SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
‘Urgency’ lacking from EPA plan to address ‘forever chemicals’ discharges
Today the Environmental Protection Agency released a plan for regulating wastewater pollution, including discharges of the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. But the plan doesn’t reflect the urgent need to tackle these discharges more quickly.
The agency’s long-awaited plan will take years to complete, delaying much-needed restrictions on PFAS discharges into waterways. The plan, the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15
, falls short of the EPA’s vow in its 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap to “get upstream” of the forever chemicals problem.
The EPA confirmed that by spring 2024 – nine months later than previously scheduled – it will release a draft regulation for manufacturers of PFAS or those that create mixtures of PFAS. The agency will do the same for metal finishers and electroplaters by the end of 2024, a delay of six months. The EPA did not announce when final rules will be available for these industries.
The agency will also begin regulating PFAS releases from landfills but did not provide a timeline for a final rule.
For all other industrial categories the EPA considered for PFAS wastewater limitation guidelines, the new plan includes more studies and monitoring, likely delaying restrictions on these sources indefinitely.
“Polluters have gotten a free pass for far too long to contaminate thousands of communities. Now they need aggressive action from the EPA to stop PFAS at the source,” said Melanie Benesh, Environmental Working Group vice president of government affairs. “But the EPA’s plan lacks the urgency those communities rightfully expect.
“We are deeply concerned that the EPA is punting on restrictions for PFAS polluting industries like electronics manufacturers, leather tanners, paint formulators and plastics molders,” said Benesh. “We are also alarmed that the EPA’s proposed restrictions on some of the most serious PFAS polluters – chemical manufacturers and metal finishers – are also getting delayed, with no timeline for when those limits will be final, if ever.
“Although it’s a good thing the EPA is committing to address PFAS discharges from landfills – a source of pollution that disproportionately affects vulnerable communities – it’s also frustratingly unclear from EPA’s plan when, if ever, those limits will materialize.
“Given the glacial pace of change in the EPA’s plan, states should not wait for the EPA to act on PFAS,” she said.
Industrial discharges of PFAS have caused significant contamination in places like the Cape Fear River Basin, in North Carolina,
and Parkersburg, West Virginia.EWG has used EPA enforcement data to identify nearly 40,000 potential industrial dischargers.
Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to suppression of the immune system
, including reduced vaccine efficacy, and an increased risk of certain cancers. PFAS are linked with increased cholesterol, reproductive and developmental problems and other health harms.
Some lawmakers are also trying to force the EPA to address PFAS more quickly. The Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act
, introduced by Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) last year, would require the agency to develop PFAS wastewater limitation guidelines and water standards for PFAS in nine different industry categories by the end of 2026.
The EPA is planning to propose industry-wide regulations for certain industries, but regulators can update facility permits to address PFAS any time. The EPA released guidance for federal permit writers
in April and guidance for state permit writers in December.The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
Israeli Use of AI Weapons in Gaza Denounced as Blatant Violation of Treaty Obligations
"As the Israeli military weaponizes AI for oppression, the world must confront this hypocrisy and hold it accountable to save lives," said Jewish Voice for Peace.
Nov 20, 2024
Amid reporting that the Israel Defense Forces is using an artificial intelligence weapons system touted as improving "operator lethality," Jewish Voice for Peace said Israel's use of technological warfare is "nothing new"—but pointed out that the new reports follow the country's signing of "the first global 'safety' AI treaty."
The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, spearheaded by the Council of Europe, was signed by Israel in September, and "claims to be a legal framework governing AI systems to mitigate risks to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law—but the Israeli military is using AI to do precisely the opposite," said JVP.
The Jewish-led advocacy group spoke out after Middle East Eye (MEE)reported that the IDF has been using a weapons system in Gaza that came out of a collaboration between Israeli Weapons Industries and the Indian company Adani Defence & Aerospace.
The AI system, Arbel, was first unveiled at a defense expo in Gandhinagar, Gujarat in October 2022. MEE reported it is capable of turning "machine guns and assault rifles into computerized killing machines," using algorithms to increase Israeli soldiers' chances of hitting targets with accuracy and "efficiency."
The huge death toll in Gaza—which is conservatively estimated to be about 44,000 but which nearly 100 medical professionals estimated to be more than 118,000 last month, based on their experiences in hospitals there—has previously been linked to Israel's use of AI.
As Common Dreams reported in April, an AI machine called Lavender has been used by the IDF to devise "kill lists," with the military deeming 100 civilian deaths for every Hamas official an acceptable error rate. In December, the Israeli outlets +972 Magazine and Local Callreported that another AI machine called Gospel has been used to target dozens of buildings per day.
Defense analysts told MEE that Arbel has likely been used to "carry out the carnage of Palestinians in a more efficient manner in Gaza."
Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist who tracks the use of technological warfare in Gaza and the West Bank, told MEE that as Israel has used numerous AI systems over the past 13 months, "targeting civilians was the point. It was never about just going after Hamas."
"I have spoken to people in Gaza, I have seen the direct human impact of this kind of killing," he told the outlet. "It is horrific."
Research analyst Noah Sylvia of the Royal United Services Institute in London told MEE that the IDF "has demonstrated a disregard for civilian life in Gaza to the point of routinely targeting children with small arms, meaning that Arbel could easily be used to make the killing of civilians, of children, more efficient."
The impact of the AI system depends "on the military's operating procedures and commitment to international humanitarian law," said Sylvia.
Humanitarian groups and human rights experts have said Israel is blatantly disregarding international law with its near-total blockade of aid into Gaza and its attacks—some with U.S. weapons—on civilians infrastructure.
JVP said the IDF's use of Arbel indicates Israel is also violating the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, and noted reports that the military has also used "facial recognition technology and advanced weapons to monitor, silence dissent, cut internet access, and obscure its war crimes."
Marwa Fatafta, Middle East policy and advocacy director for Access Now, warned that Israel's partnering with India—where AI companies reportedly have the sixth-highest AI investments in the world at $7.73 billion—may provide "a new and terrifying blueprint for tech-enabled warfare... this time through Indian-Israel military tech."
"Rarely does a technology stay dormant in one location," Fatafta said. "The lawlessness and impunity in which Israel commits egregious crimes with the use of AI should terrify everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Democrats Back Sanders Senate Effort to Halt Arms Sales to Israel
"The U.S. must use its leverage to safeguard civilian lives, secure a lasting cease-fire, and advance a pathway toward peace."
Nov 20, 2024
A group of progressives in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders' joint resolutions of disapproval that would block sales of American weapons to Israel as its troops continue to lay waste to the Gaza Strip.
Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the six resolutions in September and plans to force a vote on Wednesday. In a statement led by Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the House members said that "if given the opportunity to do so, we would vote in favor of S.J. Res. 111, S.J. Res. 113, and S.J. Res. 115."
Jayapal was joined by Democratic Reps. Becca Balint (Vt.), Joaquin Castro (Texas), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Sara Jacobs (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), and Jan Schakowsky (Ill.).
While condemning the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack and backing "defensive systems that are designed to meet Israel's security needs," the nine House members also argued that "the United States must use all available leverage, including the suspension of offensive weapons transfers, to de-escalate the violence and protect the lives of hostages, including Americans, Palestinian civilians, and all those impacted by the ongoing conflict."
"We are and have been deeply alarmed by the Israeli military's conduct in Gaza, where independent human rights monitors have documented the use of U.S.-provided weaponry in violations of international law," they continued. "According to the Biden administration's own report, 'it is reasonable to assess' that Israeli security forces have used U.S. weapons to violate international humanitarian law. The humanitarian aid entering Gaza has also reached historic lows. In October, an average of 28 trucks per day crossed into Gaza, compared to a pre-war daily average of 500."
The coalition also pointed to the Biden administration's mid-October letter, which threatened to cut off U.S. weapons unless the Israeli government took "urgent and sustained actions" to improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza within 30 days.
"On November 4, 2024, State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller stated Israel had so far 'failed' to implement the recommendations in the letter, and that assessment was substantiated by several humanitarian organizations," the lawmakers noted. "Despite this clear lack of progress, no meaningful action has been taken by the Biden administration to promote Israeli compliance with stated U.S. policy goals."
Sanders announced plans to bring his resolutions to a vote after a U.S. State Department spokesperson last week responded to a question about the Biden administration's deadline by declaring that Israel is not violating federal and international law.
Warning that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House in January "will only embolden" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right ministers, the House members asserted that a vote for the resolutions "is a vote to politically restrain the Netanyahu government from any forthcoming efforts to formally annex the West Bank and settle parts of Gaza."
"We urge senators to support these joint resolutions of disapproval to block specific offensive arms sales to Israel, upholding U.S. law that prohibits arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance," the coalition concluded. "The U.S. must use its leverage to safeguard civilian lives, secure a lasting cease-fire, and advance a pathway toward peace."
Some House progressives have separately endorsed Sanders' resolutions. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—who lost her August primary to a Democrat backed by pro-Israel lobbyists—said that since President Joe Biden "won't stop sending bombs, it's up to Congress to uphold the law" and urged "every senator who cares about humanity and the rule of law" to vote yes.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, said on social media Wednesday, "Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act is very clear: The U.S. cannot provide weapons to any country that 'prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance.'"
Biden "has refused to enforce U.S. law and stop sending weapons to the Israeli government as they commit genocide in Gaza and use starvation as a weapon of war," Tlaib added. "Today, every senator will have to decide if they will vote to uphold our own laws and block arms sales to Israel."
So far, only a small number of senators have signaled support for the resolutions—Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and Peter Welch (Vt.). The measures would also have to get through the Republican-controlled House to hit Biden's desk, and overriding an anticipated veto would require two-thirds support in both chambers.
Although the resolutions are not expected to pass even in the Senate, "the Biden administration is aggressively pushing senators to bless continued U.S. weapons shipments for Israel ahead of a first-of-its-kind vote in Congress on the policy," HuffPostrevealed Wednesday after obtaining a copy of talking points the White House is circulating on Capitol Hill.
"Administration officials are suggesting lawmakers who vote against the arms are empowering American and Israeli foes from Iran to the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. treats as terror organizations," HuffPost reported. "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is also privately pressing senators to endorse the ongoing flow of military equipment to Israel, according to one of the aides."
Responding to the report on social media, Sanders ally and Arab American Institute president James Zogby—who is considering a run for Democratic National Committee chair—said that "this White House effort is disgraceful."
"Senators trying to block offensive weapons to Israel aren't aiding Hamas, they're trying to stop genocide, starvation, and massive violations of U.S. laws," Zogby added. "They're saving Palestinian lives and the last shred of U.S. honor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dr. Oz Nomination Seen as Potential Boon for Medicare Privatization
"Dr. Oz wants to fully privatize Medicare," warned one advocacy group. "That’s why Donald Trump put him in charge of Medicare."
Nov 20, 2024
Dr. Mehmet Oz, whose unsuccessful 2022 Pennsylvania Senate bid included pitching voters on a plan to expand the privatized Medicare Advantage program, is now in a position to potentially actualize that plan.
President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Oz, also known by his TV personality name Dr. Oz, is his pick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
"Dr. Oz—a massive investor in Pharma—told the voters of Pennsylvania his plans to privatize Medicare… and they rejected him. Now Trump is giving him the authority to see his industry-approved plan carried through," wrote the progressive-leaning outlet The Lever, which covered Oz's support for Medicare Advantage back in 2022.
Through Medicare Advantage, which has been promoted by Trump and other congressional Republicans, seniors can opt out of traditional government-run Medicare health plans and instead choose plans administered by private insurers, such as UnitedHealthcare and Cigna.
According to The Lever's 2022 reporting, Oz pushed Medicare Advantage plans on his show The Dr. Oz Show and co-wrote a 2020 column for Forbes with a former healthcare executive in which they argued that a "Medicare Advantage For All" plan can "save" our healthcare system. In the column, Oz and his co-author articulated a plan to expand Medicare Advantage by imposing a 20% payroll tax.
Oz "is not a good pick for a very powerful position in charge of a trillion dollars of healthcare spending," wrote Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project on X, in reference to The Lever's investigation.
The Lever also reported that Oz's plan to expand private plans under Medicare Advantage could "boost companies in which he invests." For example, Oz and his wife owned up to $550,000 worth of stock in UnitedHealth Group, at the time of reporting. UnitedHealthcare and Humana account for nearly half, or 47%, of Medicare Advantage enrollees nationwide, according to the health policy organization KFF.
Additionally, a 2022 investigation by The New York Timesfound that major health insurers have exploited Medicare Advantage to boost their profits by billions of dollars.
Project 2025, a list of right-wing policy proposals led by the Heritage Foundation that Trump has tried to distance himself from, calls for making Medicare Advantage the default option for Medicare beneficiaries, which, if enacted, "would be a multibillion-dollar annual giveaway to corporations at the expense of Medicare enrollees and taxpayers," according to the liberal research and advocacy organization the Center for American Progress.
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, offered a related critique of Oz: Americans "need someone who will crack down on insurers who want to deny care to the sick, providers who skimp on quality healthcare, corporations that want to privatize Medicare, and Big Pharma profiteers and ideologues who want to slash Medicaid and refuse care to low-income people. What they do not need is a healthcare huckster, which unfortunately Dr. Mehmet Oz appears to have become, having spent much of his recent career hawking products of dubious medical value."
In addition to the potential boon for private insurers, some researchers, news outlets, and members of Congress have also raised concerns about the quality of care administered under Medicare Advantage.
A 2022 government report found that "[Medicare Advantage Organizations] sometimes delayed or denied Medicare Advantage beneficiaries' access to services, even though the requests met Medicare coverage rules" and also "denied payments to providers for some services that met both Medicare coverage rules and [Medicare Advantage Organization] billing rules."
In October, a group of three Democratic lawmakers wrote to the current CMS administrator about increasingly widespread abuses and care denials by for-profit Medicare Advantage insurers.
"We are concerned that in many instances MA plans are failing to deliver, compromising timely access to care, and undermining the ability of seniors and Americans with disabilities to purchase the coverage that’s right for them," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter.
"We continue to hear alarming reports from seniors and their families, beneficiary advocates, and healthcare providers that MA plans are falling short, and finding a good plan is too difficult," they wrote.
In particular, they pointed to Medicare Advantage plans' growing reliance on prior authorization, a complex, barrier-ridden process whereby doctors must demonstrate a proposed treatment is medically necessary before the insurer will cover it.
"Overuse of prior authorization is not only harmful to patients, it hinders healthcare providers' ability to offer best-in-class service," they added.
Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group, warned in a social media post Tuesday that "Dr. Oz wants to fully privatize Medicare."
"That's why Donald Trump put him in charge of Medicare," the group added. "We will fight to stop this charlatan from getting anywhere near our Medicare system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular