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
michael regan
EPA Announces 'Long-Overdue' Asbestos Ban
"Today's EPA rule to ban the use of chrysotile asbestos is a groundbreaking, landmark protection," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Mar 18, 2024
Labor and environmental advocates on Monday applauded the Environmental Protection Agency for finalizing a ban on the last remaining type of asbestos used in the United States eight years after Congress amended the nation's chemical safety law to accelerate the phaseout of the carcinogenic substance.
The EPA announced a final rule to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, which is found in a wide range of products including asbestos diaphragms, sheet gaskets, brake blocks, and aftermarket automotive brakes and linings. In a rare display of election-year bipartisanship, Congress voted nearly unanimously in 2016 to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to update and strengthen the nation's chemical safety laws.
"Today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
Asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma as well as laryngeal, lung, and ovarian cancer. Banned in more than 50 countries, the substance is linked to more than 40,000 U.S. deaths each year.
"The science is clear—asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health," said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. "President [Joe] Biden understands that this concern has spanned generations and impacted the lives of countless people. That's why EPA is so proud to finalize this long-needed ban on ongoing uses of asbestos."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus said on social media that "this new asbestos ban is long-overdue and will save thousands of lives."
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement that "today's rule is a positive first step to give all Americans a future free of exposure to asbestos—a carcinogen that has killed far too many."
"An immediate ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos for the chlor-alkali industry is a long-overdue step forward for public health," he added.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO union, hailed the EPA's "groundbreaking, landmark protection," adding that "unions have been sounding the alarm on this dangerous substance for decades."
Green groups echoed labor unions in welcoming the EPA move. Environmental Working Group senior vice president Scott Faber said that "it's been more than 50 years since EPA first sought to ban some uses of asbestos and we're closer than ever to finishing the job."
"For too long, polluters have been allowed to make, use, and release toxins like asbestos and PFAS without regard for our health," Faber added, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called forever chemicals. "Thanks to the leadership of the Biden EPA, those days are finally over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden EPA Accused of 'Caving' to Industry Pressure on Gas-Fired Power Plants
"Biden is on thin ice with young people," said the Sunrise Movement. "He can't throw a bone to us on Monday, let us down on Tuesday, and expect our generation to turn out in the numbers he needs us to in order to win."
Mar 02, 2024
The youth-led Sunrise Movement on Friday panned the Biden administration's decision to delay a regulatory crackdown on existing gas-fired power plants by exempting the major polluters from a forthcoming rule aimed at curbing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
E&E News, which first reported the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) move, noted that the delay "could push a major part of the president's fight against global warming until after the November election."
"Under the new approach, EPA is still expected to complete a rule in April that would cut greenhouse gas pollution limits for existing coal-fired and future natural gas plants," E&E News reported. "But the rule coming out in April will no longer include limits for existing gas-fired plants—the country's top generator of electricity."
EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement that splitting the rules would allow the agency to take "a new, comprehensive approach to cover the entire fleet of natural gas-fired turbines, as well as cover more pollutants including climate, toxic, and criteria air pollution."
But that rationale didn't satisfy some climate advocates. The Sunrise Movement said it was "disappointed" in the decision and accused the administration of "caving to pressure" from industry lobbyists.
"Biden is on thin ice with young people," Sunrise added. "He can't throw a bone to us on Monday, let us down on Tuesday, and expect our generation to turn out in the numbers he needs us to in order to win."
"Don't get us wrong, we applaud the EPA for finalizing the rules regulating harmful local pollutants from these power plants," the group added. "These rules are a huge win for environmental justice and will protect frontline communities from toxic air pollution. But, we need more from Biden."
"EPA promises that some future proposed rule will address these emissions, but time is not on our side, and the agency's generally lethargic rulemaking pace does not leave one optimistic."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee and a member of the chamber's Environment and Public Works Committee, also slammed the decision to—at least temporarily—exempt gas-fired plants from tougher regulations.
"EPA's new power plant rule omits a massive emissions source: existing gas power plants. Making a rule that applies only to coal, which is dying out on its own, and to new gas power plants that are not yet built, is not how we are going to reach climate safety," said Whitehouse. "Failing to cover the plants responsible for the vast majority of future carbon pollution from the power sector makes no sense."
"It is inexplicable that EPA, knowing of these emissions, did not focus this rulemaking on existing gas-fired plants from its inception," the senator continued. "EPA promises that some future proposed rule will address these emissions, but time is not on our side, and the agency's generally lethargic rulemaking pace does not leave one optimistic. With temperature records being broken daily and a spiraling cascade of climate-driven extreme weather events affecting families across America and the world, the planet cannot afford action at EPA's pace. The agency must complete a robust rule covering the existing gas fleet by the end of this year."
The EPA's original proposal to strengthen pollution standards for new and existing power plants drew criticism from environmentalists who said it would cover just a small percentage of existing gas plants and rely far too heavily on ineffective carbon capture technology. The utility industry, meanwhile, lobbied aggressively against the proposal.
Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice, defended the EPA's new approach, arguing that its decision to separately pursue more ambitious regulations for existing gas-fired plants would allow the agency "to consider technologies that were not considered in its initial proposal and ensure that new standards do not shift pollution to dirty, uncontrolled plants and the communities they pollute."
But Sunrise warned Friday that putting off any new rules targeting existing gas plants could leave the fate of any broader regulatory effort "up to the results of the 2024 election."
"That's not how a climate president acts," the group said.
Donald Trump, the former president and presumptive 2024 GOP nominee, aggressively rolled back environmental regulations during his first four years in office and appears poised to do the same—potentially on an even larger scale—if he wins in November.
"Trump and his advisers have made campaign promises to toss crucial environmental regulations and boost the planet-heating fossil fuel sector," The Guardianreported last month. "Those plans include systemically dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stronger EPA Soot Standards Called an Overdue 'Step Toward Cleaner Air'
"Even with these new protections in place, too many people's health will still be at risk from dangerous exposures to PM2.5," one expert said.
Feb 07, 2024
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Wednesday that it had finalized tougher standards on soot, or fine particulate matter pollution, one of the deadliest types of air pollution.
In a move largely applauded by environmental and public health groups and protested by industry, the EPA said it was strengthening the national ambient air quality standard for soot from an annual limit of 12 micrograms per cubic meter to nine micrograms per cubic meter, which—according to the agency—would prevent as many as 4,500 early deaths each year.
"This final air quality standard will save lives and make all people healthier, especially within America's most vulnerable and overburdened communities," EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan
said in a statement. "Cleaner air means that our children have brighter futures, and people can live more productive and active lives, improving our ability to grow and develop as a nation."
Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) kills almost 50,000 people in the U.S. every year and led to 4.2 million early deaths worldwide in 2019. It is released primarily by the burning of fossil fuels by factories, power plants, and vehicles and causes health problems like respiratory ailments, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. It is also a major environmental justice issue, as low-income communities of color tend to experience a higher pollution burden.
"Particulate matter pollution is deadly, especially for children and older Americans. The Biden administration's new air quality standards will save thousands of lives and help address unjust disparities in air quality for communities of color and low-income communities," Patrice Simms, Earthjustice's vice president of litigation for healthy communities, said in a statement. "We applaud EPA for issuing a rule that will help reduce heart disease, asthma, and other serious illnesses. We look forward to EPA's implementation efforts, which must include robust enforcement and rigorous monitoring."
The World Health Organization has set its annual target for PM2.5 to five micrograms per cubic meter and its 24-hour target to 15. It calculates that 99% of people on Earth breath air that exceeds its health limit for several pollutants including PM2.5. Despite this, the EPA has not updated its PM2.5 standards since 2012.
"It's shameful that, in the face of such clear and compelling evidence of the public health and economic benefits of stronger soot standards, big polluters and their allies in Washington do everything in their power to undermine these commonsense air pollution standards."
The Clean Air Act requires the agency to review the science and decide whether or not to update the standard every five years. However, while the EPA under former President Donald Trump did complete an assessment, it chose not to strengthen the standards in December 2020. Its own scientists concluded that lowering the safety limit from 12 to nine micrograms would decrease yearly deaths by 12,150, but various industry groups urged the administration not to make any changes, according to The New York Times. Trump EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler also dismissed an outside group of expert scientists who were consulting on the measure. In response, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reassembled the panel in 2019. The experts concluded that the EPA should raise its standards to protect public health.
"The delays in updating this standard come at a steep cost, and lingering pollution impacts are too often borne by communities of color and low-income communities already facing disproportionate cumulative pollution burdens," Chitra Kumar, managing director of the UCS' Climate & Energy Program, said in a statement. "Those delays are due in large part to the previous administration dismissing a key science advisory board and ignoring the overwhelming evidence that the PM2.5 standard was insufficient."
While the UCS applauded the new standards, it argued the agency could have gone even further.
"New rules are long overdue, and today's final rule is a step toward cleaner air and healthier communities," Kumar said. "However, even with these new protections in place, too many people's health will still be at risk from dangerous exposures to PM2.5."
One gap in EPA regulations is that there are no standards in place to protect people from ultrafine particulate matter.
"The science is clear—ultra-fine particles make their way into the bloodstream contributing to premature death," said Beto Lugo Martinez, an environmental and climate justice leader who is part of the group Coming Clean.
American Lung Association president Harold Wimmer told the Times that the EPA should have set the limit at eight instead of nine, which was the safest standard in the 8 to 10 micrograms range recommended by the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. while the Sierra Club pointed out that the agency did not tighten the limit on 24-hour exposure, which remains at 35 micrograms. Lowering this number was also a committee recommendation.
However, the EPA under Regan and President Joe Biden has resisted industry pressure by strengthening the standards at all. In October 2023, representatives from sectors including fossil fuels, manufacturing, and mining sent a letter to Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients arguing that a nine-microgram standard would "risk jobs and livelihoods by making it even more difficult to obtain permits for new factories, facilities, and infrastructure to power economic growth" as well as hamper Biden administration efforts like the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act.
In responding to journalists Tuesday, EPA officials pushed back against the economic arguments, according to The Guardian. They said that the country would in fact see up to $77 in health benefits in 2032 for every $1 spent on complying with the update, and that 99% of U.S. counties were already on track to meet the new standard by that date, which is most likely the date by which states would face fines for not complying with the new standard.
"It's shameful that, in the face of such clear and compelling evidence of the public health and economic benefits of stronger soot standards, big polluters and their allies in Washington do everything in their power to undermine these commonsense air pollution standards," Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said in a statement. "Their resistance is a stark reminder that the fight for clean air and a healthier future is far from over, and we will continue working to ensure the benefits of these stronger air pollution standards reach the communities that need them most."
The next step is for the EPA to spend the coming two years determining which areas do not meet the revised standards. After that point, the states that do not meet them would have 18 months to draft a plan to lower pollution levels.
Environmental advocates see the new standards as a chance to improve air quality and health in frontline communities such as the nation's ports.
"We're elated by the EPA's decision to finalize a significantly stronger air quality standard that will better protect all Americans, especially port communities," Terrance Bankston, Friends of the Earth's senior ports and freights campaigner, said in a statement. "Many Americans have been subjected to disproportionate health risks from air pollution via port operations for decades. The biggest offender has and continues to be soot pollution from port emissions. For LatinX residents, the exposure to soot pollution is 75% higher. For Black Americans, the risk of dying from soot pollution is the highest, with a rate of over triple that of white Americans."
Ports now have an opportunity to use the $3 billion from the EPA's Clean Port Program to switch to zero-emissions technology.
"We encourage port stakeholders to use the EPA's announcement as an opportunity to be on the right side of history," Bankston said.
The rule, and the science behind it, is also a reminder that fossil fuels harm human health even beyond driving the climate crisis, and that both regulating their pollution and transitioning away from them can have multiple benefits.
"Air pollution used to be the price we had to pay to heat our homes, commute, or produce goods by burning coal, oil, and gas. Thankfully, in the rapidly accelerating renewable energy era, that's no longer the case," Lisa Frank, executive director of Environment America Research & Policy Center's Washington Office, said in a statement. "These soot standards will save lives, clear our skies, and alleviate the burden of asthma and other illnesses. That's something all Americans should celebrate."
Across the nation, the success of the new rule will also depend on the degree to which the EPA holds violators to account.
"EPA must support the new standard with strong enforcement on polluters," Martinez said. "The continued influence of polluters on EPA does not align or meet with the administration's claimed priorities on environmental justice. Weak standards and weak enforcement give a green light to polluters and the government to continue business as usual."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular