The public has until February 13th to weigh in on new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce methane pollution at oil and gas facilities.

Emma Galofre Garcia, a doctoral student at C.U. Boulder's environmental studies program, said the EPA has an opportunity to build on successful efforts led by states including Colorado to rein in methane emissions, a dangerous air pollutant.

"It's a precursor to ozone and smog, causing lung damage, heart damage, greater susceptibility to respiratory infections. It causes and worsens lung disease such as asthma and bronchitis," Galofre Garcia said.

Some critics of proposals to limit methane pollution, including those passed in Colorado that require oil and gas operators to find and fix leaks and reduce flaring, have argued that the cost of implementation can be prohibitive. Proponents argue that companies benefit by capturing emissions and bringing more gas to market.

Some communities face greater risks than others. Latinos are twice as likely to go to the emergency room for asthma, and Latino children are twice as likely to die from asthma as white children.

Galofre Garcia said Latinos historically have had no other option but to live in the shadows of refineries and other sources of air pollution, but the goal should be to make all neighborhoods safe for families.

"Communities of color, Latinos have only had access to housing that have been red-lined and that are in areas that are more polluted," Galofre Garcia said. "But it's also that we don't want places like that to exist."

She added industrial methane emissions targeted in the EPA's new rules also come with toxins linked to cancer, damage to immune systems and developmental problems in children.

"Outdoor workers, who are disproportionately Latino, and children, who spend a lot of time outdoors, are at a higher risk of health problems caused by smog - since they spend more time outdoors in polluted air," Galofre Garcia said.

Ohio voters are facing significant challenges at the ballot box, with some groups expressing concerns over voter roll purges and gerrymandering affecting representation, particularly in Black and other communities of color.

The issues draw attention to Ohio's "use it or lose it" policy.

Molly Shack, executive director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, said the policy affects marginalized groups more than others. She explained some voters, especially in underserved communities, may feel disappointed by a system when it does not meet their needs, resulting in fewer people voting and a higher chance of them being removed from the voter rolls.

"Ohio has purged literally millions of voters over the last decade and most recently, close to 160,000," Shack pointed out. "Those are policies that allow voters to be removed from the rolls not because they are ineligible citizens who can't constitutionally cast a ballot but because they haven't voted in a while."

Critics like Shack argued Ohio's current electoral practices contribute to voter suppression, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals, working-class citizens, voters of color and young voters, especially in districts already burdened by participation barriers.

Advocates also expressed concern about Ohio's persistent gerrymandering issues.

Bria Bennett, communications director for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, asserted such practices dilute Black voter influence by packing and splitting urban areas, a tactic known as "cracking and packing."

"When we're thinking about gerrymandering, many times, that dilutes the Black vote," Bennett observed. "So think of your urban centers, you're packing all your votes into one area so that, yes, that voting block is together. However, it is diluting it everywhere else."

As Ohio voters prepare to decide on Issue One, supporters see the measure as a crucial step toward a fairer, more representative democracy.

Advocates for a voter bill of rights, currently stalled in the Supreme Court, continue to raise awareness about the barriers faced by some communities, emphasizing the need for comprehensive voting reforms to ensure access across the state.


get more stories like this via email

Through this Saturday, Minnesota is recognizing Workplace Rights Week.

From COVID precautions to emerging technology, labor voices said there is key information some workers might not be aware of. Over the past year, Minnesota has phased in new laws such as earned sick-time requirements, which mandate one hour of fully paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Jeff Ambroz, director of development and communications for the Minnesota Training Partnership, said as COVID activity continues to circulate and with the cold and flu season almost here, workers should know the requirement is expansive.

"This isn't only sick time for yourself," Ambroz pointed out. "It's time that you can use to care for a sick family member, to get help if you are a victim of domestic abuse or stalking."

Workers are also encouraged to see if they can use their earned time for things such as vaccination appointments. Ambroz noted workplace environments are constantly changing with new equipment and technology. He recommended staff should maintain conversations among each other, elected officials and, if applicable, union representatives in the event such changes harm a workplace setting.

Over the summer, Minnesota also implemented a change to expand penalties and legal options in cases where a company misclassifies an employee as an independent contractor.

John Swanson, political coordinator for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 343, said these have long been pervasive issues, especially in the construction trades.

"(These are) some things that should be common sense," Swanson contended. "But we have to have laws now to protect people from being taken advantage of."

Labor leaders said a misclassified worker can miss out on things such as health coverage and overtime pay. Other misclassification provisions specifically dealing with the construction sector go into effect next March.


get more stories like this via email

A legal expert has issued a warning that artificial intelligence tools could lead to discriminatory practices in hiring and firing.

Algorithms and AI are increasingly used by businesses through Automated Employment Decision Tools.

But Hardeep Rekhi, partner at the Seattle law firm Rekhi & Wolk, said these tools can be programmed with data that can train them to be inherently biased.

He noted that Amazon, for example, developed one of these tools to review resumes - but had to abandon it in 2018 because it was eliminating female candidates.

"This tool is only as good as the data that it's being trained on," said Rekhi, "and if that data is tainted by individuals that have bias, I worry that the tool itself will be mis-trained."

Rekhi said it's also hard to know how AI is using data to make its decisions - and claimed these tools are essentially "black boxes" that could be discriminating against certain classes of people, without the user knowing.

Rekhi said there are ways to protect people against this. During this year's legislative session in Olympia, House Bill 1951 was introduced to prohibit "algorithmic discrimination" by automated tools.

The bill didn't pass, but Rekhi said it was on the right path.

"You have to put the onus on developers of the tool and users of the tool," said Rekhi, "to make sure that whatever tool they're using isn't discriminating, and that's what the Legislature has proposed."

Rekhi said automated tools for business decisions like hiring and firing threaten the many gains made in employment practices in recent decades.

"We've worked so hard, and we've made significant progress in the field of trying to eliminate discrimination in the workplace," said Rekhi, "and I don't want this to, kind of, undo that or to hide that."




get more stories like this via email