December, 21 2017, 02:30pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Neil Gormley, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice, (202) 797-5239, ngormley@earthjustice.orgÂ
Daveon Coleman, Press Secretary, Earthjustice, (608) 216-4648, dcoleman@earthjustice.org
Michael Burger, Volunteer Attorney, Columbia Environmental Law Clinic, Executive Director, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, (212) 854-2372, mburger@law.columbia.edu
Susan J. Kraham, Senior Staff Attorney, Columbia Environmental Law Clinic, 212 854-4291, skraha@law.columbia.edu
Tiffany Challe, Communications Associate, CELC/Sabin Center, (212) 854-0594, tc2868@columbia.eduÂ
Doctors and Scientists Challenge Removal of EPA Science Advisers
Illegal Policy Undermines Integrity of Science and Threatens Public Health.
WASHINGTON
Today, a coalition of doctors, scientists, and professional groups are filing a lawsuit challenging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's attempt to remove highly qualified, independent scientists from advisory committees that ensure the integrity of science at the agency. EPA advisory committees provide crucial scientific and technical information to inform EPA decisions and review the scientific accuracy of EPA findings across a wide range of agency programs. Under a new policy, Pruitt is removing publicly funded scientists from the committees and replacing them with advocates for the polluting industries EPA is charged with regulating.
The parties to the suit are Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Hispanic Medical Association, and the International Society for Children's Health and Environment, on behalf of their members, and Professor Edward Avol, represented by the public-interest law firm Earthjustice, together with independent scientists Dr. Robyn Wilson and Dr. Joseph Arvai, represented by the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic, Morningside Heights Legal Services at Columbia Law School.
"If we can't do this work, we can't protect public health," said Deborah Cory-Slechta, a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility and a Professor of Environmental Medicine, Pediatrics, and Public Health Sciences at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Dr. Cory-Slechta conducts research to better understand the harmful effects of air pollution on the brain. Because she is a current member of the EPA Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee, the new policy makes her ineligible for EPA research grants.
"We're standing up to protect scientific integrity because Hispanic health care professionals and the communities they serve need a strong, effective EPA to safeguard their health," said Dr. Elena Rios, President of the National Hispanic Medical Association. "Scott Pruitt should not be allowed to use selective science to undermine critical health protections."
"EPA's effort to purge independent scientists from its advisory committees has harmful implications for the nation's health," said Physicians for Social Responsibility program director Barbara Gottlieb. "Losing top-flight academic researchers, and replacing them with industry-dependent voices, will undermine actions to protect us from toxic pollutants and life-threatening climate change. If EPA won't abandon this harmful approach, we're happy to take them to court."
"Publicly funded researchers who have devoted their professional lives to understanding these issues help EPA make the best use of limited resources, address gaps in scientific understanding, and leverage the best peer-reviewed research," said Professor Ed Avol of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, who joined the organizations' lawsuit as an affected individual. "It's discouraging to see that the Administrator of the very agency charged with protecting the public's environmental health doesn't value those researchers' participation."
"They're claiming the academic scientists and doctors are biased and then replacing them with industry representatives," said Earthjustice attorney Neil Gormley, the lead attorney on the case. "The hypocrisy is kind of stunning."
"This new directive by the Administrator is unnecessary, at best, and an explicit attack on science-informed policy, at worst," said Dr. Robyn Wilson, an Associate Professor of Risk Analysis and Decision Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources at the Ohio State University. Wilson joined the lawsuit as one of the members of the Science Advisory Board forcibly removed as a result of the Directive. "There are already procedures in place to avoid a potential conflict-of-interest among advisory board members, which makes this latest effort seem to be more about stacking the board with members who will support the new Administration's deregulatory agenda."
"This is a classic case of the fox setting up shop in the henhouse," said Dr. Joseph Arvai, a former member of the EPA's Chartered Science Advisory Board. Dr. Arvai, who joined the suit as an affected individual, is the Max McGraw Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the School for Environment & Sustainability, and the Ross School of Business, at the University of Michigan. "The Pruitt directive unfairly and unlawfully bars some of the nation's leading environmental and health scientists from providing science advice to the EPA; at the same time, it allows scientists from EPA-regulated companies and industries, as well junk scientists hired by their lobbyists, to rubber stamp rules and regulations that will compromise human and environmental health across the United States. Enough is enough."
"Scott Pruitt's directive is entirely unprecedented," said Michael Burger, a volunteer attorney with the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic and Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. "Government agencies have relied on scientific experts serving as advisors and consultants for more than 50 years. Nobody before now has ever thought to ban all scientists receiving grants of any kind from an agency from serving in any way on its advisory committees. That's because it makes no sense."
The complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia explains that Pruitt's new policy is an illegal attempt to override federal ethics rules and that it is arbitrarily biased in favor of polluting industries. If it's allowed to remain in effect, the policy will undermine the integrity of EPA science and introduce pro-polluter bias into agency decisions and programs.
The complaint asks the Court to declare the policy unlawful and arbitrary and throw it out. It also asks the Court to prohibit EPA from removing any more scientists under the policy and direct EPA to reinstate the scientists who were disqualified.
The publicly funded scientists being removed by Pruitt are experts and leaders in their fields of study, including cancer, children's health, asthma and other respiratory diseases, epidemiology, the hazards posed by chemicals in the home, and risk analysis and decision science. Over several years of distinguished service, they have helped ensure that EPA makes decisions based on scientific merit and not on politics.
Pruitt's chosen replacements appear handpicked to put the interests of polluting industries ahead of sound science, public health, and the environment. Virtually all of them have financial connections to polluting industries, hold pro-pollution views that are outside the scientific mainstream, or both. Specifically, of Pruitt's 18 new appointees to the EPA Science Advisory Board,
- 7 currently draw paychecks from polluting industries;
- 4 more have a history of taking money from polluters; and
- 5 more have a history of echoing the talking points of industrial polluters and rejecting mainstream science.
One of Pruitt's appointees to the Science Advisory Board, Robert Phalen, claims that air pollution is good for children and that "modern air is a little too clean for optimum health." Michael Honeycutt, another Pruitt appointee, denies the overwhelming scientific evidence that smog causes asthma and has suggested that more smog would be a "health benefit." As a regulator in Texas, he has opposed stricter limits on mercury and arsenic releases, and actually weakened state protections for benzene, a widespread and extremely potent carcinogen. Honeycutt will now chair the Science Advisory Board.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
'Monumental': Advocates Applaud Federal Rule to Protect Workers From Extreme Heat
The administration has established that "every worker in America has the right to shade, water, and rest while working in temperatures that could kill them," a labor leader said.
Jul 02, 2024
Labor advocates celebrated on Tuesday following the Biden administration's announcement of a proposed rule to protect workers from extreme heat—the first national workplace heat safety standard.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor, published the rule, which the administration says would protect about 36 million indoor and outdoor employees from heat-related injuries and illnesses. It follows similar regulations that five states have approved in recent years.
Labor groups said the rule was the result of decades of advocacy by farmworkers and others subjected to extreme heat, who tend to be working-class people of color or immigrants. The movement was galvanized by heat-related deaths in workplaces around the country.
"This is a bittersweet moment for farmworkers," United Farm Workers president Teresa Romero said in a statement. "Every significant heat safety regulation at the state, and now federal, level was written in the blood of farmworkers."
"Today, the federal government put itself on the right side of history by seeking, for the first time, to establish the precedent that every worker in America has the right to shade, water, and rest while working in temperatures that could kill them," Romero added.
Juley Fulcher, a worker health and safety advocate at Public Citizen, an advocacy group that first called for a federal workplace heat protection standard in 2011, said in a statement that the OSHA rule was a "monumental victory for those who toil in the summer heat."
President Joe Biden has and will continue to protect workers. This President continues to show us where his priorities lie.
Thank you for prioritizing workers' right to safe working conditions, @POTUS. https://t.co/D4YMvWgIml
— Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) July 2, 2024
The focus on protection from heat comes as millions of Americans are under heat advisories this week and fossil-fuel driven climate change causes record-setting temperatures month after month.
The OSHA regulation, which will be the subject of written comments and a public hearing before being finalized, requires worker access to clean drinking water, indoor or shaded areas, rest breaks, and heat-related training. The regulation contains tiers so that certain protections kick in at a heat index of 80°F and still more at 90°F. The rule mandates an acclimatization process for new employees, as they are especially at risk in high temperatures.
The rule would also substantially increase the penalties that employers might pay in the case of heat-related employee injuries, according toThe Guardian.
Bill McGuire, a climate scientist at University College London, wrote on social media that the new rule was "absolutely vital" but warned that "working outside will not be possible at all in the extreme summer temperatures that coming years will bring."
The federal rule comes amid a push by labor and environmental groups to establish more workplace protections against extreme heat. Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) helped organize a "thirst strike" with unions and civil society groups on the U.S. Capitol steps last July. Responding to bottom-up pressure, California, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, and Washington have passed workplace heat safety standards in recent years.
Industry groups have lobbied against the rules, with remarkable success in states such as Florida and Texas, both of which have gone as far as passing laws that prohibit local authorities from mandating heat protections for outdoor workers. The Texas law was ruled unconstitutional by a state district court judge last year.
The new federal rule comes as a part of a larger administration effort to address the extreme heat that Americans are increasingly facing. An OSHA program that began in 2022 has conducted more than 5,000 heat-related inspections in workplaces with the most heat exposure, according to a Labor Department statement.
Separately on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced a set of 656 projects aimed at preparing for extreme heat and other weather disasters, at a total cost of nearly $1 billion.
Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an emailed statement that the project funding "only scratches the surface of the nation's enormous need for tools to combat extreme heat" and pushed for FEMA to classify extreme heat and wildlife smoke events as "major disasters," which would unlock much more key funding.
Su did praise OSHA's "landmark rule" and called for an "urgent, government-wide game plan to tackle catastrophic extreme heat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Bombings Kill More Palestinians as 250,000 Ordered to Evacuate Khan Younis
"It means yet another day, week, chapter of misery for these hundreds of thousands of people," said one United Nations worker.
Jul 02, 2024
Hearing once again from the Israel Defense Forces that they must evacuate to a so-called "humanitarian zone," hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis on Tuesday were forced to search for safety ahead of a likely ground offensive in the city.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said that roughly 250,000 people are living and seeking shelter in the evacuation zone—more than 10% of Gaza's population of 2.3 million.
The evacuation order, which was posted on social media on Monday, also includes nearby localities including al-Qarara and Bani Suhaila.
The IDF said after the order was announced that patients and healthcare providers at European Hospital, the largest operating medical facility in Gaza, were not required to evacuate, but the hospital director told the Associated Press that most had already been relocated.
"The hospital staff and the patients decided to already evacuate themselves," said Rik Peeperkorn, World Health Organization representative for the occupied Palestinian territories, in a press briefing. "We plea the European Gaza hospital will be spared, will be non-damaged."
Peeperkorn said three patients remained at the hospital.
Since Israel began its assault on Gaza and its near-total blockade on humanitarian aid in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack in October, the IDF has attacked hospitals across the enclave, even as they have served as shelters for forcibly displaced people.
The IDF has ordered evacuations from places including northern Gaza and the southern city of Rafah—only to bomb so-called "safe" zones after displacing people.
In late May, at least 46 people were killed when Israel bombed a tent encampment in a "humanitarian area" in Rafah after beginning a full-scale ground invasion of the city, where more than a million people had been displaced. At least 25 people were killed in another attack on an encampment in the area last month.
Sam Rose, a planning director for UNRWA, toldAl Jazeera that the latest evacuation order put a quarter of a million people in a "harrowing, horrific, and incredibly difficult" situation.
"It means yet another day, week, chapter of misery for these hundreds of thousands of people," said Rose. "Most of them have been displaced several times. Some had just returned from Rafah where they were displaced a few weeks ago... They go without knowing precisely where they will end up because this evacuation order told people to go urgently—they know that if they don't go out within 24 hours the worst is to come."
Soon after the evacuation order, at least nine people were killed in an Israeli strike on a home near European Hospital in Khan Younis.
Rose noted that the coastal area of al-Mawasi, where many people will likely go, is "already so overcrowded. There is no room to pitch a tent, there is no water, no infrastructure, no sanitary services. Many spend the night in vehicles or they sleep on their donkey carts."
Louise Wateridge, a spokesperson for UNRWA, told The Washington Post that the forced displacement is taking place amid temperatures over 86°F "every day."
"Even the healthiest people will struggle to make a move in this heat with lack of food, with lack of water," she said. "And then where do they go? That's the next question."
Ahmed al-Najjar, a 26-year-old resident of the Bani Suhaila neighborhood, toldAgence France Presse that with nowhere to flee, his family has been forced to stay in the area after first attempting to leave.
"We did not know where we would go and we do not have enough money to buy a new tent," he said. "We had to spend the night on the street and that has increased our stress. This morning we decided to go home again. There is nowhere else... Whatever happens, happens. We have nothing to lose now."
The IDF's apparent plan to expand its assault on Khan Younis came as The New York Timesreported that security leaders in Israel are pushing for a cease-fire in Gaza, objecting to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to continue the assault until Hamas is eliminated—an objective even some top Israeli military officials believe is impossible—and all Israeli hostages are released.
The Times reported that senior military officials believe a cease-fire is the "swiftest way" to free captives remaining in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Sanders: Right-Wing Supreme Court 'Out of Control' and Must Be Stopped
"At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, billionaire control of our political system, and major threats to the foundations of American democracy, it is clear to me that we need real Supreme Court reform."
Jul 02, 2024
In the aftermath of the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court's potentially deadly rampage against federal regulators, its ruling in support of the criminalization of homelessness, and its decision to grant former President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution, Sen. Bernie Sanders said late Monday that nation's highest judicial body is "out of control" and must be reined in before it can inflict even more damage.
"Over the years, among other disastrous rulings, this right-wing court has given us Citizens United, which created a corrupt, billionaire-dominated political system," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "It overturned Roe v. Wade, removing women's constitutional right to control their own bodies. Last week, the court chose to criminalize poverty by banning homeless encampments in public spaces—forcing more poor people into the cycle of debt and poverty."
"With the Chevron case," the senator continued, "they have made it far more difficult for the government to address the enormous crises we face in terms of climate change, public health, workers' rights, and many other areas. And, today, the court ruled in favor of broad presidential immunity, making it easier for Trump and other politicians to break the law without accountability."
"A strong, enforceable code of ethics is a start, but just a start. We'll need much more than that."
Such far-reaching and devastating decisions, Sanders argued, highlight the extent to which unelected Supreme Court justices—with the backing of
right-wing billionaires and corporations bent on sweeping away all regulatory constraints—have arrogated policymaking authority to themselves with disastrous consequences for U.S. society and the world.
"If these conservative justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office," said Sanders. "At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, billionaire control of our political system, and major threats to the foundations of American democracy, it is clear to me that we need real Supreme Court reform. A strong, enforceable code of ethics is a start, but just a start. We'll need much more than that."
The Supreme Court is out of control.
If these conservative right-wing, corporate-sponsored justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office. pic.twitter.com/jrm3ZdSti8
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 1, 2024
Sanders did not make specific reform recommendations beyond an ethics code in his statement Monday, but he has previously suggested rotating judges off the Supreme Court—which would effectively end lifetime appointments.
The Vermont senator's progressive colleagues floated a range of possible actions following the high court's presidential immunity ruling on Monday, including adding seats to the Supreme Court and impeaching individual justices.
"Today's decision, along with the court's decision to overturn Chevron, is an assault on the separation of powers under the Constitution," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in response to the court's ruling in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
"An extremist Supreme Court stacked by Donald Trump has snatched power away from an elected Congress and handed lawmaking power over to a few far-right unelected judges," Warren added. "This Supreme Court is undermining the foundations of our democracy; Congress must restore balance by adding more justices to the court."
The Supreme Court's recent flurry of rulings has already thrown
existing cases into chaos and opened the floodgates to new corporate-backed lawsuits against longstanding federal regulations.
The Washington Postreported Sunday that "mere hours after the Supreme Court sharply curbed the power of federal agencies" by scrapping the Chevron doctrine, "conservatives and corporate lobbyists began plotting how to harness the favorable ruling in a redoubled quest to whittle down climate, finance, health, labor, and technology regulations in Washington."
"The National Association of Manufacturers, a lobbying group whose board of directors includes top executives from Dow, Caterpillar, ExxonMobil, and Johnson & Johnson, specifically called attention to what it described as regulatory overreach at the [Securities and Exchange Commission] and the Environmental Protection Agency," the Post noted.
The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest corporate lobbying organization, and the American Petroleum Institute were also among the big business groups applauding the fall of Chevron, fueling calls for Congress to codify the doctrine into federal law.
The American Prospect's Hassan Ali Kanu wrote Tuesday that the high court's latest term has "demonstrated how lacking our system is in terms of safeguards that can prevent or correct the Supreme Court when it oversteps its authority or engages in unjustified exercises of power."
"President Joe Biden's commission to explore Supreme Court reform produced a number of viable and sensible options," Kanu continued. "Congress could curtail or end judicial review, the power the court aggregated to itself to exclusively interpret the Constitution."
"Even more modest proposals could further democratize the Court and judiciary, like prohibiting them from declining to apply laws passed by Congress unless they have at least a supermajority vote; or implementing sortition, random assignment, and rotation into the process of appointing or assigning judges to the Supreme Court," he added. "At this point, when a six-member majority is literally declaring a former president who appointed three of them to be functionally above the law, against all prevailing opinion, scholarship, analysis, and experience, the case for court reform couldn't be clearer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular