

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Emily Jeffers, ejeffers@biologicaldiversity.
The Environmental Protection Agency will analyze the toxic effects of polyvinyl chloride, commonly referred to as "PVC" or "vinyl", as the result of a legal agreement reached today with the Center for Biological Diversity.
PVC is one of the most widely used forms of plastic, and about 7 billion pounds of PVC is discarded every year in the United States. Yet numerous studies have found it is highly toxic to human health and the environment.
As a result of today's agreement, the EPA will have nine months to determine whether discarded PVC should be regulated as "hazardous waste" under federal law. Canada began regulating plastic as a toxic substance in May.
"We hope this is the federal government's first step toward acknowledging the toxic legacy of PVC, and ultimately leads to the end of its production," said Emily Jeffers, an attorney at the Center. "Scientists have been telling us for years that PVC is the most environmentally damaging type of plastic. Yet we discard billions of pounds of PVC every year in the United States, in much the same way we throw away orange rinds and grass clippings. That doesn't make sense, and it's dangerous."
PVC is found in children's toys, clothing, consumer packaging, building materials, electronics and many other household goods. It releases toxic chemicals and carcinogens, including dioxin and phthalate plasticizers, into the air, water and food web at every stage of its life cycle.
Among the human health risks associated with exposure to PVC and its additives are reproductive harm, hormone disruptions, abnormal brain and reproductive development, obesity, insulin resistance and damage to the liver and other organs.
Today's agreement is the result of a lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. in August 2021. The suit alleged that the EPA violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by ignoring a rulemaking petition about the harmful nature of PVC. The Center petitioned the agency in 2014 to regulate PVC as hazardous waste, citing numerous scientific studies.
As a result of today's agreement, EPA will make a tentative decision regarding the classification of discarded PVC as hazardous waste by January 2023, solicit comments from the public, and publish a final determination in early 2024.
If PVC is ultimately categorized as hazardous waste, the EPA would have to develop a comprehensive framework to ensure its safe treatment, storage and disposal.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252The president and defense secretary "want you to think we haven’t been at war with Iran for over 65 days," said one Democratic congressional candidate.
While assuring reporters that the ceasefire agreement reached last month between the Trump administration and Iran is holding, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday said the American forces are acting "aggressively" in the Strait of Hormuz, where he said US Central Command has "established a powerful red, white, and blue dome" as a "direct gift from the US to the world."
The metaphorical "dome" the US has placed over the key shipping route for oil and other goods has taken the form of what the Trump administration is calling Project Freedom, which launched Monday and involves the US guiding ships out of the strait, according to President Donald Trump. Iran effectively shut the waterway more than two months ago in retaliation for the unprovoked US-Israeli war on the country, and the US Navy has blocked ships from going to or from Iran in response.
Hegseth emphasized Tuesday that Project Freedom is "separate and distinct" from the military assault on Iran that began on February 28 with the stated aim of eliminating the country's missile and nuclear capabilities.
"The ceasefire is not over," said the secretary. "We expected there would be some churn, which happened, and we said we would defend and defend aggressively, and we absolutely have."
He added that the US is "not looking for a fight."
Independent journalist Rachel Blevins responded sardonically: "'We are not looking for a fight'—we just murdered your leader, your schoolchildren, and your civilians, we bombed your infrastructure, and we've been trying to strangle your economy with sanctions for years."
Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of US Central Command, told reporters that US warships shot down Iranian cruise missiles that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had fired at the vessels Navy ships were guiding out of the strait on Monday, and Army helicopter gunships sank six military speedboats from Iran.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander told Iran's state-affiliated media that US forces actually attacked "two small boats carrying people on their way from Khasab on the coast of Oman to the coast of Iran on Monday" and killed five civilians, but did not hit any IRGC ships.
At his press conference with Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hegseth insisted that Iran is the "aggressor" even as he threatened the country with restarting "major combat operations" if Trump deems them "necessary."
Project Freedom, said Hegseth, "is about free flow of commerce, all the things that happened before, and only Iran is contesting, so right now the ceasefire certainly holds, but we're going to be watching very, very closely."
One reporter with the Epoch Times asked whether the president plans to seek congressional approval if he decides it is necessary to restart "major combat operations."
Days before the fighting in the strait, Trump notified Congress last Friday that hostilities with Iran had been terminated. The announcement came on the deadline set by the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires US presidents to end conflicts that have not been authorized by Congress no more than 60 days after notifying lawmakers of the hostilities.
Trump told Congress that the fighting has been effectively terminated since the US and Iran agreed to the ceasefire on April 7, a view that Hegseth pushed on Tuesday in response to the question about congressional authorization.
"Our view is... that ultimately with the ceasefire, the clock stops," said Hegseth. "If it were to restart that would be the president's decision. That option is always there and Iran knows that."
Q: Will this administration be seeking congressional approval for any further military operations if the ceasefire breaks down?
Hegseth: Our view is with the ceasefire, the clock stops. If it were to restart, that would be the president's decision. That option is always there.… pic.twitter.com/cz3bIpLeIC
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2026
NBC News senior national politics reporter Jonathan Allen responded that he had "never heard" of Hegseth and Trump's reasoning for not planning to seek congressional approval for more combat operations.
"Understand that what he is doing here is desperately trying to avoid the War Powers Act," said Fred Wellman, a Democratic congressional candidate in Missouri. "They made up a new interpretation that says the 60-day clock is 'paused' for a ceasefire. Now they are lying and saying this is an all-new, shiny war and not the same one."
He added, "This clown and [the administration's] Republican congressional doormats want you to think we haven’t been at war with Iran for over 65 days."
"The only real energy independence from the Middle East is renewables," said one policy expert.
Average gas prices in the United States are quickly climbing toward $5 per gallon this week as US President Donald Trump's war with Iran shows little sign of resolution.
Where average prices were about $2.98 the day before the war's launch, they had shot up to $4.48 as of Tuesday, according to AAA's gas price tracker, as Iran's restriction of ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz has squeezed global oil shipping and the shipping of other fuel sources like liquefied natural gas (LNG), causing global price hikes.
And while Trump has touted America’s supposed “energy independence” as an ace in the hole, achieved by ratcheting up fossil fuel production while canceling solar and wind power projects, data shows that the US has been hit harder by the price shocks than any other major economy in the world, with those that have embraced renewable energy being especially resilient.
Although the US leads the world in oil production by a large margin, data from JP Morgan Commodities research, analyzed Friday by MarketWatch, showed that between February 23 and April 27, the US experienced about a 42% increase in gas prices, the fifth-highest in the world.
"The spike in US gasoline prices over the past two months has outpaced everywhere except Southeast Asia, the region most dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf," explained Yahoo Finance geopolitics reporter Jake Conley.
Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader and managing director at CIBC Private Wealth, explained to MarketWatch last week that while increased fuel production gives the US a "buffer," oil is a global market and "it doesn’t operate in a vacuum." She said, "Global tightness and domestic bottlenecks still show up in gasoline prices."
Meanwhile, some of the countries that have best survived the price hikes include France and Spain, which derive large shares of their power from nuclear energy and renewables, respectively.
Craig Hanson and Jessica Isaacs, a pair of researchers at the World Resources Institute, explained last month that while a mix of factors is at play, countries less reliant on fossil fuels generally "find themselves in a better position to withstand the current crisis."
"Every country has homegrown access to at least two clean energy resources—the sun shines, and the wind blows just about everywhere at some point," they said. "The same cannot be said of oil and gas, where production is concentrated in a small number of countries and exposed to geopolitical disruption."
"Renewable resources like wind, solar, and geothermal have zero fuel costs, and the fuel cost of nuclear power is quite low. Again, the same cannot be said of fossil fuels, which have costs set by volatile global markets," they added. "These two advantages are why some of the world’s clean energy frontrunners are faring better than other countries amidst the Iranian energy crisis."
As Reuters reported in late April, the contrast between Europe's biggest gas guzzlers and green energy adopters is particularly stark.
While Albania has kept energy prices in check and even lowered them compared to last year by using its large system of hydroelectric dams, which supply much of its power, countries like Germany and Italy, which still rely heavily on gas, have seen electricity prices spike.
Hanson and Isaacs noted that while clean energy investments have helped soften the blow of global price shocks, the effects are not the same across the board. While price hikes for the electricity used to power factories, homes, and cars have been blunted by the availability of alternative energy sources, others, like heat—which are more reliant on natural gas—have still been affected.
Still, though, they said the crisis has shown that in addition to environmental sustainability, "clean energy systems’ greatest benefits today might actually be price stability and domestic energy resilience."
While Trump has continued his efforts to choke off any federal investment in renewable energy and double down on oil and gas production, other nations have taken the war’s price hikes as a sign to further accelerate their transition away from fossil fuels.
Germany and several other European Union members, for example, have announced expedited timelines to expand offshore wind and solar investments, explicitly citing the volatility in oil markets caused by the war.
Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the energy price shocks showed that "the only real energy independence from the Middle East is renewables."
"The language of the constitutional amendment... makes it clear that no, he is not eligible for a third term," Sen. Chris Coons informed one Trump judicial nominee.
Political observers are expressing alarm after several of President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees refused to say whether he is eligible to run for a third term.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked Trump judicial nominee John Marck to describe the 22nd Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that "no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."
"The 22nd Amendment... senator, my career has mostly been in criminal prosecution, I haven't had an opportunity to use that one, specifically," Marck replied.
JUST IN: A Trump judicial nominee was asked point blank: is Trump eligible to run for a third term?
Their answer: “I would have to review the actual wording…”
Sen. Chris Coons then asked every nominee in the room to confirm the Constitution bars a third term.
Silence.
Every… pic.twitter.com/LzUZxFzaOL
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) May 4, 2026
"Anyone able to help on the 22nd Amendment?" Coons asked the other judicial nominees at the hearing, one of whom explained that it was the amendment that sets a two-term limit for the presidency.
"Correct," Coons replied. "It states that no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. Mr. Marck, is President Trump eligible to run again for president in 2028?"
"Senator, without considering all the facts and looking at everything, depending on what the situation is, this, to me, strikes as something more of a hypothetical..."
"It's not a hypothetical," Coons interjected. "Has President Trump been elected president twice?"
"President Trump has been certified as president of the United States two times," Marck acknowledged.
"Is he eligible to run for a third term under our Constitution?" Coons asked.
"Uhm, I would have to review the..." Marck began before Coons again interjected.
"All I need to tell you is the language of the constitutional amendment that makes it clear that no, he is not eligible for a third term," the senator said.
Coons then challenged other Trump judicial nominees at the hearing—Southern District of Florida nominee Jeffrey Kuntz, Southern District of Texas nominee Arthur Roberts Jones, and Northern District of Ohio nominee Michael Hendershot—to say if they believed the Constitution barred Trump from running for a third term, and none of them did.
After watching video of Coons' exchange with Trump judicial nominees, investigative journalist and author Nick Bryant declared the whole episode to be "really chilling."
"Like a scene from a dystopian movie, and alarming for anyone who cares about democracy," Bryant wrote in a Monday social media post. "A judicial nominee flagrantly flouting the Constitution about Trump's eligibility for a third term. The Constitution is unambiguous. He is not eligible."
Former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson noted that the Trump nominees were "not even pretending to honor the Constitution" during the hearing, while former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) simply declared the entire exchange "unreal."
While the chances of Trump being allowed to stand for an unconstitutional third term at the moment are very low, the president has repeatedly teased plans to run for president again in 2028, telling an audience on Monday that he would be leaving the White House "eight or nine years from now."
Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and current professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, said that Trump's declared intention to run for a third term should not be brushed off as mere trolling.
"This is how he started with the whole 'if I lose the election is fraudulent' shtick," she wrote. "If we don’t listen to this, shame on us. That man isn’t building a ballroom for the next guy."