, already heavily industrialized, could face additional challenges from the hydrogen hub, including increased environmental risks and infrastructure demands such as new pipelines and transportation concerns.

Proponents argue that hydrogen hubs offer opportunities for cleaner energy solutions and economic development.

Southeast Ohio residents have expressed similar apprehensions about the potential health and environmental consequences. With fracking already prevalent in counties such as Harrison, some residents say the hydrogen hub would only deepen the region's reliance on fossil fuels.

"We don't want to see more fracking because we know, from peer-reviewed studies, that this means health effects, environmental effects, water withdrawals, radioactive brine," said Harrison County resident Randi Pokladnik. "It's a false promise of green energy."

The ARCH-2 project, which primarily relies on blue hydrogen, has sparked debates about its potential benefits versus its environmental tradeoffs. Pokladnik said that with concerns about transparency and public engagement, Ohioans will keep pushing for more clarity on how these developments might shape their communities and ecosystems.

With a thud, the tranquil sounds of nature are shattered as a bird crashes into a glass window. It's an all-too-common, deadly occurrence that students at one Florida university are working to minimize.

The reflective surfaces of buildings trick birds into thinking they're flying toward the open sky or trees, only to meet a fatal impact. These strikes are responsible for millions of bird deaths every year, and at Florida Gulf Coast University, students and faculty are taking creative steps to tackle this silent crisis.

FGCU ornithology professor Oscar Johnson said bird-window strikes are a major threat to wild bird populations.

"Some studies estimate as many as 1 billion birds die every single year, just in the United States, due to collisions with windows," he said."It's a major problem - obviously is a global problem, it's a national problem, it really happens anywhere. So, anywhere that you live, I guarantee that this is something that needs to be worked on."

So, the school's Ornithology Club teamed up with campus art galleries to create an art installation that deters birds from flying into reflective glass. The design uses repeated patterns of dots or lines to break up reflections, which prevent birds from mistaking the glass for an open sky. The project combines science and art to reduce fatal collisions.

The installation covers a large window at the campus art gallery entrance and features line drawings of local bird species. Johnson said the project aims to expand across campus and beyond, with plans to make the designs publicly available for homeowners and businesses.

"The drawings that we did, we're going to be producing them and depositing them on the FGCU website, where they'll be downloadable," he said. "You just print them out on a piece of paper, put them up against the glass, and you can trace the drawing on the outside of the glass. It is important to have something on the exterior, in order to break up the reflection."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also recommends similar tips to curb the problem. Johnson encouraged communities to take proactive steps to protect birds from these avoidable incidents.

The U.S. Forest Service has given the go-ahead for a gold-mining project in central Idaho.

If it receives state permits, the Stibnite Gold Project will be located in the Payette National Forest and become one of the largest gold mines in the country.

John Robison, public lands and wildlife director for the Idaho Conservation League, said it's especially concerning for the East Fork South Fork Salmon River watershed, where the mine will be located, and because of downstream effects from the mine.

"We're really concerned about the Forest Service's decision that disregarded some recommended protections for the area and some additional sideboards on this mine project," he said, "and both short-term and long-term impacts to public health and clean water in the area."

The Nez Perce Tribe also criticized the decision, saying the mine violates its treaty rights and that the Forest Service noted in its final report that the mine will harm fish habitat.

The company behind the mine, Perpetua Resources, applauded the decision. In a joint statement, Idaho's congressional delegation also celebrated it, saying the mine would increase the nation's supply of critical minerals, reducing reliance on China.

The delegation said the mine will increase the country's supply of antimony, which can be used to make ammunition and batteries. However, Robison said they're overestimating the mine's importance. He said there's only a three-year supply of antimony at the site, and that gold accounts for 96% of the project's profits.

"It really is a gold mine, and the vast majority of gold is used for jewelry or for hoarding wealth," he said. "So, it really isn't a material that society needs."

Robison added that mining of critical minerals is necessary, but should be done in the least harmful way.

"One of the things that we've learned is that we have to do so more responsibly than we've done in the past," he said, "and we're concerned we're going to get the same result from this mine project, which is contaminated landscape that will persist for decades, if not centuries."

The mine project still needs state permits to advance.


get more stories like this via email