tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/epa-11106/articlesEPA – The Conversation2023-11-23T19:04:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2182312023-11-23T19:04:01Z2023-11-23T19:04:01ZPollution from coal power plants contributes to far more deaths than scientists realized, study shows<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560874/original/file-20231121-4173-worc70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C107%2C5083%2C3435&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kids jump on a trampoline as steam rises from a coal power plant in Adamsville, Ala., in 2021. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/kids-jump-on-a-trampoline-at-their-grandparents-home-as-news-photo/1232409457?adppopup=true"> Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Air pollution particles from coal-fired power plants are more harmful to human health than many experts realized, and it’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf4915">more than twice as likely to contribute to premature deaths</a> as air pollution particles from other sources, new research demonstrates.</p>
<p>In the study, published in the journal Science, colleagues and I mapped how U.S. coal power plant emissions traveled through the atmosphere, then linked each power plant’s emissions with death records of Americans over 65 years old on Medicare.</p>
<p>Our results suggest that air pollutants released from coal power plants were associated with nearly half a million premature deaths of elderly Americans from 1999 to 2020.</p>
<p>It’s a staggering number, but the study also has good news: Annual deaths associated with U.S. coal power plants have fallen sharply since the mid-2000s as <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-us-coal-power-is-disappearing-and-a-supreme-court-ruling-wont-save-it-187254">federal regulations compelled operators</a> to install emissions scrubbers and many utilities shut down coal plants entirely.</p>
<p>In 1999, 55,000 deaths were attributable to coal air pollution in the U.S., according to our findings. By 2020, that number had fallen to 1,600.</p>
<figure><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/2941/lucas-maps-GIF5.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=2"><figcaption> How PM2.5 levels from coal power plants in the U.S. have declined since 1999 as more plants installed pollution-control devices or shut down. Lucas Henneman.</figcaption></figure>
<p>In the U.S., coal is being displaced by natural gas and renewable energy for generating electricity. Globally, however, coal use is <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2022">projected to increase</a> in coming years. That makes our results all the more urgent for global decision-makers to understand as they develop future policies.</p>
<h2>Coal air pollution: What makes it so bad?</h2>
<p>A landmark study in the 1990s, known as the <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401">Harvard Six Cities Study</a>, linked tiny airborne particles called PM2.5 to increased risk of early death. Other studies have since linked PM2.5 to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12152656">lung and heart disease, cancer</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3300">dementia</a> and other diseases. </p>
<p>Following that research, the Environmental Protection Agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/timeline-particulate-matter-pm-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs">began regulating PM2.5 concentrations in 1997</a> and has lowered the acceptable limit over time.</p>
<p>PM2.5 – particles small enough to be inhaled deep into our lungs – comes from several different sources, including gasoline combustion in vehicles and smoke from wood fires and power plants. It is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM">made up of many</a> different chemicals.</p>
<p>Coal is also a mix of many chemicals – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.04.070">carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, even metals</a>. When coal is burned, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php">all of these chemicals</a> are emitted to the atmosphere either as gases or particles. Once there, they are transported by the wind and interact with other chemicals already in the atmosphere.</p>
<p>As a result, anyone downwind of a coal plant may be breathing a complex cocktail of chemicals, each with its own potential effects on human health.</p>
<figure><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/2934/lucas-gif1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=2"><figcaption> Two months of emissions from Plant Bowen, a coal-fired power station near Atlanta, show how wind influences the spread of air pollution. Lucas Henneman.</figcaption></figure>
<h2>Tracking coal PM2.5</h2>
<p>To understand the risks coal emissions pose to human health, we tracked how sulfur dioxide emissions from each of the 480 largest U.S. coal power plants operating at any point since 1999 traveled with the wind and turned into tiny particles – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf4915">coal PM2.5</a>. We used sulfur dioxide because of its known health effects and drastic decreases in emissions over the study period.</p>
<p>We then used a statistical model to link coal PM2.5 exposure to Medicare records of nearly 70 million people from 1999 to 2020. This model allowed us to calculate the number of deaths associated with coal PM2.5.</p>
<p>In our statistical model, we controlled for other pollution sources and accounted for many other known risk factors, like smoking status, local meteorology and income level. We tested multiple statistical approaches that all yielded consistent results. We compared the results of our statistical model with <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aba5692">previous results</a> testing the health impacts of PM2.5 from other sources and found that PM2.5 from coal is twice as harmful as PM2.5 from all other sources.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two people stand outside an older brick home with power plant smokestacks in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Residents living near the Cheswick coal-fired power plant in Springdale, Pa., publicly complained about the amount of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and coal particles from the plant for years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/marti-blake-speaks-to-the-postman-in-front-of-the-smoke-news-photo/874051624">Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The number of deaths associated with individual power plants depended on multiple factors – how much the plant emits, which way the wind blows and how many people breathe in the pollution. Unfortunately, U.S. utilities located many of their plants upwind of major population centers on the East Coast. This siting amplified these plants’ impacts.</p>
<p>In an <a href="https://cpieatgt.github.io/cpie/">interactive online tool</a>, users can look up our estimates of annual deaths associated with each U.S. power plant and also see how those numbers have fallen over time at most U.S. coal plants.</p>
<h2>A US success story and the global future of coal</h2>
<p>Engineers have been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670200410">designing effective scrubbers</a> and other pollution-control devices that can reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants for several years. And the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/Cross-State-Air-Pollution/overview-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-csapr">EPA has rules</a> specifically to encourage utilities that used coal to install them, and most facilities that did not install scrubbers have shut down.</p>
<p>The results have been dramatic: Sulfur dioxide emissions <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670200410">decreased about 90%</a> in facilities that reported installing scrubbers. Nationwide, sulfur dioxide emissions decreased 95% since 1999. According to our tally, deaths attributable to each facility that installed a scrubber or shut down decreased drastically.</p>
<p><iframe id="F1X0R" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/F1X0R/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>As advances in fracking techniques reduced the cost of natural gas, and regulations made running coal plants more expensive, <a href="https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2010007819500088">utilities began replacing coal with natural gas</a> plants and renewable energy. The shift to natural gas – a cleaner-burning fossil fuel than coal but still a greenhouse gas <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-announces-a-sweeping-methane-plan-heres-why-cutting-the-greenhouse-gas-is-crucial-for-protecting-climate-and-health-168220">contributing to climate change</a> – led to even further air pollution reductions.</p>
<p>Today, coal contributes about 27% of electricity in the U.S., <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T02.06#/?f=A">down from 56% in 1999</a>.</p>
<p>Globally, however, the outlook for coal is mixed. While the U.S. and other nations are headed toward a future with substantially less coal, the International Energy Agency <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2022">expects global coal use to increase</a> through at least 2025.</p>
<p>Our study and others like it make clear that increases in coal use will harm human health and the climate. Making full use of emissions controls and a turn toward renewables are surefire ways to reduce coal’s negative impacts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218231/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lucas Henneman receives funding from the Health Effects Institute, the National Institute of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency.</span></em></p>The longest-running study of its kind reviewed death records in the path of pollution from coal-fired power plants. The numbers are staggering − but also falling fast as US coal plants close.Lucas Henneman, Assistant Professor of Engineering, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2081112023-06-22T03:40:03Z2023-06-22T03:40:03ZHuge Cadia gold mine ordered to reduce polluting dust. Is it safe to live near a mine like this?<p>For the past 15 months, I have been helping residents living near the massive Cadia gold and copper mine in NSW to verify their concerns about pollution from the mine. The findings of alarming levels of heavy metals in their water tanks, as well as in blood and hair samples, prompted the NSW Environmental Protection Agency to investigate. Yesterday it <a href="https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2023/epamedia230621-epa-requires-immediate-action-by-newcrest-to-comply">ordered the mine</a> to stop releasing an “unacceptable level” of dust that carries these metals through the air.</p>
<p>The EPA is <a href="https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/working-together/community-engagement/updates-on-issues/cadia-gold-mine">advising</a> that the water from tanks in the area is safe to drink. This advice is based on the results of NSW Health tests of residents’ kitchen tap water in March 2023. The EPA is also helping to organise water testing for locals, many of whom rely on rainwater tanks for their drinking water. </p>
<p>I remain unconvinced the water is always safe to drink. Metals accumulate in the bottom layers of tanks, so when water levels fall, people could be drinking water with a higher metal content.</p>
<p>These developments also do little to reassure residents who have similar concerns about other recently approved metal mines in NSW.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1671427489032441856"}"></div></p>
<h2>What forced the EPA to act?</h2>
<p>I first heard of complaints of dust blowing from the mine, particularly from its tailings disposal area, in 2021. Locals <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-20/cadia-residents-exposed-to-tailings-dust/100078334">expressed concerns</a> about the impacts on their health of inhaling the dust. </p>
<p>Over the past year, many people in the area have sent me water samples from their home water tanks. These are fed by roof runoff, which they were concerned could carry metal-rich dust into the tanks. </p>
<p>I sent the water samples to a commercial testing laboratory. The results have been very confronting. Many samples failed to meet <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-drinking-water-guidelines">Australian Drinking Water Guidelines</a>. </p>
<p>This prompted a community group to run their own citizen science survey of local drinking water quality. They systematically collected water samples from the bottom of household rainwater tanks on dozens of properties surrounding the mine. They sent the samples to a commercial testing laboratory. </p>
<p>I reviewed the results of their study, conducted in February and March this year. Coupled with a previous study, we had results for 47 water samples, and 32 (68%) exceeded the drinking water guidelines for lead (less than 10 micrograms per litre). Alarmingly, 13 samples (27.6%) recorded concentrations of more than ten times (100µg/L of lead) the recommended limit. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two rainwater tanks outside a house" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533342/original/file-20230622-27-yiknqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533342/original/file-20230622-27-yiknqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533342/original/file-20230622-27-yiknqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533342/original/file-20230622-27-yiknqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533342/original/file-20230622-27-yiknqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533342/original/file-20230622-27-yiknqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533342/original/file-20230622-27-yiknqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When rainwater tanks run low, residents are at higher risk of exposure to metals that build up at the bottom of their tanks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/not-all-of-us-have-access-to-safe-drinking-water-this-clever-rainwater-collector-can-change-that-188800">Not all of us have access to safe drinking water. This clever rainwater collector can change that</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many community members also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/02/water-heavy-metal-contamination-near-cadia-hill-nsw-goldmine">reported</a> elevated levels of metals in <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-22/epa-probe-cadia-gold-mine-heavy-metal-contamination-claims/102374344">blood and hair samples</a>.</p>
<p>Lead is a major health issue in <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/lead-water-americas-water-dangerous-drink/story?id=98438736">water supplies across the United States</a>. It’s a neurotoxin that builds up in the body and can cause <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/water.htm#:%7E:text=The%20most%20common%20sources%20of,1986%20may%20also%20contain%20lead">lifelong brain impairment</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the community was struggling to be heard – by the EPA in particular. On May 12 this year, I was invited to meet with NSW EPA CEO Tony Chappel. I brought two members of the Cadia community. </p>
<p>They talked about their concerns about drinking water. They also broke the news about excessive metals in local residents’ blood results. That meeting changed everything. </p>
<p>In the following weeks the EPA has acted swiftly to stop this pollution and help the community. The agency is focusing on a major potential source of the contamination from the mine: dust. </p>
<p>The EPA has now <a href="https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/community/letter-to-cadia-holdings-pty-limited-21-6-23.pdf">ordered the mine</a> to take all necessary steps to immediately stop releasing excessive amounts of dust, which may include <a href="https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2023/epamedia230621-epa-requires-immediate-action-by-newcrest-to-comply">reducing production</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/children-continue-to-be-exposed-to-contaminated-air-in-port-pirie-113484">Children continue to be exposed to contaminated air in Port Pirie</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why is dust such a critical problem?</h2>
<p>The Cadia <a href="https://www.cadiavalley.com.au/newcrest/cvo/news">gold and copper mine</a> has been operating for more than 25 years. It includes an open-cut mine and more recently an underground mine, the <a href="https://www.mining-technology.com/projects/cadia/">largest in Australia</a>. It is the underground mining that now seems central to the contamination.</p>
<p>The EPA issued a “prevention notice” on May 29 this year. The agency <a href="https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/community/letter-to-cadia-holdings-pty-limited-21-6-23.pdf">pointed to</a> a ventilation vent (vent rise 8) that was releasing more than seven times the permitted dust content. Also known as the “crusher vent”, it has caused other serious air quality concerns, with <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-21/cadia-valley-operations-fails-air-quality-audit-expansion/101674962">emissions of cancer-causing crystalline silica</a> recorded at 18 times the legal limit. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-25/cadia-gold-mine-orange-fined-maximum-epa-penalty-dust-pollution/101370850">August 2022</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-20/cadia-residents-exposed-to-tailings-dust/100078334">July 2020</a>, the EPA had fined the mine the maximum $15,000 for dust pollution and is clearly frustrated by its <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-21/cadia-valley-operations-fails-air-quality-audit-expansion/101674962">unacceptable impacts</a>. It has just issued the mine with revised environmental regulations. </p>
<p>The EPA <a href="https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2023/epamedia230621-epa-requires-immediate-action-by-newcrest-to-comply">press release</a> yesterday said: “Additional reports will also be required on lead dust fingerprinting research.” This “fingerprinting” <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20047782/">analysis</a> of lead helps trace its transport pathways and geological origins.</p>
<p>In a statement in response to the EPA’s latest action, the mine operator, Cadia Valley Operations, said: “We take our environmental obligations and the concerns raised by the EPA seriously and will take action to comply with the licence variation notice.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mount-isa-contamination-within-guidelines-but-residents-told-to-clean-their-homes-72862">Mount Isa contamination 'within guidelines' but residents told to clean their homes</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What does this mean for residents near other mines?</h2>
<p>This case might not be isolated. Gold and silver mining in NSW is booming. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/news/2023/03/mcphillamys-gold-mine">Approved in March</a>, McPhillamys gold mine near the town of Blayney is about 20 kilometres from Cadia mine. And the Bowdens silver mine near Mudgee was <a href="https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/resources/pac/media/files/pac/projects/2022/12/bowdens-silver/determination/230403-bowdens-silver-project-ssd-5765-statement-of-reasons-for-decision.pdf">approved</a> the following month, despite many submissions expressing concern about the impacts of lead dust on human health.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1651729932702355456"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gold-mining-is-one-of-the-worlds-most-destructive-and-unnecessary-industries-heres-how-to-end-it-197447">Gold mining is one of the world’s most destructive and unnecessary industries – here's how to end it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Can people be safe and healthy living near a large metal mining operation? Based on Cadia, I’m not sure. </p>
<p>Mines and regulators might need to work more closely together with communities. The public needs to be able to make sure government agencies are doing their job and every mine operates in an environmentally clean and safe manner. The mining industry has to do better to earn the trust of the community and its “<a href="https://www.australianmining.com.au/miners-need-to-improve-social-license-to-operate-nsw-minerals-council/">social licence</a>” to operate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208111/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian A Wright has received funding from industry, as well as Commonwealth, NSW and local governments. He has assisted the Environmental Defenders Office in several matters involving pollution associated with mining activity. </span></em></p>The action by the Environment Protection Authority follows alarming results from testing of rainwater tanks and the blood and hair of residents living near to the mine.Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2048892023-05-16T12:41:27Z2023-05-16T12:41:27ZEPA’s crackdown on power plant emissions is a big first step – but without strong certification, it will be hard to ensure captured carbon stays put<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526015/original/file-20230513-80599-50hj2p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=836%2C0%2C2108%2C1350&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Power plants contribute a quarter of the United States' climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/polluted-beauty-royalty-free-image/991612992">Howard C via Getty images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. government is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-new-carbon-pollution-standards-fossil-fuel-fired-power-plants-tackle">planning to crack down</a> on power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions, and, as a result, a lot of money is about to pour into technology that can capture carbon dioxide from smokestacks and lock it away.</p>
<p>That raises an important question: Once carbon dioxide is captured and stored, how do we ensure it stays put?</p>
<p>Power plants that burn fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, release a lot of carbon dioxide. As that CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere, it traps heat near the Earth’s surface, <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide">driving global warming</a>. </p>
<p>But if CO₂ emissions can be captured instead and <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport.pdf">locked away for thousands of years</a>, existing fossil fuel power plants could meet the proposed new federal standards and reduce their impact on climate change. </p>
<p>We <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XO3TyEUAAAAJ&hl=en">work on</a> carbon capture and storage technologies <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/172390">and policies</a> as a scientist and an engineer. One of us, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=jOPykuwAAAAJ&hl=en">Klaus Lackner</a>, proposed a tenet more than two decades ago that is echoed in the proposed standards: For all carbon extracted from the ground, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1323-0_3">an equal amount</a> must be disposed of safely and permanently. </p>
<p>To ensure that happens, carbon capture and storage needs an effective certification system. </p>
<h2>EPA’s proposed carbon crackdown</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power">proposed new power plant rules</a>, announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 11, 2023, are based on performance standards for carbon dioxide releases. They aren’t yet finalized, and they <a href="https://theconversation.com/bidens-strategy-for-cutting-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-generation-could-extend-the-lives-of-fossil-fuel-power-plants-204723">likely will face fierce legal challenges</a>, but the industry is paying attention.</p>
<p>Power plant owners could meet the proposed standards in any number of ways, including by shutting down fossil fuel-powered plants and replacing them with renewable energy such as solar or wind.</p>
<p>For those planning to continue to burn natural gas or coal, however, capturing the emissions and storing them long term is the most likely option. </p>
<h2>How CCS works for power plants</h2>
<p>Carbon capture typically starts at the smokestack with <a href="https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/carbon-capture-and-storage-101">chemical “scrubbers</a>” that can remove more than 90% of carbon dioxide emissions. The captured CO₂ is compressed and sent through pipelines for storage.</p>
<p>At most storage sites, CO₂ is injected <a href="https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/strategic-program-support/natcarb-atlas">into underground reservoirs</a>, typically in porous rocks more than 3,300 feet (1,000 meters) below the surface. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cutaway and closeup shows how CO2 is trapped in rock pore spaces." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A cutaway of the Earth shows how impermeable rocks cap CO₂ reservoirs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/">Global CCS Institute</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Geologists look for sites with multiple layers of protection, including impermeable rock layers above the reservoir that can prevent gas from leaking out. In some sites, CO₂ chemically reacts with minerals and is eventually immobilized as a solid carbonate.</p>
<p>Carbon capture and storage is <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-epas-new-power-plant-standards-proposal-gives-it-a-boost-but-ccs-is-not-a-quick-solution-205462">currently expensive</a>, and developing the pipeline and storage infrastructure will likely take years. But as more CCS projects are built – helped by some <a href="https://www.wri.org/update/45q-enhancements">generous tax credits</a> in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – costs are likely to drop.</p>
<p>The Sleipner project in the North Sea has been putting away <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217317174%5d.">roughly 1 million</a> metric tons of CO₂ a year since 1996. In Iceland, CO₂ is injected into volcanic basalt rocks, where it reacts with the stone and rapidly <a href="https://www.carbfix.com/">forms solid mineral carbonates</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A US map shows reservoirs across the Plains, Southeast and Midwest in particular, as well as the coasts." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Several regions of the U.S. have geological reservoirs with the potential to store captured carbon dioxide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-sequestration-overview_.html">Environmental Protection Agency</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the U.S., companies have been injecting CO₂ into underground reservoirs for decades – initially, as a way to force more oil out of the ground. Today, these “enhanced oil recovery” projects can receive tax credits for the CO₂ that remains underground. As a result, some now inject more carbon into the ground than they extract as oil. </p>
<p>While there have been no notable CO₂ releases from geologic storage, <a href="https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M292/K947/292947433.PDF">other gas storage leaks demonstrate</a> that injection has to follow well-defined safety rules. Nothing is guaranteed. </p>
<p>That’s why monitoring and certification are essential.</p>
<h2>How to effectively certify carbon storage</h2>
<p>The EPA has rules for CO₂ storage sites, but they are focused on protecting drinking water rather than the climate. Under <a href="https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-used-geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide">those rules</a>, monitoring is required for all phases of the project and for 50 years after closing to check the safety of the groundwater and ensure that material injected underground does not contaminate it.</p>
<p>However, the current <a href="https://netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/faqs/permanence-safety">monitoring techniques</a> don’t measure the amount of carbon stored, and the rules do not require that leaked carbon be replaced. </p>
<p>To provide more direction, we developed a <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">certification framework</a> designed to ensure that all carbon is stored safely and for the tens of thousands of years necessary to safeguard the climate.</p>
<p>We envision liability for the captured carbon dioxide shifting from the power plant owner to the storage site operator once the carbon dioxide is transferred. That would mean the storage site operator would be held liable for any leaks.</p>
<p>Under <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">the framework</a>, a certificate authority would vet storage operators and issue certificates of carbon sequestration for stored carbon. These certificates could have market value if, as the EPA suggests, power plant operators are held responsible for the carbon stored. Future regulations could expand this requirement to other emitters, or simply demand that any carbon released is cleared by a corresponding certificate showing the same amount of carbon has been sequestered.</p>
<p>Careful monitoring, paired with certification that requires storage site owners to make up any losses, could help avoid <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/24/shell-ccs-facility-in-canada-emits-more-than-it-captures-study-says.html">greenwashing</a> and ensure that the investments meet the nation’s climate goals. </p>
<p><iframe id="Fsawi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Fsawi/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Certification can be useful for carbon stored in any quantifiable storage reservoir, including trees, oceans and human infrastructure such as cement. We believe a <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">universal approach to certification</a> that sets minimum requirements and responsibilities is necessary to assure that carbon is stored safely with a guarantee of permanence, regardless of how it is done.</p>
<p>Climate change will <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/04/04/quantifying-risks-to-the-federal-budget-from-climate-change/">cost trillions of dollars</a>, and the federal government is putting <a href="https://www.wri.org/update/carbon-removal-BIL-IRA">billions into research and tax breaks</a> to encourage development of carbon capture and storage sites. To avoid dubious methods, corner-cutting and greenwashing, carbon storage will have to be held to high standards. The U.S. can’t afford to pin a large chunk of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate/">its climate strategy</a> on carbon storage without proof.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204889/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Arcusa receives funding from Arizona State University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Klaus Lackner receives funding from Arizona State University and the Kaiteki Institute at ASU.</span></em></p>Fossil fuel power plants can avoid most emissions by capturing carbon dioxide and pumping it underground. But to be a climate solution, that carbon has to stay stored for thousands of years.Stephanie Arcusa, Postdoctoral Researcher in Carbon Sequestration, Arizona State UniversityKlaus Lackner, Professor of Engineering and Director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2054622023-05-11T14:03:18Z2023-05-11T14:03:18ZWhat is carbon capture and storage? EPA’s new power plant standards proposal gives it a boost, but CCS is not a quick solution<p>The Biden administration proposed new power plant rules on May 11, 2023, that have the potential to be among the most stringent federal policy measures on coal, oil and gas power plants the United States has ever introduced.</p>
<p>The proposal would <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power">set new carbon pollution standards</a> for existing power plants, effectively restricting their emissions of carbon dioxide, <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide">a greenhouse gas</a> that contributes to climate change. Operators of fossil fuel power plants would need to find feasible and innovative ways to avoid excessive carbon dioxide releases.</p>
<p>That’s drawing attention to a relatively mature, but expensive technology: carbon capture and storage, or CCS. </p>
<p>Most CCS <a href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Global-CCS-Institute-Fact-Sheet_Capturing-CO2.pdf">chemically separates</a> carbon dioxide generated during fossil fuel combustion, compresses it and transports it through pipelines for storage, typically in <a href="https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/faqs/carbon-storage-faqs">geological formations</a> deep underground. While CCS can be effective, it has some high hurdles on its path to widespread use.</p>
<p>I follow U.S. policies on CCS as a <a href="https://www.climatepolicylab.org/soyoung-oh">climate policy researcher</a>. Here’s why power plant operators considering CCS have faced a tricky balance between the risks and return, and why CCS may be slow to expand.</p>
<h2>CCS’s rocky path</h2>
<p>In the past decade, power plant operators have had a rough time bringing CCS projects online in many parts of the world. Currently, there are only a handful of power plants in the United States with the capacity to capture and transport their carbon emissions, and most of their captured carbon is sent to oil fields <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44902.pdf">for use in enhanced oil recovery</a>.</p>
<p>Many power plant operators considered the technology too risky. And the high number of projects <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112546">suspended or terminated</a> has prevented economies of scale that could lower the costs.</p>
<p>Compared to capturing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from industrial processes, such as ethanol and ammonia production, where the concentration of CO₂ is high, power generation emissions have <a href="https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/levelised-cost-of-co2-capture-by-sector-and-initial-co2-concentration-2019">relatively lower CO₂ concentrations</a>. This makes CCS deployment at power plants more expensive. The costs associated with compressing, transporting and sequestering the CO₂ are additional hurdles.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525516/original/file-20230511-29-jsfze1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="U.S. map showing shaded areas with potential geological storage primarily in the Great Plains and Pennsylvania and Ohio, but the greatest power plant carbon dioxide emissions in the South and East." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525516/original/file-20230511-29-jsfze1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525516/original/file-20230511-29-jsfze1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525516/original/file-20230511-29-jsfze1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525516/original/file-20230511-29-jsfze1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525516/original/file-20230511-29-jsfze1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525516/original/file-20230511-29-jsfze1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525516/original/file-20230511-29-jsfze1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The U.S. has several areas that could store captured carbon dioxide, but many power plants don’t have geologic reservoirs nearby. Emissions are shown in orange and red.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-has-vast-capacity-to-store-co2-net-zero-means-we-ll-need-it">International Energy Agency</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The good news is that capturing CO₂ is slowly moving down the cost curve. For instance, the cost of CO₂ capture in the first large-scale CCS power plant facility, Canada’s Boundary Dam coal plant launched in 2014, was US$110 per ton. By the time the second large-scale facility was built, that cost had <a href="https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expensive">declined to $65 per ton</a>. </p>
<p>The trend is expected to continue. The expected payoffs for CCS have improved over time, particularly with tax credits included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. <a href="https://www.iea.org/policies/4986-section-45q-credit-for-carbon-oxide-sequestration">The tax credits</a> provide up to $85 per ton for sequestering CO₂ produced without capped credit until 2033.</p>
<p>The tax credits could be a boon for fossil-fuel-based power plants. But the payoff isn’t immediate. Until they successfully sequester CO₂, the power plant operators would need to bear the cost and risk of building a CCS network. Further, a research team at Harvard University estimates that the cost of carbon capture for gas power plants <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-technologies-and-costs-us-context">could still be uneconomical</a> even with the tax credit.</p>
<h2>Three big infrastructure challenges</h2>
<p>The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal might be able to address some of the issues. The proposed emission cap could lower the uncertainty around the need for CCS and catalyze the widespread adoption of CCS, helping lower the cost.</p>
<p>However, questions remain related to CCS infrastructure.</p>
<p>First, the pipelines to transport captured carbon aren’t yet in place. The Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office is <a href="https://www.energy.gov/lpo/carbon-dioxide-transportation-infrastructure">supporting projects</a> to construct CO₂ pipelines or other means of CO₂ transport, but they could take years to come online.</p>
<p>Second, CO₂ storage options are not evenly spread out across the country. Power plants in the Northeast, for example, lack nearby saline aquifers or oil and gas reservoirs. Researchers are exploring offshore reservoirs beneath the seafloor but are <a href="https://netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/storage-infrastructure/offshore-projects">still assessing its potential</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525513/original/file-20230510-21-3vncam.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map showing CO2 pipelines primarily in ending in Texas' oil and gas fields." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525513/original/file-20230510-21-3vncam.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525513/original/file-20230510-21-3vncam.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525513/original/file-20230510-21-3vncam.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525513/original/file-20230510-21-3vncam.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525513/original/file-20230510-21-3vncam.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525513/original/file-20230510-21-3vncam.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525513/original/file-20230510-21-3vncam.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A map of carbon dioxide pipelines reflects how development so far has primarily met the needs of the oil and gas industry, which uses CO₂ for enhanced oil recovery.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/siting-and-regulating-carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-infrastructure-workshop">National Energy Technology Lab/DOE</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finally, the permit process has been a big limiting factor in expediting CCS deployment. The Inflation Reduction Act’s updated tax credits spurred a rush of CCS developers, but the EPA has not been able to <a href="https://www.upstreamonline.com/energy-transition/us-permitting-is-key-challenge-for-nation-s-fledgling-carbon-capture-sector/2-1-1287189">process permits</a> in a timely manner.</p>
<p>Despite these hurdles, the EPA is moving quickly. The Biden administration is under mounting pressure to enshrine stricter environmental regulations before the upcoming presidential election in 2024. The proposed rules will require a review process before they can be approved, and they are likely to face political headwinds and legal challenges.</p>
<h2>Transforming the power sector</h2>
<p>Fossil-fueled power plants account for about <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions">25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions</a>. With the Biden administration’s stringent policy measures in place, the United States would be closer to achieving its climate mitigation targets.</p>
<p>It will be challenging to scale from <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-technologies-and-costs-us-context">12 to likely hundreds of CCS facilities</a> needed to reach Biden’s goals of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035 and net zero emissions by 2050. But while the EPA’s new proposal may not solve all problems for deploying CCS, it could be an important step to accelerate transforming the power sector. </p>
<p>In the absence of federal-level carbon taxes or emission trading systems in the U.S., this could be an effective way to send a clear signal to power sector players that it’s time to change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205462/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Soyoung Oh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Carbon capture and storage could keep fossil fuel power plants running under newly proposed federal emissions standards, but it faces high hurdles.Soyoung Oh, Junior Research Fellow in Climate Policy, The Fletcher School, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2018552023-03-16T16:34:44Z2023-03-16T16:34:44ZNew PFAS guidelines – a water quality scientist explains technology and investment needed to get forever chemicals out of US drinking water<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515625/original/file-20230315-3073-baa7d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C111%2C8218%2C5363&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">PFAS can be found in hundreds of water systems in the U.S.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/close-up-of-young-asian-woman-pouring-water-from-royalty-free-image/1299286918?phrase=pouring%20water%20into%20glass&adppopup=true">d3sign/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Harmful chemicals known as PFAS can be found in everything from <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dangerous-chemicals-found-in-baby-supplies-pet-food-packaging/ar-AA18o3wY">children’s clothes</a> to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017">soil</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-pfas-and-why-is-the-epa-warning-about-them-in-drinking-water-an-environmental-health-scientist-explains-185015">drinking water</a>, and regulating these chemicals has been a <a href="https://theconversation.com/pfas-forever-chemicals-are-widespread-and-threaten-human-health-heres-a-strategy-for-protecting-the-public-142953">goal of public and environmental health researchers</a> for years. On March 14, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed what would be the first set of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-proposes-first-ever-national-standard-protect-communities">federal guidelines regulating levels of PFAS in drinking water</a>. The guidelines will be open to public comment for 60 days before being finalized.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=edLoshMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Joe Charbonnet</a> is an environmental engineer at Iowa State University who develops techniques to remove contaminants like PFAS from water. He explains what the proposed guidelines would require, how water utilities could meet these requirements and how much it might cost to get these so-called forever chemicals out of U.S. drinking water.</em></p>
<h2>1. What do the new guidelines say?</h2>
<p>PFAS are <a href="https://theconversation.com/regulating-forever-chemicals-3-essential-reads-on-pfas-201263">associated with a variety of health issues</a> and have been a focus of environmental and public health researchers. There are thousands of members of this class of chemicals, and this proposed regulation would set the allowable limits in drinking water for six of them.</p>
<p>Two of the six chemicals – PFOA and PFOS – are <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program">no longer produced in large quantities</a>, but they <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-pfas-and-why-is-the-epa-warning-about-them-in-drinking-water-an-environmental-health-scientist-explains-185015">remain common in the environment</a> because they were so widely used and break down extremely slowly. The new guidelines would allow for no more than four parts per trillion of PFOA or PFOS in drinking water.</p>
<p>Four other PFAS – GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS – would be regulated as well, although with higher limits. These chemicals are common replacements for PFOA and PFOS and are their close chemical cousins. Because of their similarity, they cause harm to human and environmental health <a href="https://pfastoxdatabase.org/">in much the same way</a> as legacy PFAS.</p>
<p>A few states have already established their own limits on levels of PFAS in drinking water, but these new guidelines, if enacted, would be the first legally enforceable federal limits and would affect the entire U.S. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515627/original/file-20230315-2738-19docw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A water droplet sitting on a piece of fabric." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515627/original/file-20230315-2738-19docw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515627/original/file-20230315-2738-19docw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515627/original/file-20230315-2738-19docw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515627/original/file-20230315-2738-19docw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515627/original/file-20230315-2738-19docw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515627/original/file-20230315-2738-19docw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515627/original/file-20230315-2738-19docw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chemicals used to create water-repellent fabrics and nonstick pans often contain PFAS and leak those chemicals into the environment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_water_droplet_DWR-coated_surface2_edit1.jpg#/media/File:A_water_droplet_DWR-coated_surface2_edit1.jpg">Brocken Inaglory/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. How many utilities will need to make changes?</h2>
<p>PFAS are harmful <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765">even at extremely low levels</a>, and the proposed limits reflect that fact. The allowable concentrations would be comparable to a few grains of salt in an Olympic-size swimming pool. Hundreds of utilities all across the U.S. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/">have levels of PFAS above the proposed limits</a> in their water supplies and would need to make changes to meet these standards. </p>
<p>While many areas have been tested for PFAS in the past, many systems have not, so health officials don’t know precisely how many water systems would be affected. A recent study used existing data to estimate that about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00713">40% of municipal drinking water supplies</a> may exceed the proposed concentration limits.</p>
<h2>3. What can utilities do to meet the guidelines?</h2>
<p>There are two major technologies that most utilities consider for removing PFAS from drinking water: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/overview-drinking-water-treatment-technologies">activated carbon or ion exchange systems</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515628/original/file-20230315-20-qih6p1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A membrane treatment system." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515628/original/file-20230315-20-qih6p1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/515628/original/file-20230315-20-qih6p1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515628/original/file-20230315-20-qih6p1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515628/original/file-20230315-20-qih6p1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515628/original/file-20230315-20-qih6p1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515628/original/file-20230315-20-qih6p1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/515628/original/file-20230315-20-qih6p1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Water treatment systems can use activated carbon or ion exchange to remove PFAS from drinking water.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/industry-sustainability-water-purification-filter-royalty-free-image/1382353791?phrase=water%20purification%20plant&adppopup=true">Paola Giannoni/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Activated carbon is a charcoal-like substance that PFAS stick to quite well and can be used to remove PFAS from water. In 2006, the town of Oakdale, Minnesota, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12940-020-00591-0">added an activated carbon treatment step</a> to its water system. Not only did this additional water treatment bring PFAS levels down substantially, there were significant improvements in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00591-0">birth weight and the number of full-term pregnancies</a> in that community after the change. </p>
<p>Ion exchange systems work by flowing water over charged particles that can remove PFAS. Ion exchange systems are typically even better at lowering PFAS concentrations than activated carbon systems, but they are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EW00080F">also more expensive</a>.</p>
<p>Another option available to some cities is simply finding alternative water sources that are less contaminated. While this is a wonderful, low-cost means of lowering contamination, it points to a major disparity in environmental justice; more rural and less well-resourced utilities are <a href="https://perma.cc/3HTS-8E3H">unlikely to have this option</a>.</p>
<h2>4. Is such a major transition feasible?</h2>
<p>By law, the EPA must consider not just human health but also the feasibility of treatment and the potential financial cost when <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations">setting maximum contaminant levels in drinking water</a>. While the proposed limits are certainly attainable for many water utilities, the costs will be high.</p>
<p>The federal government has made available <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-2-billion-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-funding">billions of dollars</a> in funding for treating water. But some estimates put the total cost of meeting the proposed regulations for the entire country at around <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/13/the-battle-over-who-pays-to-clean-up-chemicals-00056136">US$400 billion</a> – much more than the available funding. Some municipalities may seek financial help for treatment from nearby polluters, while others may raise water rates to cover the costs.</p>
<h2>5. What happens next?</h2>
<p>The EPA has set a 60-day period for public comment on the proposed regulations, after which it can finalize the guidelines. But many experts expect the EPA to <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/pfas-rule-sets-up-sprawling-legal-war/">face a number of legal challenges</a>. Time will tell what the final version of the regulations may look like. </p>
<p>This regulation is intended to keep the U.S. in the enviable position of having some of the <a href="https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/h2o">highest-quality drinking water</a> in the world. As researchers and health officials learn more about new chemical threats, it is important to ensure that every resident has access to clean and affordable tap water.</p>
<p>While these six PFAS certainly pose threats to health that merit regulation, there are thousands of PFAS that likely have very <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBjQYUjEUb4">similar impacts on human health</a>. Rather than playing chemical whack-a-mole by regulating one PFAS at a time, there is a growing consensus among researchers and public health officials that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255">PFAS should be regulated as a class of chemicals</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201855/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joe Charbonnet receives funding from the US EPA for research that is not directly related to PFAS. This article contains links to resources from the Green Science Policy Institute, which previously employed Dr. Charbonnet. </span></em></p>The drinking water systems serving over 70 million people may not meet newly proposed water quality standards. It could cost hundreds of billions of dollars to fix that.Joe Charbonnet, Assistant Professor of Environmental Engineering, Iowa State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2014572023-03-15T12:21:28Z2023-03-15T12:21:28ZFines for breaking US pollution laws can vary widely among states – that may violate the Constitution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514750/original/file-20230310-26-a6l0xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C4%2C3000%2C1994&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Clean Water Act was meant to keep pollution out of U.S. waters.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/oil-surrounds-the-feet-of-local-resident-morgan-miller-as-news-photo/474029566">David McNew/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s expensive to pollute the water in Colorado. The state’s median fine for companies caught violating the federal Clean Water Act is over US$30,000, and violators can be charged much more. In Montana, however, most violators get barely a slap on the wrist – the median fine there is $300.</p>
<p>Similarly, in Virginia, the typical Clean Water Act violation issued by the state is $9,000, while across the border in North Carolina, the median is around $600.</p>
<p>Even federal penalties vary significantly among regions. In the South (EPA Region 6) the median Clean Water Act penalty issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional office is $10,000, while in EPA Region 9 (including California, Nevada, Arizona and Hawaii), the median is over six times as high.</p>
<p>We discovered just how startling the differences are in <a href="http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/I_Anderson-Vaughan_web_2-20.pdf">a new study</a>, published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal. My colleague <a href="https://www.drake.edu/zimpleman/about/facultystaff/facultybydepartment/amygracevaughan/">Amy Vaughan</a> and <a href="https://www.drake.edu/law/facstaff/directory/jerry-anderson/">I reviewed</a> 10 years of <a href="https://echo.epa.gov/trends/comparative-maps-dashboards/state-water-dashboard">EPA data on penalties</a> issued under the Clean Water Act.</p>
<p><iframe id="qTRcu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qTRcu/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The degree of disparity we found in environmental enforcement is disturbing for many reasons. Persistent lenient penalties can lead to lower compliance rates and, therefore, more pollution. At the extreme, a lax enforcement regime can <a href="https://capitalandmain.com/can-california-avoid-another-toxic-waste-disaster">lead to environmental disasters</a>. Disparate enforcement is also unfair, leaving some companies paying far more than others for the same behavior. Without a level playing field, competitive pressure may lead companies to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjaa031">locate in areas with more lenient enforcement</a>.</p>
<p>There is a relatively simple solution, and another good reason to implement it: These disparities may violate the U.S. Constitution.</p>
<h2>Why such big differences?</h2>
<p>We think the main reason for the differences is that the EPA has not fulfilled its duty to require robust state enforcement.</p>
<p>Many federal environmental statutes – including the <a href="http://epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act">Clean Water Act</a>, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act">Clean Air Act</a> and toxic substances laws – enable the EPA to delegate enforcement to state agencies. In fact, state agencies undertake the <a href="https://www.ecos.org/documents/state-delegations/">vast majority of enforcement actions</a> of these federal laws.</p>
<p>However, the EPA is supposed to delegate enforcement only to states that are deemed capable of taking on this responsibility, including having the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-402-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system">ability to issue permits and conduct inspections</a>. Importantly, the states must have laws authorizing an agency or the courts to impose sufficient penalties on violators.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Water spills out of a pipe into a river." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/514751/original/file-20230310-28-s5u712.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Federal laws like the Clean Water Act helped end corporate practices of pouring toxic wastewater into rivers, as this paper plant was doing near International Falls, Minn., in 1937.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/paper-plants-sewer-outlet-emitting-sewage-into-the-rainy-news-photo/964952020">Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most state delegations occurred long ago, in the 1970s and ‘80s, shortly after Congress passed these major environmental statutes. In 1978, EPA decided that it would <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-70#70.11">require states to have a minimum</a> of $5,000-per-day penalty authority before they would be delegated enforcement power for the Clean Water Act. Forty-five years later, that required minimum is still the same.</p>
<p>In contrast, the Clean Water Act gives the EPA and federal courts much <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-309-federal-enforcement-authority">higher penalty authority</a> – it started at $25,000 per day and, because of congressionally mandated <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-01/2022amendmentstopenaltypoliciesforinflation_0.pdf">annual inflation adjustments</a>, had risen to $56,540 by the end of 2022.</p>
<p>That difference shows up in the fines: We found the <a href="http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/I_Anderson-Vaughan_web_2-20.pdf">average penalty issued by states</a> is about $35,000, while the average penalty issued by the federal EPA is over five times as high at $186,000. The median state penalty is $4,000, while the median federal penalty is almost $30,000. While the EPA tends to be involved in the most serious cases, we believe low state penalties can also be traced to more lenient state penalty provisions.</p>
<p><iframe id="5KduF" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5KduF/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>There is also a <a href="http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/I_Anderson-Vaughan_web_2-20.pdf">wide disparity among state</a> penalty statutes. At one end, Idaho law limits civil penalties to $5,000 per day, while Colorado’s law allows for penalties of up to $54,833 per day.</p>
<p>In some cases, penalty differences might have a legitimate explanation. However, the degree of disparity among statutes and penalties that we found with the Clean Water Act suggests the U.S. doesn’t have uniform federal environmental law. And that can run afoul of the Constitution.</p>
<h2>A question of unconstitutional unfairness</h2>
<p>The EPA has the power to require states to have more robust penalty provisions, more in line with federal penalties. The EPA also can provide better guidance to the states about how those penalties should be calculated. Without guidance, virtually any penalty could be justified.</p>
<p>As an environmental law expert, I believe the U.S. Constitution requires EPA to take these steps.</p>
<p>A basic tenet of fairness holds that like cases should be treated alike. In federal criminal law, for example, <a href="https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/Overview_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines.pdf">sentencing guidelines</a> help limit the disparity that can result from unlimited judicial discretion.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, environmental law doesn’t have a similar system to provide uniform treatment of pollution violations by government agencies. Extreme penalties, at both the high and low ends, may result.</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has held that disparate fines can reach a degree of randomness that violates the fairness norms embodied in the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-3/ALDE_00013743/">due process clause</a> of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.</p>
<p>In a case in the 1990s, the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/559/">Supreme Court determined</a> that a $4 million punitive damage award in a complaint involving only $4,000 in actual damages violated the due process clause. The court held that the amount of punitive damages imposed must bear some relationship to the actual harm caused by the conduct. Moreover, the court noted that punitive damages must be reasonable when compared to penalties imposed on others for comparable misconduct.</p>
<p>I believe the same test should apply to environmental penalties. </p>
<p>Unless we have some uniform system of calculating penalty amounts, the discretion allowed results in vastly different penalties for similar conduct. Our study focused on the Clean Water Act, but the results should trigger more research to determine whether these issues arise in other environmental areas, such as the Clean Air Act or hazardous waste laws.</p>
<p>The comparatively lenient enforcement we discovered in some states is not only unfair, it’s ultimately bad for the environment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201457/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jerry Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new study reveals wide disparities among state-issued Clean Water Act fines, and even among federal fines from regions to region. A law professor explains why it may be illegal.Jerry Anderson, Dean and Professor of Law, Drake UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2003932023-02-28T13:25:32Z2023-02-28T13:25:32ZWhich state you live in matters for how well environmental laws protect your health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512228/original/file-20230224-2030-q1yzwy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1453%2C0%2C3198%2C2035&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pesticide use on school playing fields varies from state to state. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/kids-play-football-on-outdoor-field-children-score-royalty-free-image/1409423595">matimix/iStock/Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Your child could go to gym class on Monday morning and play soccer on a field that was sprayed over the weekend with <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/training/toxmanual/modules/4/lecturenotes.html">2,4-D, a toxic weedkiller</a> that has been <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29912510/">investigated as possibly causing cancer</a>. Alternatively, the school grounds may have been treated with a lower-toxicity weedkiller. Or maybe the grounds were managed with safe, nontoxic products and techniques.</p>
<p>Which of these scenarios applies depends in large part on your state’s laws and regulations today – more so than federal regulations.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://www.texasagriculture.gov/Regulatory-Programs/Pesticides/Structural-Pest-Control-Service/School-Integrated-Pest-Management">Texas</a> requires all school districts to adopt an integrated pest management program for school buildings; IPM prioritizes nonchemical pest control methods and includes some protections regarding <a href="https://schoolipm.tamu.edu/files/2019/10/Texas-School-IPM-laws-and-rules.pdf">spraying of grounds</a>. <a href="https://www.mass.gov/doc/333-cmr-14-protection-of-children-and-families-from-harmful-pesticides/download">Massachusetts</a> also restricts pesticide use on school grounds. Illinois requires IPM for school buildings only <a href="http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/ipm/faq.htm">if economically feasible</a>. States also vary greatly in the education and technical assistance they provide to implement these practices.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two men with sprayers connected to hoses walk across a lawn, spraying it. One has a backpack container with liquid inside." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512230/original/file-20230224-1844-53a7ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512230/original/file-20230224-1844-53a7ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512230/original/file-20230224-1844-53a7ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512230/original/file-20230224-1844-53a7ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512230/original/file-20230224-1844-53a7ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512230/original/file-20230224-1844-53a7ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512230/original/file-20230224-1844-53a7ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chemical pesticides can be harmful to human health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/two-pest-control-technicians-with-portable-spray-royalty-free-image/145091307">Huntstock/Brand X Pictures via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is involved in some baseline pesticide functions, <a href="https://peer.org/beyond-2020-pesticides/">shortcomings of the main pesticide law</a>, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-the-epas-lax-regulation-of-dangerous-pesticides-is-hurting-public-health-and-the-us-economy/">along with industry influence</a>, can leave vulnerable groups like children inadequately protected from these exposures. </p>
<p>EPA registers products for use based on a finding that they do not cause an “unreasonable” risk but <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/24758543">considers economic costs and benefits</a>, an approach that can result in decisions that pose health risks. And required labels may <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854748/">omit ingredients</a> considered trade secrets.</p>
<p>As an <a href="https://publichealth.uic.edu/profiles/susan-kaplan/">environmental health lawyer and professor</a>, I teach, write and think about the pros and cons of one level of government or the other overseeing environmental health – the impact of the natural and human-made environment on human health. Pesticides on school grounds are just one example of the problem of uneven protection from one state to the next.</p>
<h2>Congress eased off, states stepped in</h2>
<p>State policy choices have become more important for limiting people’s exposure to pollution and toxins as the federal government has increasingly retreated from major environmental health lawmaking.</p>
<p>Many of the country’s major environmental health laws were <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol--19---issue-1/environmental-law---politics/">passed in the 1970s</a> on the momentum of the environmental movement and with bipartisan support that is rarely seen today. </p>
<p>For example, the Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30853">required U.S. EPA to regulate</a> a wide range of air pollutants, in some cases based explicitly on protecting human health. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/23/archives/tough-new-cleanair-bill-passed-by-senate-73-to-0-a-tough-cleanair.html">They were approved</a> 374-1 in the House and 73-0 by the Senate and signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon signed the law that created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1971.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A 1970s-era photo of cars on a freeway with 'Santa Monica' on the sign." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512236/original/file-20230224-1665-fk4obc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512236/original/file-20230224-1665-fk4obc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512236/original/file-20230224-1665-fk4obc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512236/original/file-20230224-1665-fk4obc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512236/original/file-20230224-1665-fk4obc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512236/original/file-20230224-1665-fk4obc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512236/original/file-20230224-1665-fk4obc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Concerns about smog from vehicles that choked cities like Los Angeles helped lead to environmental laws in the 1970s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rush-hour-traffic-leaving-downtown-los-angeles-in-santa-news-photo/1387469939">Bettmann Archive/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One analyst has written that groups that pressed legislators for environmental protection later splintered into groups advocating for and against environmental laws, reflecting an emerging debate over the <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-politicized-the-environment-and-climate-change-52239">appropriate extent of regulation</a>.</p>
<p>At the same time, after the success of many federal environmental health laws, attention turned to problems that are <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/environmental-protection-the-states-race-to-the-bottom-or-race-to-the-bottom-line/">harder for Washington to solve</a>. With state environmental programs growing, some suggested that the U.S. EPA’s role should shift <a href="https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1319&context=wmelpr">from compelling to catalyzing</a> – from requiring specific pollution-reducing actions to helping states act by providing increased information and help with compliance. Yet this view acknowledged that under this scenario, residents of some states would enjoy stronger environmental health protections than others.</p>
<p>Reflecting this dynamic and the extent of political division in the U.S., even when the federal government does create tougher environmental regulations, they are <a href="https://apnews.com/article/5c675cd468e648e7b97d4988bbb3d05e">often reversed</a> by the succeeding administration or challenged in court.</p>
<h2>Sometimes, states should make the decisions</h2>
<p>In some cases, it makes sense to leave decisions to states. A health department in a western state may focus on protecting vulnerable groups from wildfire smoke, given the growth of blazes in that part of the country. Some states may welcome fracking operations while others prefer to keep them out.</p>
<p>States can also serve as laboratories of innovation, and the experiences of state programs and policies can inform federal actions.</p>
<p>But this regulatory patchwork creates inequities. If you live in one of the <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/states-have-adopted-californias-vehicle-standards-under-section-177-federal">dozen-and-a-half states</a> that follow California’s tailpipe emissions standards rather than the less stringent federal standards, you probably benefit from reduced air pollution. </p>
<p><iframe id="wKn2o" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/wKn2o/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The same holds for East Coast residents within the confederation of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which limits greenhouse gas emissions – and other air pollutants in the process. A <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP6706">recent study that compared RGGI states</a> with neighboring non-RGGI states concluded that data “indicate that RGGI has provided substantial child health benefits,” including a reduction in childhood asthma cases.</p>
<p>Drinking water limits or labeling requirements for PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – also <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/09/22/states-take-on-pfas-forever-chemicals-with-bans-lawsuits">vary by state</a>. PFAS are found in products from nonstick cookware to some personal care products, and they have been linked with a range of troubling health effects. Because of their toxicity, broad scope of contamination and longevity in the environment, <a href="https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-healey-calls-on-us-senate-to-pass-legislation-to-protect-the-public-from-highly-toxic-forever-chemicals">18 states’ attorneys general</a> are asking for a federal law.</p>
<h2>How you can hold lawmakers to account</h2>
<p>Environmental health often suffers from a cycle of panic and neglect. People worry about a concern like the chemical <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alar_and_apples">alar used on apples</a>, until the next issue erupts. The public can keep up pressure on state and federal decision-makers to consider how the environment affects health in an array of ways:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>One person can be dismissed as an outlier, so start a group or join other groups that have similar interests.</p></li>
<li><p>Research the problem and best practices and possible solutions, like program or policy development, education or stepped-up enforcement. Then call, email and send letters to elected representatives and request a meeting to clearly and concisely explain your concerns and ideas.</p></li>
<li><p>Identify a “champion” – someone in a position to spearhead a change, like a school nurse or facilities manager – and reach out to them.</p></li>
<li><p>Get the issue into the local news media by writing op-eds and social media posts. Be sure to communicate benefits of the action you’re advocating, like improved school attendance or financial return on investment.</p></li>
<li><p>Attend public meetings and speak on the issue during the public comment period. Successes at the local level can provide examples for state officials.</p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200393/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Kaplan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An environmental health lawyer explains why some states have weaker rules than others, and how you can make your concerns heard.Susan Kaplan, Research Assistant Professor of Public Health, University of Illinois ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1892792022-08-24T05:43:44Z2022-08-24T05:43:44ZThe Inflation Reduction Act doesn’t get around the Supreme Court’s climate ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, but it does strengthen EPA’s future abilities<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/480679/original/file-20220823-18-pleeaz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C5991%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Supreme Court limited the EPA's authority to regulate power plant emissions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-guardian-or-authority-of-law-created-by-sculptor-james-news-photo/1228773157">Al Drago/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The new <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376">Inflation Reduction Act</a> is being justly celebrated as the most significant piece of federal legislation to address the climate crisis to date. It includes about US$370 billion in incentives for everything from solar panels to electric vehicles. </p>
<p>But there’s some confusion around what it allows the Environmental Protection Agency to do.</p>
<p>Comments by politicians <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html">on both sides of the aisle</a> have suggested that the new law could upend a recent <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf">U.S. Supreme Court decision</a> in which the court’s conservative majority shackled the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. </p>
<p>The new law does amend the Clean Air Act – the nation’s primary air quality law – to define several greenhouse gases as air pollutants. So it will help the EPA as it plans future regulations. But it doesn’t specifically grant the EPA new authority to regulate power plants.</p>
<p>So, as groundbreaking as it is, the Inflation Reduction Act does not change the impact of the Supreme Court’s determination in <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-curtailed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-pollution-and-sent-a-warning-to-other-regulators-185281">West Virginia v. EPA</a></em> that the EPA lacks the authority to require a systematic shift to cleaner sources of electricity generation. </p>
<h2>Why the ruling remains a roadblock for the EPA</h2>
<p>The court case involved the Obama administration’s <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan.html">Clean Power Plan</a>, a policy that would have required power generators to use cleaner forms of electricity but never went into effect.</p>
<p>Writing for the court in <em>West Virginia v. EPA</em>, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the EPA was asserting broad new authority under a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act without explicitly being granted the authority to do so by Congress.</p>
<p>In what has become known as the “<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12077">major questions doctrine</a>,” the court has adopted a more stringent approach to how it interprets laws that gives much less deference to the views of experts at the federal agencies charged with implementing complex, dynamic regulatory programs designed to protect public health and safety. That accurately describes the challenge of dealing with carbon pollution and the profound impacts it is already having throughout the world.</p>
<p>Roberts made clear that Congress could choose to pass more detailed legislation granting EPA the authority at the heart of the case if it wished.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uio0wr3x2xo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Explaining the ruling in West Virginia v. EPA.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Inflation Reduction Act amends the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act">Clean Air Act</a> to add seven specific new programs to reduce greenhouse gases and provide funding to the states to develop their own plans. Taken together, these provisions go a long way to address Roberts’ concern that Congress has not spoken plainly enough about EPA’s authority to tackle climate change. </p>
<p>But it falls short of granting EPA the authority to revive the generation shifting approach of the Clean Power Plan.</p>
<p>To get the bill through the sharply divided Congress, the Senate’s Democratic majority used a process called <a href="https://budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheet/budget-reconciliation-basics">budget reconciliation</a>. That process allows for legislation to pass with only a simple majority of the vote. But legislation passed that way must be closely tied to spending, revenue and the federal debt limit – it cannot set broad national policy.</p>
<h2>What the new law does do for EPA’s authority</h2>
<p>While the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376">Inflation Reduction Act</a> cannot undo what the Supreme Court has done, it does strengthen EPA’s ability going forward to take stronger actions under the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>The act not only provides substantial increases in EPA’s budget across a wide range of air pollution programs, it also, for the first time, explicitly defines greenhouse gases to include the six specific gases that the EPA determined in 2009 pose a risk to public health and welfare. That 2009 “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a">endangerment finding</a>” was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1146_4g18.pdf">Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA</a></em>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html">As Sen. Tom Carper</a>, one of the principal architects of the Inflation Reduction Act, said, “The language makes pretty clear that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”</p>
<p>Of course, nothing in life or litigation is certain.</p>
<p>Challenges to EPA’s forthcoming rules <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00618-1">replacing the Clean Power Plan</a>, regulating methane emissions from oil and gas operations, tightening tailpipe emission and fuel economy standards, and so on can be expected. But at least now there is clear legislative direction from Congress for the EPA to take bold action needed to meet the profound challenge of climate change and transition to a sustainable economy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189279/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Parenteau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There’s some confusion around what the new climate law allows the Environmental Protection Agency to do. A law professor explains what’s changing.Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law, Vermont Law & Graduate SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1852722022-06-23T11:48:54Z2022-06-23T11:48:54ZWhat is BPA and why is it in so many plastic products?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470073/original/file-20220621-15-8umt72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=81%2C65%2C5381%2C3571&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most plastic products that are clear and strong are made using bisphenol A, or BPA.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/drinking-water-bottle-for-sports-in-female-hand-on-royalty-free-image/1331157592">Beton Studio/iStock via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bisphenol A, or BPA, is a chemical widely used to make hard, clear plastics. It is an endocrine disruptor that has been linked to <a href="https://theconversation.com/decades-of-research-document-the-detrimental-health-effects-of-bpa-an-expert-on-environmental-pollution-and-maternal-health-explains-what-it-all-means-184630">many negative health effects</a>, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ando.2013.04.002">cardiovascular diseases and diabetes</a>. In 2013, the U.S. government <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/07/12/2013-16684/indirect-food-additives-adhesives-and-components-of-coatings">banned its use in baby products that come into contact with food</a>, like bottles or the packaging of infant formula.</p>
<p>At the time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that some exposure was safe for adults. But other health agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority, have concluded that the levels of BPA the FDA considers safe <a href="https://connect.efsa.europa.eu/RM/s/publicconsultation2/a0l1v00000E8BRD/pc0109">may have adverse health effects for adults as well</a>. </p>
<p>In early June 2022, the FDA signaled that it is reconsidering what amount of exposure to BPA is safe for adults, announcing that it would <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/fda-agrees-reconsider-safety-bpa-food-packaging">reconsider its guidance on the use of BPA</a> in plastics that come into contact with food. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-tWvBjMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">synthetic polymer chemist</a>, I think a lot about how to design new polymers, with particular focus on <a href="https://www.wesleyan.edu/academics/faculty/belling/profile.html">how to do so sustainably</a>. It’s natural to wonder why companies don’t simply replace BPA with another chemical if health is such a concern. The secret to what makes BPA such an irreplaceable ingredient in plastics is the same thing that leads to its health risks – the molecule’s chemical structure. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469367/original/file-20220616-12-e91m82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A chemical diagram showing two hexagonal rings with OH on either side." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469367/original/file-20220616-12-e91m82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469367/original/file-20220616-12-e91m82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469367/original/file-20220616-12-e91m82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469367/original/file-20220616-12-e91m82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469367/original/file-20220616-12-e91m82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469367/original/file-20220616-12-e91m82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469367/original/file-20220616-12-e91m82.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bisphenol A is made of two carbon rings with small alcohol groups attached and is used to produce strong, clear plastics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bisphenol-A-Skeletal.svg#/media/File:Bisphenol-A-Skeletal.svg">Darkness3560/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is BPA?</h2>
<p>BPA is a small molecule made of two carbon rings with a bonded oxygen and hydrogen attached to either end. BPA can react with other carbon-based molecules to form long chains, with the BPA molecules stitched together by small chemical links.</p>
<p>Nearly all of the BPA produced in the world is used to manufacture plastics, mostly a specific type called polycarbonate. BPA-derived polycarbonates are transparent, incredibly strong, light and don’t begin to melt or lose structural integrity <a href="https://polymerdatabase.com/polymer%20classes/Polycarbonate%20type.html">until they reach very high temperatures</a>. These properties make polycarbonates excellently suited for use in everything from the lenses of eyeglasses to water bottles.</p>
<h2>It’s all about the structure</h2>
<p>In chemistry, structure means everything. The reasons different materials have different properties is due to their chemical structure.</p>
<p>BPA polymers are rigid because the carbon rings in BPA molecules are themselves rigid. Compare this to polyethylene, the thin, flexible material used to make plastic bags. The long chains of repeating molecules that make up polyethylene are very flexible. So the plastics they produce are highly pliable, too. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469369/original/file-20220616-11-jmi2pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A table with many colored sunglasses." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469369/original/file-20220616-11-jmi2pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469369/original/file-20220616-11-jmi2pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469369/original/file-20220616-11-jmi2pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469369/original/file-20220616-11-jmi2pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469369/original/file-20220616-11-jmi2pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469369/original/file-20220616-11-jmi2pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469369/original/file-20220616-11-jmi2pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">BPA plastics are strong, transparent, light and have a high melting point, which makes them the perfect material for lenses for your eyeware.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/high-angle-view-of-colorful-sunglasses-for-sale-in-royalty-free-image/979123212?adppopup=true">Nipitphon Na Chiangmai / EyeEm via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How do BPAs leach out of plastic?</h2>
<p>When BPA plastics are made, nearly all the individual molecules of BPA are chemically bound to the plastic. So most of the BPA that leaches out of food containers or water bottles results from the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2254523/">plastic slowly breaking down</a>.</p>
<p>When BPA polycarbonates are exposed to water and heat – say, when you put a plastic bottle in your dishwasher – the chemical bonds that link these BPA molecules together can break down in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1981.070260603">process known as hydrolysis</a>. Because of its unique structure, BPA polycarbonates are generally more susceptible to hydrolysis than plastics like polyethylene. </p>
<p>Hydrolysis breaks down plastic at a chemical level, and this releases a small amount of BPA molecules into the environment. In one study, researchers found that the process of washing a polycarbonate bottle leached <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.chemosphere.2011.06.060">0.2 to 0.3 milligrams of BPA</a> into each liter of water. For context, this is hundreds of times less concentrated <a href="https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?printable=1&id=20880">than the levels of calcium and sodium in drinking water</a>.</p>
<h2>The search for a BPA replacement</h2>
<p>BPA is an endocrine disruptor, meaning it disrupts how hormones function in the body. Given the <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/bpa/faq-20058331#:%7E:text=Exposure%20to%20BPA%20is%20a,2%20diabetes%20and%20cardiovascular%20disease">negative health effects of consuming BPA</a> and the fact that it breaks down when exposed to water, chemists have been searching for replacements for years. </p>
<p>A major concern with designing new plastics is that swapping out BPA for another molecule may not get rid of the negative health effects. Just as the chemical structure of BPA determines the properties of the material, the structure is also what triggers the negative biological effects. Endocrine disruptors like BPA, due to their similar structures to natural hormones, can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-019-0273-8">bind to and activate endocrine receptors</a>.</p>
<p>Research has shown that structurally similar chemical replacements, such as bisphenol F, <a href="https://www.ehn.org/bpa-replacement-2656483035.html">produce similar health effects as BPA</a>. </p>
<p>It’s also not easy to swap in a new molecule that has a different chemical structure because the plastic will then lose the desirable characteristics of BPA polycarbonates. But there is some promising new research. One path of inquiry focuses on making polycarbonates by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11862">reacting rigid bio-based molecules with carbon dioxide gas</a>.</p>
<p>Polycarbonates are a ubiquitious part of modern life. As researchers develop new materials, it is important to consider not only the health risks – as the EPA is doing with BPA – but the environmental effects as well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185272/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Elling receives funding from the American Chemical Society’s Petroleum Research Fund</span></em></p>The US Environmental Protection Agency is reexamining the health effects of bisphenol A. A chemist explains why BPA is in plastics and why it’s hard to find a safe replacement.Benjamin Elling, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Wesleyan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1850152022-06-21T11:50:00Z2022-06-21T11:50:00ZWhat are PFAS, the ‘forever chemicals’ showing up in drinking water? An environmental health scientist explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469402/original/file-20220617-15-3xnpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C16%2C5599%2C3715&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">PFAS, often used in water-resistant gear, also find their way into drinking water and human bodies.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/scientist-ecologist-taking-a-water-sample-in-the-royalty-free-image/1125152554">CasarsaGuru via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You’ve probably been hearing the term PFAS in the news lately as states and the U.S. government consider <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/06/15/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-combatting-pfas-pollution-to-safeguard-clean-drinking-water-for-all-americans/">rules and guidelines</a> for managing these “forever chemicals.” </p>
<p>Even if the term is new to you, chances are good that you’re familiar with what PFAS do. That’s because they’re found in everything from nonstick cookware to carpets to ski wax.</p>
<p>PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are a large group of human-made chemicals – currently estimated to be around 9,000 individual chemical compounds – that are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00291G">used widely</a> in consumer products and industry. They can make products resistant to water, grease and stains and protect against fire. </p>
<p>Waterproof outdoor apparel and cosmetics, stain-resistant upholstery and carpets, food packaging that is designed to prevent liquid or grease from leaking through, and certain firefighting equipment often contain PFAS. In fact, <a href="https://toxicfreefuture.org/pfas-in-stain-water-resistant-products-study/">one recent study</a> found that most products labeled stain- or water-resistant contained PFAS, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05175">another study</a> found that this is even true among products labeled as “nontoxic” or “green.” PFAS are also found in unexpected places like high-performance ski and snowboard waxes, floor waxes and medical devices.</p>
<p>At first glance, PFAS sound pretty useful, so you might be wondering “what’s the big deal?”</p>
<p>The short answer is that PFAS are harmful to human health and the environment. </p>
<p>Some of the very same chemical properties that make PFAS attractive in products also mean these chemicals will persist in the environment for generations. Because of the widespread use of PFAS, these chemicals are now present in water, soil and living organisms and can be found across almost every part of the planet, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.091">Arctic glaciers</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es9003894">marine mammals</a>, remote communities living on subsistence diets, and in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.10598">98% of the American</a> public. </p>
<p>The U.S. Geological Survey estimates common types of PFAS are now in <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/tap-water-study-detects-pfas-forever-chemicals-across-us">at least 45%</a> of the country’s tap water. PFAS maker 3M, facing lawsuits, announced a <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/3m-resolves-claims-by-public-water-suppliers-supports-drinking-water-solutions-for-vast-majority-of-americans-301858581.html">$10.3 billion settlement in June 2023</a> with public water systems to pay for PFAS testing <a href="https://theconversation.com/3m-offers-10-3b-settlement-over-pfas-contamination-in-water-systems-now-how-do-you-destroy-a-forever-chemical-208362">and treatment</a>.</p>
<h2>Health risks from PFAS exposure</h2>
<p>Once people are exposed to PFAS, the chemicals remain in their bodies for a long time – months to years, depending on the specific compound – and they can accumulate over time.</p>
<p>Research consistently demonstrates that PFAS are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. A <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/">recent review by a panel of experts</a> looking at research on PFAS toxicity concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS contribute to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, liver damage and kidney and testicular cancer.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman lying on her back on white carpet holds up a little girl who is pretending to fly. A white couch is behind them." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469403/original/file-20220617-26-wyxgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469403/original/file-20220617-26-wyxgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469403/original/file-20220617-26-wyxgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469403/original/file-20220617-26-wyxgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469403/original/file-20220617-26-wyxgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469403/original/file-20220617-26-wyxgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469403/original/file-20220617-26-wyxgn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stain-resistant fabrics and carpets often contain PFAS.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/photo-of-pretty-funny-little-girl-young-mommy-royalty-free-image/1215183791">Deagreez via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Further, they concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/">also affect babies</a> exposed in utero by increasing their likelihood of being born at a lower birth weight and responding less effectively to vaccines, while impairing women’s mammary gland development, which may adversely impact a mom’s ability to breastfeed.</p>
<p>The review also found evidence that PFAS <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906952/">may contribute to a number of other disorders</a>, though further research is needed to confirm existing findings: inflammatory bowel disease, reduced fertility, breast cancer and an increased likelihood of miscarriage and developing high blood pressure and preeclampsia during pregnancy. Additionally, current research suggests that babies exposed prenatally are at higher risk of experiencing obesity, early-onset puberty and reduced fertility later in life. </p>
<p>Collectively, this is a formidable list of diseases and disorders.</p>
<h2>Who’s regulating PFAS?</h2>
<p>PFAS chemicals have been around since the late 1930s, when <a href="https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202104/history.cfm">a DuPont scientist created one by accident</a> during a lab experiment. DuPont called it Teflon, which eventually became a household name for its use on nonstick pans. </p>
<p>Decades later, in 1998, Scotchgard maker 3M <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/20-plus-years-epa-has-failed-regulate-forever-chemicals">notified the Environmental Protection Agency</a> that a PFAS chemical was showing up in human blood samples. At the time, 3M said low levels of the manufactured chemical had been detected in people’s blood as <a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2020/pfas-epa-timeline/1998_3M-Alerts-EPA.pdf">early as the 1970s</a>. </p>
<p>Despite the lengthy list of serious health risks linked to PFAS and a tremendous amount of federal investment in PFAS-related research in recent years, PFAS haven’t been regulated at the federal level in the United States.</p>
<p>The EPA has <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-new-drinking-water-health-advisories-pfas-chemicals-1-billion-bipartisan">issued advisories</a> and health-based guidelines for two PFAS compounds – PFOA and PFOS – in drinking water, though these guidelines are not legally enforceable standards. And the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has a <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/resources/info-for-health-professionals.html">toxicological profile</a> for PFAS. </p>
<p>Federal rules could be coming. The EPA has a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024">road map for PFAS regulations</a> it is considering, including regulations involving drinking water. The Biden administration has said it also <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/06/15/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-combatting-pfas-pollution-to-safeguard-clean-drinking-water-for-all-americans/">expects to list PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances</a> under the Superfund law, a move <a href="https://www.enr.com/articles/54206-utilities-voice-pfas-liability-fear-as-chemicals-head-to-superfund-list">that worries utilities</a> and businesses that use PFAS-containing products or processes because of the expense of cleanup. </p>
<p><iframe id="GsCTl" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GsCTl/10/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>States, meanwhile, have been <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528650/original/file-20230526-27-z9wg9e.png">taking their own actions</a> to protect residents against the risk of PFAS exposure. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.saferstates.com/toxic-chemicals/pfas/">At least 25 states</a> have laws targeting PFAS in various uses, such as in <a href="http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=1433&PID=1456&snum=129">food packaging</a> and <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1345">carpets</a>. But relying on <a href="https://www.saferstates.org/toxic-chemicals/pfas/">state laws</a> places burdens on state agencies responsible for enforcing them and creates a patchwork of regulations which, in turn, place burdens on business and consumers to navigate regulatory nuances across state lines.</p>
<p><iframe id="vxp0t" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/vxp0t/16/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>So, what can you do about PFAS?</h2>
<p>Based on current scientific understanding, most people are exposed to PFAS primarily through their diet, though drinking water and airborne exposures may be significant among some people, especially if they live near known PFAS-related industries or contamination.</p>
<p>The best ways to protect yourself and your family from risks associated with PFAS are to educate yourself about potential sources of exposures.</p>
<p>Products labeled as water- or stain-resistant have a good chance of containing PFAS. Check the ingredients on products you buy and watch for chemical names containing “fluor-.” Specific trade names, such as Teflon and Gore-Tex, are also likely to contain PFAS. </p>
<p>Check whether there are sources of contamination near you, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/">such as in drinking water</a> or PFAS-related industries in the area. Some states don’t test or report PFAS contamination, so the absence of readily available information does not necessarily mean the region is free of PFAS problems.</p>
<p>For additional information about PFAS, check out the <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/index.html">Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry</a>, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas">EPA</a> and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/PFAS_FactSheet.html">U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> websites or contact your state or local public health department. </p>
<p>If you believe you have been exposed to PFAS and are concerned about your health, contact your health care provider. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has a succinct report to help health care professionals understand the <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/activities/assessments.html">clinical implications of PFAS exposure</a>.</p>
<p><em>This article was updated July 11, 2023, with the USGS study on PFAS in drinking water.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185015/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathryn Crawford has received funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.</span></em></p>These chemicals are now present in water, soil and living organisms and can be found across almost every part of the planet – including 98% of the American public.Kathryn Crawford, Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1846302022-06-17T12:35:38Z2022-06-17T12:35:38ZDecades of research document the detrimental health effects of BPA – an expert on environmental pollution and maternal health explains what it all means<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/468379/original/file-20220613-26-mheqwr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C5112%2C3395&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The chemical BPA has been shown to leach from food packaging products into our bodies.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/african-woman-drinking-water-royalty-free-image/90306673?adppopup=true">Jacobs Stock Photography Ltd/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Whether or not you’ve heard of <a href="https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/sya-bpa/index.cfm">the chemical bisphenol A, better known as BPA</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2020.01.005">studies show that</a> it’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/americaschildrenenvironment/biomonitoring-bisphenol-bpa">almost certainly in your body</a>. BPA is used in the manufacturing of products like plastic water bottles, baby bottles, toys and food packaging, including in the lining of cans. </p>
<p>BPA is one <a href="https://www.epa.gov/americaschildrenenvironment/ace-environments-and-contaminants">of many</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.09.002">harmful chemicals</a>
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp358">in everyday products</a> and <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/bpa.pdf">a poster child for chemicals in plastics</a>. It is probably best known for its presence in baby bottles due to campaigns by organizations such as <a href="https://saferchemicals.org/2011/03/22/message-in-bpa-baby-bottles-dont-mess-with-moms/">Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families</a> and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.</p>
<p>An extensive body of research has linked BPA to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1530/REP-17-0734">reproductive health problems</a>, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3802">endometriosis</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0558-8">infertility</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020716">diabetes</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.12.1573">asthma</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325820916949">obesity</a> <a href="https://neurosciencenews.com/bpa-fetal-development-19902/">and harming</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.12.028">fetal neurodevelopment</a>. </p>
<p>After years of pressure from environmental and public health advocates, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agreed in June 2022 to <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/fda-agrees-to-reassess-bpa-risks/">reevaluate the health risks</a> of BPA. This is significant because a vast body of research <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14126">has documented that</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.008">BPA is leaching from products and packaging</a> into our food and drink and ultimately our bodies.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SRDUQWJgnn0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The game of “chemical Whack-A-Mole” – and how it affects the products you buy.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is BPA?</h2>
<p>BPA is not only used in plastics and food and drink containers but also in pizza boxes, shopping receipts, liners of aluminum cans and much more. Scientists <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120330">have found that BPA</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.05.002">is an endocrine disruptor</a>, which means <a href="https://doi.org/10.1210/endocr/bqaa171">it disrupts hormonal systems</a> that support the body’s functioning and health. </p>
<p>Hormonal disruption is a particular problem during pregnancy and fetal development, when even minor changes can alter the trajectory of developmental processes, including <a href="https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3978">brain and metabolic development</a>. </p>
<p>Over the last two decades, public awareness about the risks led many companies to remove BPA from their products. As a result, studies have shown that BPA levels in people’s bodies <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.05.046">appear to be declining</a> in the U.S. However, a nationwide research team that I helped lead <a href="https://echochildren.org/">as part of a national NIH consortium</a> showed in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c08942">recent study of pregnant women</a> that the decline in BPA could in part be explained by the fact that BPA replacement chemicals have been on the rise over the last 12 years. And other studies have found that many BPA substitutes are <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/bpa-substitutes-may-be-just-bad-popular-consumer-plastic">typically just as harmful</a> as the original.</p>
<p>As an environmental health scientist and <a href="https://profiles.ucsf.edu/tracey.woodruff">professor and director</a> of the University of California, San Francisco <a href="https://prhe.ucsf.edu/">Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment</a> who specializes in how toxic chemicals affect pregnancy and child development, I am part of a <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/developmental-and-reproductive-toxicant-identification-committee-darticmembers">scientific panel</a> that decides if chemicals are reproductive or developmental toxicants for the State of California. In 2015, this committee declared <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/bisphenol-bpa#">BPA a reproductive toxicant</a> because it has been shown to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2016-1887">toxic to ovaries</a>.</p>
<h2>BPA and the FDA</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/bisphenol-bpa">BPA was first approved for use</a> in food packaging by the FDA in the 1960s. In 2008, the agency released a draft report concluding that “BPA remains safe in food contact materials.” This assessment was <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jan-16-la-na-fda-bpa16-2010jan16-story.html">met with pushback</a> from many health advocates and environmental health organizations. The FDA claimed BPA to be “safe in food contact materials” as recently as 2018. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, since 2011, Canada and Europe have taken steps to <a href="https://www.chemistryviews.org/details/news/11169386/EU_Wide_Bisphenol_A_Ban_Expected/">ban or limit BPA in children’s products</a>. In 2021, the European Union <a href="https://grist.org/regulation/europe-proposes-dramatic-new-regulation-for-bpa/">proposed “dramatic” decreases</a> <a href="https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/bisphenol-efsa-draft-opinion-proposes-lowering-tolerable-daily-intake">in BPA exposure limits</a> due to a growing body of evidence linking BPA to health harms.</p>
<p>One of the major challenges to limiting harmful chemicals is that regulatory agencies like the FDA try to figure out the levels of exposure that they consider harmful. In the U.S., both the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency have a long history of underestimating exposures – in some cases because they do not adequately capture “real-world exposures,” or because they fail to fully consider how even small exposures can affect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QuMGc0EswTc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Surprising research findings on the safety of ‘BPA-free’ products.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Latest research</h2>
<p>A large body of research has explored BPA’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307728">effects on reproductive health</a>. These studies have also revealed that many <a href="https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2019.0027">BPA substitutes are potentially even worse</a> than BPA and have looked at how these <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2019.1621263">chemicals act in combination</a> with other chemical exposures that can also come from a variety of sources. </p>
<p>And while much attention has been paid to BPA’s effects on pregnancy and child development, there is also significant research on its effects on male reproductive health. It has been linked to <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-exposure-linked-to-prostate-cancer/#">prostate cancer</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107322">drops in sperm count</a>. </p>
<p>In a study our research team conducted that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0131-2">measured BPA in pregnant women</a>, we asked study participants if they knew about BPA or tried to avoid BPA. Many of our study participants said they knew about it or tried to avoid it, but we found their actions appeared to have no effect on exposure levels. We believe this is, in part, because of BPA’s presence in so many products, some of them known and some unknown that are difficult to control.</p>
<h2>What you can do</h2>
<p>One of the most common questions our staff and clinicians that work with patients are asked is <a href="https://prheucsf.blog/?s=BPA">how to avoid harmful chemicals</a> like BPA and BPA substitutes. A good rule of thumb is to avoid drinking and eating from plastics, microwaving food in plastic and using plastic take-out containers – admittedly easier said than done. Even some paper take-out containers can be lined with BPA or BPA substitutes. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14126">recent review of the research</a> found that avoiding plastic containers and packaging, fast and processed foods and canned food and beverages, and instead using alternatives like glass containers and consuming fresh food, can reduce exposures to BPA and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals.</p>
<p>Research has shown that when <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15287390903212329">heat comes into contact with plastic</a> – whether water bottles, Tupperware, take-out containers <a href="https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-66.8.1444">or cans</a> – BPA and other chemicals are more likely to leach into the food inside. One should also avoid putting hot food into a food processor or putting plastic containers into the dishwasher. Heat breaks down the plastic, and while the product might appear fine, the chemicals are more likely to migrate into the food or drink – and ultimately, into you.</p>
<p>We also know that when acidic foods like tomatoes are packaged in cans, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.008">they have higher levels of BPA</a> in them. And the amount of time food is stored in plastic or BPA-lined cans can also be a factor in how much the chemicals migrate into the food.</p>
<p>No matter how much people do as individuals, policy change is essential to reducing harmful chemical exposures. A large part of our work at UCSF’s <a href="https://prhe.ucsf.edu/">Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment</a> is to hold regulatory agencies accountable for assessing chemical risks and protecting public health. What we have learned is that it is essential for agencies like the EPA and FDA to use the most up-to-date science and scientific methods to determine risk.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184630/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tracey Woodruff received funding for BPA research from NIEHS. She receives and has received funding for research on chemical exposures from NIH/NIEHS, USEPA and California EPA.</span></em></p>Due to increasing concerns over the health hazards posed by BPA, the Food and Drug Administration plans to reevaluate the safety of the controversial chemical for use in everyday products.Tracey Woodruff, Professor of Environmental Health, University of California, San FranciscoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1733952021-12-08T23:51:24Z2021-12-08T23:51:24ZA century of tragedy: How the car and gas industry knew about the health risks of leaded fuel but sold it for 100 years anyway<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436454/original/file-20211208-104971-1bl6u5i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5227%2C3413&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For decades, most gas sold in the U.S. contained a lead additive.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/rusty-petrol-pumps-on-a-gas-station-royalty-free-image/74166712?adppopup=true"> Per Magnus Persson via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On the frosty morning of Dec. 9, 1921, in Dayton, Ohio, researchers at a General Motors lab poured a new fuel blend into one of their test engines. Immediately, the engine began running more quietly and putting out more power. </p>
<p>The new fuel was tetraethyl lead. With vast profits in sight – and very few public health regulations at the time – General Motors Co. rushed gasoline diluted with tetraethyl lead to market despite the known health risks of lead. They named it “Ethyl” gas.</p>
<p>It has been 100 years since that pivotal day in the development of leaded gasoline. As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=search_authors&mauthors=bill+kovarik&hl=en&oi=ao">historian of media and the environment</a>, I see this anniversary as a time to reflect on the role of public health advocates and environmental journalists in preventing profit-driven tragedy.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436459/original/file-20211208-17-xev9b9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photo of a man in an old laboratory." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436459/original/file-20211208-17-xev9b9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436459/original/file-20211208-17-xev9b9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436459/original/file-20211208-17-xev9b9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436459/original/file-20211208-17-xev9b9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436459/original/file-20211208-17-xev9b9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436459/original/file-20211208-17-xev9b9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436459/original/file-20211208-17-xev9b9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists working for General Motors discovered that tetraethyl lead could greatly improve the efficiency and longevity of engines in the 1920s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy of General Motors Institute</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Lead and death</h2>
<p>By the early 1920s, <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/health/Needleman_1999.pdf">the hazards of lead were well known</a> – even Charles Dickens and Benjamin Franklin had written about the dangers of lead poisoning.</p>
<p>When GM began selling leaded gasoline, public health experts <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/om030621b">questioned its decision</a>. One called lead a serious menace to public health, and another called concentrated tetraethyl lead a “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/om030245v">malicious and creeping</a>” poison. </p>
<p>General Motors and Standard Oil waved the warnings aside until disaster struck in October 1924. Two dozen workers at a refinery in Bayway, New Jersey, came down with severe lead poisoning from a poorly designed GM process. At first they became disoriented, then burst into insane fury and collapsed into hysterical laughter. Many had to be wrestled into straitjackets. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1924/10/27/archives/odd-gas-kills-one-makes-four-insane-stricken-at-work-in-standards.html">Six died, and the rest were hospitalized</a>. Around the same time, 11 more workers died and several dozen more were disabled at similar GM and DuPont plants across the U.S.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436460/original/file-20211208-149721-820cnb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A cartoon showing a man going insane after lead exposure." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436460/original/file-20211208-149721-820cnb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436460/original/file-20211208-149721-820cnb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436460/original/file-20211208-149721-820cnb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436460/original/file-20211208-149721-820cnb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436460/original/file-20211208-149721-820cnb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436460/original/file-20211208-149721-820cnb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436460/original/file-20211208-149721-820cnb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The news media began to criticize Standard Oil and raise concerns over Ethyl gas with articles and cartoons.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">New York Evening Journal via The Library of Congress</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Fighting the media</h2>
<p>The auto and gas industries’ attitude toward the media was hostile from the beginning. At Standard Oil’s first press conference about the 1924 Ethyl disaster, a spokesman claimed he had no idea what had happened while advising the media that “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1924/10/27/archives/odd-gas-kills-one-makes-four-insane-stricken-at-work-in-standards.html">Nothing ought to be said about this matter in the public interest</a>.”</p>
<p><a href="https://billkovarik.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ethyl.Controversy.Kovarik.dissertation.pdf">More facts emerged in the months after the event</a>, and by the spring of 1925, in-depth newspaper coverage started to appear, framing the issue as public health versus industrial progress. A New York World article asked Yale University gas warfare expert Yandell Henderson and GM’s tetraethyl lead researcher Thomas Midgley whether leaded gasoline would poison people. Midgley joked about public health concerns and falsely insisted that leaded gasoline was the only way to raise fuel power. To demonstrate the negative impacts of leaded fuel, Henderson estimated that 30 tons of lead would fall in a dusty rain on New York’s Fifth Avenue every year. </p>
<p>Industry officials were outraged over the coverage. A GM public relations history from 1948 called the New York World’s coverage “a campaign of publicity against the public sale of gasoline containing the company’s antiknock compound.” GM also claimed that the media labeled leaded gas “loony gas” when, in fact, it was <a href="https://billkovarik.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ethyl.Controversy.Kovarik.dissertation.pdf">the workers themselves who named it as such</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436735/original/file-20211209-141178-1klcf7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An old advertisement for Ethyl brand gas." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436735/original/file-20211209-141178-1klcf7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436735/original/file-20211209-141178-1klcf7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436735/original/file-20211209-141178-1klcf7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436735/original/file-20211209-141178-1klcf7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436735/original/file-20211209-141178-1klcf7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436735/original/file-20211209-141178-1klcf7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436735/original/file-20211209-141178-1klcf7s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leaded gas was marketed as Ethyl, a joint brand of Standard Oil and General Motors.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/mrg.05719">John Margolies/Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Attempts at regulation</h2>
<p>In May 1925, the U.S. Public Health Service asked GM, Standard Oil and public health scientists to attend an open hearing on leaded gasoline in Washington. The issue, according to GM and Standard, involved refinery safety, not public health. Frank Howard of Standard Oil argued that tetraethyl lead was diluted at over 1,000 to 1 in gasoline and therefore posed no risk to the average person. </p>
<p>Public health scientists <a href="https://billkovarik.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ethyl.Controversy.Kovarik.dissertation.pdf">challenged the need for leaded gasoline</a>. Alice Hamilton, a physician at Harvard, said, “There are thousands of things better than lead to put in gasoline.” And she was right. There were plenty of well-known alternatives at the time, and some were even patented by GM. But no one in the press knew how to find that information, and the Public Health Service, under pressure from the auto and oil industries, canceled a second day of public hearings that would have discussed safer gasoline additives like ethanol, iron carbonyl and catalytic reforming. </p>
<p>By 1926, the Public Health Service announced that they had “no good reason” to prohibit leaded gasoline, even though <a href="https://billkovarik.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ethyl.Controversy.Kovarik.dissertation.pdf">internal memos complained that their research</a> was “half baked.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436456/original/file-20211208-68670-1nmlwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A graph showing that blood lead levels closely follow lead emissions from cars." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436456/original/file-20211208-68670-1nmlwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436456/original/file-20211208-68670-1nmlwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436456/original/file-20211208-68670-1nmlwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436456/original/file-20211208-68670-1nmlwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436456/original/file-20211208-68670-1nmlwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436456/original/file-20211208-68670-1nmlwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/436456/original/file-20211208-68670-1nmlwhl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As leaded gasoline fell out of use, lead levels in people’s blood fell as well.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/lead">U.S. EPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The rise and fall of leaded gasoline</h2>
<p>Leaded gasoline went on to dominate fuel markets worldwide. Researchers have estimated that decades of burning leaded gasoline caused <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/10/393292-phase-out-leaded-petrol-brings-huge-health-and-cost-benefits-un-backed-study">millions of premature deaths, enormous declines in IQ levels</a> and many other associated social problems.</p>
<p>In the 1960s and 1970s, the public health case against leaded gasoline reemerged. A California Institute of Technology geochemist, Clair Cameron Patterson, was finding it difficult to measure lead isotopes in his laboratory because lead from gasoline was everywhere and his samples were constantly being contaminated. Patterson created the first “clean room” to carry on his isotope work, but he also published a 1965 paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1965.10664229">Contaminated and Natural Lead Environments of Man</a>,” and said that “the average resident of the U.S. is being subjected to severe chronic lead insult.”</p>
<p>In parallel, by the 1970s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided that leaded gasoline had to be phased out eventually because it clogged catalytic converters on cars and led to more air pollution. Leaded gasoline manufacturers objected, but the objections were <a href="https://casetext.com/case/ethyl-corp-v-epa">overruled by an appeals court</a>. </p>
<p>The public health concerns continued to build in the 1970s and 1980s when University of Pittsburgh pediatrician Herbert Needleman ran studies linking high levels of lead in children with low IQ and other developmental problems. Both Patterson and Needleman faced strong partisan attacks from the lead industry, which <a href="http://www.beacon.org/Toxic-Truth-P662.aspx">claimed that their research was fraudulent</a>. </p>
<p>Both were eventually vindicated when, in 1996, the U.S. officially banned the sale of leaded gasoline for public health reasons. Europe was next in the 2000s, followed by developing nations after that. In August 2021, the last country in the world to sell leaded gas, Algeria, <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/finally-the-end-of-leaded-gas">banned it</a>.</p>
<p>A century of leaded gasoline has taken millions of lives and to this day leaves the soil in many cities from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906092116">New Orleans</a> to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2102791118">London</a> toxic.</p>
<p>The leaded gasoline story provides a practical example of how industry’s profit-driven decisions – when unsuccessfully challenged and regulated – can cause serious and long-term harm. It takes individual public health leaders and strong media coverage of health and environmental issues to counter these risks. </p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173395/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Kovarik does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Burning leaded gasoline releases toxic lead into the environment, and for 100 years people around the world have been dealing with the health effects. How did a century of toxic fuel come to be?Bill Kovarik, Professor of Communication, Radford UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1668202021-08-27T06:20:31Z2021-08-27T06:20:31ZBushfire survivors just won a crucial case against the NSW environmental watchdog, putting other states on notice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418182/original/file-20210827-15-eqa08a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C8%2C5531%2C3551&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week was another big one in the land of climate litigation. </p>
<p>On Thursday, a New South Wales court <a href="https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17b7569b9b3625518b58fd99">compelled the state Environment Protection Authority</a> (EPA) to take stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s the first time an Australian court has ordered a government organisation to take more meaningful action on climate change. </p>
<p>The case challenging the EPA’s current failures was brought by a group of bushfire-affected Australians. The group’s president <a href="https://www.edo.org.au/2021/08/26/bushfire-survivors-hail-landmark-legal-win-on-climate/?fbclid=IwAR3phClAL5OF1ID1UYkvznV2oCY5Pvenldx-4QbaQoxSzp8jGTipHh4nej0">said</a> the ruling means those impacted by bushfires can rebuild their homes, lives, and communities, with the confidence the EPA will also work to do its part by addressing emissions. </p>
<p>The group’s courtroom success shows citizens can play an important role in bringing about change. And it continues a recent trend of successful climate cases that have held government and private sector actors to account for their responsibility to help prevent climate-related harms. </p>
<h2>Who are the bushfire survivors?</h2>
<p>Members of the group, the Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action, identify as survivors, firefighters and local councillors impacted by bushfires and the continued threat of bushfire posed by climate change. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.bushfiresurvivors.org/survivorstories">Their stories</a> paint a picture of devastating loss, and fear of what might be to come. One member, who lost her home, tells of harrowing hours looking for friends and family amid a dark, alien moonscape. Another, a volunteer firefighter, describes the smell of charred and burnt flesh and the silence of the incinerated forests that haunted him. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418192/original/file-20210827-27217-1qnspwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A person stands in a burnt-out home" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418192/original/file-20210827-27217-1qnspwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418192/original/file-20210827-27217-1qnspwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418192/original/file-20210827-27217-1qnspwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418192/original/file-20210827-27217-1qnspwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418192/original/file-20210827-27217-1qnspwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418192/original/file-20210827-27217-1qnspwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418192/original/file-20210827-27217-1qnspwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fiona Lee, a member of the Bushfire Survivors group, stands in the ruins of her home after a bushfire swept through.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The group argues that because the NSW EPA is required, by law, to protect the environment through quality objectives, guidelines and policies, these instruments also need to cover greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>Their reasoning is hard to fault: climate change is one of the environment’s most significant threats. In today’s world, you can’t protect the environment without addressing climate change. </p>
<p>To establish this point, the bushfire survivors presented the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/">latest report</a> from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was released while the trial was being heard. The report describes how the temperature rise in Australia could exceed the global average, <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-has-already-hit-australia-unless-we-act-now-a-hotter-drier-and-more-dangerous-future-awaits-ipcc-warns-165396">and predicts</a> increasingly hotter and drier conditions. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-has-already-hit-australia-unless-we-act-now-a-hotter-drier-and-more-dangerous-future-awaits-ipcc-warns-165396">Climate change has already hit Australia. Unless we act now, a hotter, drier and more dangerous future awaits, IPCC warns</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An unperformed duty</h2>
<p>The EPA’s statutory duty to protect the environment was already known before the litigation began. That’s because the duty is contained within the EPA’s <a href="https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1997-156">own legislation</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418191/original/file-20210827-16-1ijg9qd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Bushfire survivors hold signs in front of Parliament House" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418191/original/file-20210827-16-1ijg9qd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418191/original/file-20210827-16-1ijg9qd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418191/original/file-20210827-16-1ijg9qd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418191/original/file-20210827-16-1ijg9qd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418191/original/file-20210827-16-1ijg9qd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418191/original/file-20210827-16-1ijg9qd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418191/original/file-20210827-16-1ijg9qd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Bushfire Survivors brought their case to the NSW Land and Environment Court.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The EPA protects the environment from other types of pollutants by issuing environment protection licences, monitoring compliance, and imposing fines and clean-up orders. The bushfire survivors were seeking to force the EPA to address greenhouse gas emissions as well. </p>
<p>The EPA unsuccessfully tried to establish it is not required to address any specific environmental problem — i.e. climate change. And it argued that even if it is, it has already done enough. </p>
<p>But the court agreed with the bushfire survivors that the EPA’s instruments already in place aren’t sufficient, leaving the duty “unperformed”. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1430683369864499200"}"></div></p>
<p>The court didn’t specify exactly how the EPA should remedy the fact it isn’t adequately addressing climate change, meaning the EPA can decide how it develops its own quality objectives, guidelines and policies, in a way that leads to fewer emissions. It is not the court’s job to make policy. </p>
<p>The EPA might, for example, target the highest-emitting industries and activities, via controls or caps on greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>Importantly, however, the court said the EPA doesn’t have to match its actions with a particular climate scenario, such as a global temperature rise of 1.5°C. </p>
<h2>Other states on notice</h2>
<p>Although this ruling is specific to NSW, other state environment protection authorities also have legal objectives to protect the environment.</p>
<p>This case may cause other Australian environmental authorities to consider whether their regulatory approaches match what the law requires them to do. This might include a responsibility to protect the environment from climate change. </p>
<p>Another thing we know from the NSW case is that simply having policies and strategies isn’t enough. </p>
<p>The court made it clear aspirational and descriptive plans won’t cut the mustard if there’s nothing to “set any objectives or standards, impose any requirements, or prescribe any action to be taken to ensure the protection of the environment”. </p>
<p>The EPA tried to point to NSW’s <a href="https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/nsw-climate-change-policy-framework">Climate Change Framework</a> and <a href="https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/climate-change/net-zero-plan">Net Zero Plan</a> as a way of showing climate change action. But neither of these was developed by the EPA. </p>
<p>The EPA also presented documents it did develop, including a document about landfill guidelines, a fact sheet on methane, and a regulatory strategy highlighting climate change as a challenge for the EPA. </p>
<p>The court found these weren’t enough to address the threat of climate change and discharge the EPA’s duty, calling the regulatory strategy’s description of climate change “general and trite”.</p>
<h2>An Australian first, but not an anomaly</h2>
<p>Globally, climate litigation is playing a role in filling gaps in domestic climate governance. Cases in <a href="https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/global-climate-litigation/">Europe, North and South America, and elsewhere</a> have led to courts pushing governments to do more.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-landmark-judgment-the-federal-court-found-the-environment-minister-has-a-duty-of-care-to-young-people-161650">In a landmark judgment, the Federal Court found the environment minister has a duty of care to young people</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One of the world’s first major successful climate change cases, <em><a href="https://perma.cc/LD5A-33CT">Massachusetts v EPA</a></em>, was similar to the bushfire survivors’ case. Back in 2007, the state of Massachusetts, along with other US states, sued the federal US EPA. They were seeking to force regulatory action on greenhouse gas emissions, and a recognition of carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. </p>
<p>While the NSW case comes 14 years after the US case, there has been plenty of courtroom action in Australia in the meantime, with cases against the financial sector, government actors, and corporations.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418185/original/file-20210827-22966-1u1oth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The top of the Santos building in front of a sunny blue sky" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418185/original/file-20210827-22966-1u1oth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418185/original/file-20210827-22966-1u1oth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418185/original/file-20210827-22966-1u1oth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418185/original/file-20210827-22966-1u1oth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418185/original/file-20210827-22966-1u1oth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418185/original/file-20210827-22966-1u1oth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418185/original/file-20210827-22966-1u1oth.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility just filed a lawsuit against Santos.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, on the same morning as the bushfire survivors’ case, a lawsuit was filed against oil and gas giant Santos in the Federal Court. </p>
<p>The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility <a href="https://www.accr.org.au/news/australasian-centre-for-corporate-responsibility-files-landmark-case-against-santos-in-federal-court/">will argue</a> statements made in <a href="https://www.santos.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2020-Annual-Report.pdf">Santos’s annual report</a> are misleading and deceptive. These statements include that natural gas is a “clean fuel” and that it has a “clear and credible” plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040.</p>
<p>Climate change is an inevitable problem, and one that will be costly. Lawsuits seeking to force action now aim to limit how great the costs will be down the track. By targeting those most responsible, they are a means of seeking justice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166820/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Schuijers receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>They argued the NSW Environment Protection Authority should take action on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. In an Aussie first, the court agreed.Laura Schuijers, Research Fellow in Environmental Law, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1536182021-01-20T15:58:54Z2021-01-20T15:58:54ZTrump’s big gamble to gut US power plant emissions rules loses in court, opening a door for new climate rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379760/original/file-20210120-13-1iuqyb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C259%2C4423%2C2693&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fossil fuel power plants contribute to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases that trap heat near Earth's surface.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/WyomingCarbonCapture/0e6867759b014ed184bb4f6e2301a5a4/photo">AP Photo/J. David Ake</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Joe Biden got a big judicial win for his climate agenda just hours before his inauguration as U.S. president. The case involved federal plans for cutting power plant emissions and a big gamble by the Trump administration.</p>
<p>Nearly a <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=3">third</a> of the U.S. carbon emissions driving climate change come from electricity generation. To try to cut those emissions, the Obama administration in 2014 issued the <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan.html">Clean Power Plan</a> – a set of rules targeting high-emitting power plants, particularly those burning coal.</p>
<p>The industry sued, and before the Clean Power Plan could go into effect, the Supreme Court suspended it so the legal disputes could be resolved. It was still in limbo in 2019 when Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency formally repealed the Clean Power Plan and issued an extremely weak substitute called the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/affordable-clean-energy-rule">Affordable Clean Energy</a> rule that had far looser limits on pollution.</p>
<p>In issuing its own rule, the Trump administration took a big gamble. Trump’s goal was not only to replace the Obama administration rule but to ensure that no future president could ever adopt anything similar.</p>
<p>Trump’s substitute rule merely required limited retrofits of existing coal fired power plants, whereas Obama’s rule involved moving the power system toward cleaner energy sources. To prevent similar future actions, Trump’s EPA placed all its chips on an argument that EPA had no legal power to do anything beyond the retrofits.</p>
<p>On Jan. 19, 2021, a U.S. appeals court <a href="https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/dc-cir-ace-decision-jan-21.pdf">rejected the Trump EPA’s sole legal argument</a>, potentially opening the door for Biden to issue a Clean Power Plan 2.0.</p>
<h2>Getting to the next Clean Power Plan</h2>
<p>The appeals court vacated Trump’s rule and sent it back to the EPA to reconsider, with just hours left in the Trump administration.</p>
<p>It’s conceivable but unlikely that one of the other parties to the case can get the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene at this point. When there’s a change in administrations, courts routinely grant a request to hold the case until the government can reconsider its position.</p>
<p>The appeals court acknowledged that the Clean Air Act <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-clean">requires</a> EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, the court considered the original Obama plan moot because it had been overtaken by events, so Biden’s EPA will have to start anew in crafting its own approach.</p>
<p>Unless the Supreme Court jumps in, the ruling means his administration can use an approach similar to Obama’s, involving greater use of renewable power sources, shifting from coal power to natural gas, using biomass and other alternatives.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/section-111-d-of-the-clean-air-act_the-legal-foundation-for-strong-flexible-cost-effective-carbon-pollution-standards-for-existing-power-plants.pdf">process</a> is complicated. The Biden administration will have to set requirements for how much each state has to cut power plant emissions. Then it would have to review states’ plans for achieving the limits. The result could be major reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The administration will have some help. Biden’s leadership team includes Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who oversaw development of the Clean Power Plan.</p>
<p>The biggest unknown is how a conservative 6-3 Supreme Court might rule on a future Biden plan.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/daniel-farber/">law professor</a> who has worked on energy issues for years, I believe it would be unwise for the Biden EPA to put all its bets on using this one tool for reducing emissions, given the risk that the Supreme Court could reject it. <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-has-a-congressional-shortcut-to-cancel-trumps-regulatory-rollbacks-but-it-comes-with-risks-153426">There are</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-plans-to-fight-climate-change-in-a-way-no-u-s-president-has-done-before-152419">other tools</a>. Still, the ruling opens up possibilities.</p>
<p><iframe id="g9z3f" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/g9z3f/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>‘A series of tortured misreadings’</h2>
<p>Both the Trump and Obama rules relied on <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411">section 111(d)</a> of the Clean Air Act, which gives the EPA authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants.</p>
<p>However, the Trump EPA reinterpreted the law as allowing EPA to consider only a narrow category of regulations. It argued that it could only require coal-fired power plants to engage in very limited retrofits. The practical effect was to eliminate any meaningful reductions in carbon emissions.</p>
<p>The appeals court determined that the law simply didn’t say what Trump’s EPA claimed.</p>
<p>“The EPA has ample discretion in carrying out its mandate. But it may not shirk its responsibility by imagining new limitations that the plain language of the statute does not clearly require,” the majority wrote in a 2-1 opinion. They described the EPA’s actions as “a tortured series of misreadings.”</p>
<p>The dissenting judge did not contest this point. Instead, he claimed that even the Trump EPA’s token regulations of emissions from coal plants went too far. The majority had little trouble rebutting his arguments, which even the Trump administration had rejected.</p>
<p>The upshot of the court’s ruling was that the Clean Air Act does allow EPA to use a broad range of tools to cut carbon emissions.</p>
<h2>Trump’s regulation rollback losses</h2>
<p>Trump’s ACE rule was typical of many of his rollbacks, in that it swung for the fences. It is not the only time where Trump agencies reread statutes in a way designed to minimize regulation of industry. In <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html">other situations</a>, the administration took other kinds of legal risks in pursuit of the outcomes it wanted: ignoring criticisms made in the public notice period rather than rebutting them, cherry-picking evidence in obvious ways, or even trying to evade public notice altogether.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>So far, the <a href="https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup">track record</a> of Trump’s rollbacks in court has been dismal. The appeals court ruling in the power plant case merely confirms that many of the rollbacks rested on shaky legal grounds. These legal flaws will make it easier for Biden to undo many of the rollbacks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153618/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Farber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An appeals court described the EPA’s effort as ‘a series of tortured misreadings’ of US law.Daniel Farber, Professor of Law, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1181522019-11-21T13:58:23Z2019-11-21T13:58:23ZNail salon workers suffer chemical exposures that can be like working at a garage or a refinery<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294623/original/file-20190927-185403-1nhy7sj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The chemicals in nail products put nail salon workers at risk for cancer and other illnesses. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Angie Chung/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Anyone who has walked past a nail salon is familiar with the noxious odors that emanate from acrylic nails, polishes and removers. Customers getting manicures and pedicures endure the smell temporarily, but manicurists who inhale these evaporating chemicals for hours expose themselves to health risks. </p>
<p>The smells come from volatile organic compounds, or VOCs – compounds that <a href="https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/volatile-organic-compounds-vocs">easily become vapors or gases</a>. These substances have been <a href="https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality#Health_Effects">linked to health problems</a> ranging from headaches and respiratory irritation to reproductive complications and cancer. In a normal room-temperature environment, VOCs evaporate and humans breathe them in. </p>
<p>Our research team, along with colleagues at Colorado State University, recently investigated <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.086">chemical exposures in six Colorado nail salons</a> and found that employees spent their days exposed to high levels of VOCs. Participating technicians, who had worked in salons for up to 19 years, reported suffering headaches and skin and eye irritation. </p>
<p>We measured levels of benzene and formaldehyde in the salons, and determined that exposure to these known human carcinogens was increasing the workers’ lifetime cancer risks above one in one million – the level that <a href="https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/iwachap10.pdf">many U.S. agencies consider acceptable</a> in regulating exposure to harmful substances.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R20A0iQYc4o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Nail salon workers in New York City rally for safer working conditions.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Identifying health hazards</h2>
<p>A 2015 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/nyregion/at-nail-salons-in-nyc-manicurists-are-underpaid-and-unprotected.html">New York Times exposé</a> highlighted underpayment and poor working conditions in New York nail salons. However, it failed to address chemical exposures that salon workers experience daily.</p>
<p>Several research groups have sought to <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300099">characterize</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2012.755152">quantify</a> VOC exposures <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1353-0">in the nail salon environment</a>, using standard measurement techniques and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-007-9084-4">self-reported health surveys</a>. Their research shows that nail salon workers are exposed to higher levels of VOCs than they would typically be expected to encounter in most homes, occupations or urban environments. As a result, these workers frequently experience work-related health symptoms.</p>
<p>Our study measured 10 VOCs, including the carcinogens <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.086">benzene and formaldehyde</a>. We found that VOC levels in the six salons where we monitored regularly exceeded common threshold levels for <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/atoz.cfm?list_type=alpha">odor and inhalation risk</a>. In some cases this posed a significant risk of cancer over a 20-year exposure period.</p>
<p>Twenty workers answered questionnaires about their personal health. Among them, 70% reported some form of short-term health symptom related to their employment, while 40% reported multiple related symptoms.</p>
<p>We worked closely with salon owners to enlist volunteer nail technicians to participate. Having owners’ support was instrumental, since it allowed salon workers to accurately report on their health and working conditions without fear of reprisal. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"311522432605372416"}"></div></p>
<h2>Like working at an oil refinery</h2>
<p>Many people view cosmetology as a relatively safe profession, but it isn’t. We found that exposures to aromatic hydrocarbons like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes – collectively referred to as BTEX – resembled those previously reported in studies of <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ambient-Air-Quality-Monitoring-in-Terms-of-Volatile-Singh-Ramteke/7089e7068ccb85bca9d05f36598e2b5fb92ae910">oil refinery workers</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10807031003670071">auto garage technicians</a>. </p>
<p>Our results aren’t unique. A 2018 Iranian study found similar concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylene in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-018-0213-x">Tehran beauty salons</a>. Another study conducted that year in Michigan found concentrations of toluene at <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1353-0">over 100 parts per billion</a>, which is roughly 30 times higher than <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/toluene.pdf">reported urban outdoor levels</a>.</p>
<p>Regulation of this kind of workplace exposure has not kept pace with science. Many U.S. occupational safety and health exposure limits have not been updated <a href="https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2014/12/01/Can-OSHA-Update-the-PELs.aspx">for nearly 50 years</a>. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, readily acknowledges that many of its permissible exposure limits are “<a href="https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/">outdated and inadequate</a> for ensuring protection of worker health.” </p>
<p>OSHA offers only guidance and recommendations for businesses, effectively shifting the burden of worker protection onto private industry. This is especially problematic in the nail salon industry, where over 90% of salons are small businesses that <a href="https://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/nail-files/">employ fewer than 5 people</a> and do not have safety personnel on staff. </p>
<p>Inadequate cosmetic product regulations and labeling requirements make it hard to know which products are actually safe. A 2012 study by the California Environmental Protection Agency found that 10 out of 12 nail products labeled “toluene free” still contained <a href="https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/04/DTSC-Summary-of-Data-Findings-from-Testing-a-Limited-Number-of-Nail-Products-April-2012.pdf">up to 17% toluene</a>. Products labeled free of the so-called “toxic three” ingredients – dibutyl phthalate or DBP, toluene and formaldehyde – actually contained <a href="https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/nailsalons/chemicalhazards.html#resources">greater concentrations of DBP</a>, an endocrine-disrupting compound, than products that made no claims at all.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301604/original/file-20191113-77326-6pwnbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301604/original/file-20191113-77326-6pwnbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301604/original/file-20191113-77326-6pwnbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301604/original/file-20191113-77326-6pwnbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301604/original/file-20191113-77326-6pwnbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301604/original/file-20191113-77326-6pwnbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301604/original/file-20191113-77326-6pwnbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301604/original/file-20191113-77326-6pwnbo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Options for managing toxic exposures in the workplace.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hazardoustoxicsubstances/control.html">OSHA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Solving the problem</h2>
<p>Owners often work in nail salons, so they generally support efforts to improve air quality inside their businesses. Those who we interviewed typically had some understanding of the problem and wanted to fix it, but didn’t always know how. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/nailsalonguide.pdf">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a>, the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-112/pdfs/99-112.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB99112">National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health</a> and <a href="https://www.osha.gov/Publications/3542nail-salon-workers-guide.pdf">OSHA</a> all publish healthy nail salon guides. Yet owners in our study had never heard of them – perhaps because the guides are only published in English, while many nail salon workers are Asian and Latino immigrants with limited English language skills.</p>
<p>Several grassroots community organizations have published guides to improving salons’ air quality in both <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5783e9b9be6594e480435ffe/t/58f447f903596ebd7ca8f6f3/1492404219566/Nail-Salon-Booklet-FINAL-Vietnamese-March-26-2014-adjusted-for-color-copier-and-single-pages.pdf">Vietnamese</a> and <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5783e9b9be6594e480435ffe/t/58f447e386e6c023e6aff51c/1492404197241/Chinese-FINAL-Version-2-2012.pdf">Chinese</a>. These references discuss ventilation and use of personal protective equipment, which are paramount for mitigating chemical exposures in the workplace. </p>
<p>Small changes, such as running ventilation continuously, wearing <a href="http://safety-zone.com/products/nitrile-gloves/">nitrile gloves</a> and utilizing proper <a href="https://www.firstaidglobal.com/product-page/carbon-filter-masks-n95-with-exhalation-valve">charcoal face masks</a>, can significantly reduce worker exposure. Results from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106499">our most recent study</a> also suggest that placing large activated carbon sinks in salons could effectively remove VOCs from the air. We are currently experimenting with embedding these chemical-absorbing materials into <a href="https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/Environmental-engineer-Lupita-Montoya-scrutinizes/97/i32">pieces of art</a> that can hang on salon walls.</p>
<p>Another priority is conveying information to larger audiences and advocating for more safety training in cosmetology certification programs. Education and training are particularly important for ethnic minority groups.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299354/original/file-20191029-183151-1ouw8w0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299354/original/file-20191029-183151-1ouw8w0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299354/original/file-20191029-183151-1ouw8w0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299354/original/file-20191029-183151-1ouw8w0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299354/original/file-20191029-183151-1ouw8w0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299354/original/file-20191029-183151-1ouw8w0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/299354/original/file-20191029-183151-1ouw8w0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=527&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lan-Anh Truong, right, who owns a nail salon in Alameda County, California was honored in 2016 for her efforts in a grassroots campaign to improve conditions for workers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Eric Risberg/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many workplace standards enforced by OSHA, such as those regulating exposure to toxic and hazardous substances, <a href="https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/nailsalons/standards.html">apply to nail salons</a>. However, cosmetic manufacturers are <a href="https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/fda-authority-over-cosmetics-how-cosmetics-are-not-fda-approved-are-fda-regulated#Who_is_responsible">not required</a> to obtain federal approval for products or ingredients before they go on the market, or to file product information with the agency. </p>
<p>In contrast, California passed a bill in 2018 that will require manufacturers to <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2775">provide ingredient labels</a> on any professional cosmetic products manufactured after July 1, 2020 and sold in the state. The campaign for this common-sense reform was largely led by advocacy groups like the <a href="https://cahealthynailsalons.org/">California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative</a>. Practical steps like this can improve conditions for workers who receive little attention but are exposed to serious health risks on the job every day.</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118152/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lupita Montoya received funding from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and from the University of Colorado.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aaron Lamplugh receives funding from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health</span></em></p>The technician who gave you that shiny manicure may be inhaling dangerous levels of toxic chemicals on the job.Lupita D. Montoya, Research Associate, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department, University of Colorado BoulderAaron Lamplugh, Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado BoulderLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1226842019-09-04T11:52:31Z2019-09-04T11:52:31ZWhy methane emissions matter to climate change: 5 questions answered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290348/original/file-20190830-166005-1vceupp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A powerful heat-trapping gas, methane is released from the natural gas delivery infrastructure.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Methane/e3880aa22c3948c7890db88b1ee12cc9/2/0">AP Photo/Brennan Linsley</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The EPA on Aug. 29 unveiled a proposal to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-methane/trump-epa-proposes-scrapping-methane-limits-at-oil-and-gas-operations-idUSKCN1VJ1IU">rescind regulations to limit methane emissions</a> from the oil and gas industry. <a href="https://www.kut.org/post/even-some-industry-oppose-trump-administrations-plan-roll-back-methane-rules">Critics</a> said the rollback will worsen climate change and air quality. Reaction from <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-rollback-of-methane-regulations-splits-energy-industry-11567098375">energy companies varied</a>, with some arguing the limits are unnecessary while others supported the federal regulations.</em> </p>
<p><em>Colorado State University energy scholars Anthony Marchese and Dan Zimmerle last year published <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-matters-98918">an extensive study on the extent of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry</a>. They explain the sources of methane from natural gas and what this regulatory rollback could mean.</em></p>
<h2>1. Once natural gas is extracted from the ground, how do the methane and other gases get into the atmosphere?</h2>
<p>The U.S. natural gas infrastructure includes a million miles of pipes and millions of valves, fittings, tanks, compressors and other components that operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, to deliver natural gas to your home. Natural gas can travel over 1,000 miles from the well to end use. During that long journey, gas has many opportunities to escape into the atmosphere. This includes unwanted leaks from faulty components as well as <a href="http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ijema.20160406.13.html">intentional venting</a> of gas from devices that use the high-pressure gas to open and close valves. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290342/original/file-20190830-165972-76w5ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290342/original/file-20190830-165972-76w5ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290342/original/file-20190830-165972-76w5ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290342/original/file-20190830-165972-76w5ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290342/original/file-20190830-165972-76w5ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290342/original/file-20190830-165972-76w5ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290342/original/file-20190830-165972-76w5ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290342/original/file-20190830-165972-76w5ca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The natural gas delivery infrastructure, which includes pipelines and valves and compressors, has many opportunities to leak methane, the main component of natural gas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/9602574@N02/39758967260/in/album-72157667983532168/">Mark Dixon/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition, the <a href="https://extension.psu.edu/understanding-natural-gas-compressor-stations">compressors</a> that are required to increase the pressure and pump the gas through the network are powered by internal combustion engines that burn natural gas; the exhaust of those engines includes unburned methane. Since the natural gas delivered to your home is <a href="https://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/chemical-composition-of-natural-gas">85% to 95% methane</a>, natural gas leaks are predominantly methane. While methane poses the greatest threat to the climate because of its <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/how-potent-is-methane/">greenhouse gas potency</a>, the other hydrocarbons present in the natural gas can degrade regional air quality and harm human health.</p>
<h2>2. Why has it been difficult to determine the extent, or the rate, of methane emissions?</h2>
<p>Because the natural gas infrastructure is so vast, it is not possible to measure every leak from every faulty valve or fitting. Indeed, we don’t even have accurate estimates of the total number of valves and fittings. The best way to estimate the total amount of methane emissions from the natural gas infrastructure is to perform as many measurements as possible from as many different types of components as possible. The reason that one has to perform hundreds or even thousands of measurements from each type of equipment is so that you can capture the high-emitting sources (the so-called super-emitters), which are low in number but their emissions are so high that they can account for <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/2016/10/26/super-emitters-responsible-bulk-u-s-methane-emissions/">50% to 80% of the total emissions</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290346/original/file-20190830-165977-hbq3sz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290346/original/file-20190830-165977-hbq3sz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290346/original/file-20190830-165977-hbq3sz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290346/original/file-20190830-165977-hbq3sz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290346/original/file-20190830-165977-hbq3sz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290346/original/file-20190830-165977-hbq3sz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290346/original/file-20190830-165977-hbq3sz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290346/original/file-20190830-165977-hbq3sz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Natural gas from wells could travel thousands of miles through many types of infrastructure before reaching consumers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/">Energy Information Administration</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By making thousands of measurements, along with compiling our best estimates of the inventory of all of the types of equipment in the U.S. natural gas infrastructure, it is possible to estimate the total emissions from all U.S. natural gas operations with a reasonable degree of certainty, which we <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204">currently estimate to be 2.3%</a>. That is, 2.3% of the natural gas that travels through pipelines is released into the air. We estimate that quantity of natural gas emissions represents a loss in revenue of over US$1 billion per year for the industry, and it has the equivalent greenhouse gas impact as the annual tailpipe emissions from 70 million passenger cars. </p>
<h2>3. What would the Obama-era regulations have required oil and gas companies to do?</h2>
<p>The Obama-era regulations were put in place in 2016 to set emissions limits for methane from a variety of sources in the oil and gas industry. The 2016 regulations built upon previous regulations put in place in 2012 for emissions of volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs), which are nonmethane hydrocarbon gases produced by oil and gas operations. The companies that had installed controls for VOC emissions sources were not required to install any new controls because reduction in VOC emissions also reduce methane emissions. </p>
<p>The 2016 rule also included additional sources that were not previously covered in 2012, including hydraulically fractured oil wells, some of which can contain a large amount of gas along with oil; pneumatic devices at well sites and gas processing plants; and compressors and pneumatic controllers at transmission and storage facilities. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/nsps-overview-fs.pdf">2016 rule</a> required operators to periodically detect and repair methane leaks at new and modified facilities; older facilities that have not been significantly modified are not covered by the rule.</p>
<p><iframe id="OtK0P" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/OtK0P/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>4. How do scientists determine whether natural gas is better for climate change than burning coal?</h2>
<p>Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the climate warming impact of carbon dioxide over the <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/how-potent-is-methane/">first 20 years after it is released</a>. Studies show that if methane leaked at a rate of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202407109">greater than 3%</a>, there would be no immediate climate benefits from retiring coal-fired power plants in favor of natural gas power plants. The good news is that a 2.3% leak rate suggests that natural gas power plants are slightly more beneficial to the climate in comparison to coal-fired power plants. However, the results of our studies also showed that power plants could show more substantial benefit to the climate if the industry reduced the total methane leakage rate to 1%, which many of our industry partners believe to be achievable. </p>
<p><iframe id="OWP7d" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/OWP7d/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In addition, natural gas power plants can change output more quickly than large coal plants, supporting the integration of variable renewable sources, such as wind and solar power. <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114857-natural-gas-a-destination-fuel-not-just-bridge-to-renewables-say-energy-chiefs">Industry</a>, and some environmental groups see natural gas as a “bridge fuel” that helps with the integration of renewable energy into electricity systems.</p>
<p>However, there is one additional, clear difference between coal and natural gas power plants. For coal plants, almost all of the climate impact is due to burning the coal, while for natural gas, the climate impact is a combination of combustion and methane emissions – both leaks and venting. Changing how coal burns is very difficult. Reducing natural gas leakage is a very real possibility.</p>
<h2>5. Why were some oil and gas companies supportive of the tighter regulations on methane emissions?</h2>
<p>The EPA estimates that the proposed new amendments would save the oil and gas industry <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/08/29/755394353/epa-aims-to-roll-back-limits-on-methane-emissions-from-oil-and-gas-industry">$17 to $19 million per year</a>. While this may sound like a lot of money, it pales in comparison to the economic value to be gained by minimizing leakage. We estimate that reducing methane emissions from 2.3% to 1% would result in an annual revenue of over a half billion dollars per year, which is more than 30 times the estimated savings from rolling back the regulations. Many oil and gas companies recognize this fact, and they also recognize that regulations are needed to ensure that all companies are held to the same standard. </p>
<p>Our experience working closely with over 20 industry partners has shown that industry can provide leadership in sharing best operational practices, developing comprehensive leak detection and repair programs, piloting these new technologies and constructively engaging with the regulatory process. Our experience in <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/summary-oil-and-gas-emissions-requirements">Colorado</a>, which has developed some of the nation’s strictest methane emissions regulations, also strongly suggests that government regulations are needed to ensure that best practices become standard practices. </p>
<p>In the end, we believe the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back regulations, without regard to their efficacy, not only will worsen climate change but also will affect the health and safety of U.S. citizens and undercut the natural gas industry’s efforts to produce and promote natural gas as a clean fossil fuel – a fossil fuel that integrates well with renewable sources.</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122684/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J. Marchese has current research support from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. Over the past five years, he has worked on methane emissions studies that have been supported by Environmental Defense Fund and multiple natural gas companies. He currently serves as a consultant with Abt Associates on methane emissions projects with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Zimmerle receives funding from the US Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation and receives co-funding from the oil and gas industry for those projects. He has previously worked on projects for the Environmental Defense Fund, state regulatory agencies and oil & gas industry associations. He is affiliated with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME), American Chemical Society (ACS) and American Geophysical Union (AGU).</span></em></p>Two energy scholars who have studied the extent of methane leaks in the oil and gas industry explain what rescinding methane emissions regulations will mean to the climate and industry.Anthony J. Marchese, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering; Director, Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory; Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Energy Institute Affiliate Faculty, Colorado State UniversityDan Zimmerle, Senior Research Associate, Energy Institute, Colorado State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1203922019-08-02T12:22:41Z2019-08-02T12:22:41ZThe White House is upending decades of protocol for policy-making<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286518/original/file-20190731-186809-1835ta4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ford, Carter, George H.W. Bush and Clinton led four of the first administrations to fully embrace policy analysis.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Whether it’s <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/asylum-seekers-that-followed-trump-rule-now-dont-qualify-because-of-new-trump-rule">overhauling asylum procedures</a>, adding a question about <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-supreme-court-asked-for-an-explanation-of-the-2020-census-citizenship-question-119567">citizenship to the 2020 Census</a>, or rolling back <a href="https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/06/17-automakers-ask-trump-to-hold-off-on-fuel-economy-rollback/">fuel standards</a>, a pattern has emerged when the Trump administration changes policies and creates new ones.</p>
<p>An announcement is made, media attention follows, the policy is formally proposed and finalized – generating more news coverage along the way. In many cases, judges suspend the new policy as <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/8/18076324/daca-supreme-court-trump-when-lawsuit">lawsuits work their way through</a> the system. <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/trumps-deregulatory-efforts-keep-losing-in-court-and-the-losses-could-make-it-harder-for-future-administrations-to-deregulate/">Unusually</a>, the Supreme Court often ends up determining whether the new policy can go into effect.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2000.11643493">All presidents since the 1960s</a> have embraced a process known as <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/policy-analysis">policy analysis</a> that requires careful consideration and deliberation at every step of the way. In most cases, the public also gets to weigh in before a final decision is made. Based on <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=R1CcxM8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">my research</a> about regulatory decision-making, I’ve observed a sea change in how Trump’s team is dealing with public policy compared to previous administrations.</p>
<h2>Administrative Procedure Act</h2>
<p>For the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003231879404600211">first 150 years of this country’s history</a>, Congress, not presidents, decided on policies by enacting laws. </p>
<p>Starting <a href="https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/when-and-why-was-fda-formed">around 1900</a>, lawmakers began to delegate this task to independent agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to government agencies under the president’s control. The pace of this shift stepped up <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-1/delegation-of-legislative-power">during the New Deal</a>, three decades later.</p>
<p>But because this arrangement can empower unelected bureaucrats, <a href="https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2448&context=facpubs">questions about accountability</a> arose. Chief among them: Could decisions made by unelected officials that affected millions of people be allowed in a democracy? Requiring public participation and systematic analysis became routine and required for most policy changes as a result.</p>
<p>The mandate for public participation came first.</p>
<p>In 1946, Congress passed the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-administrative-procedure-act">Administrative Procedure Act</a>. It established <a href="https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/rulemaking-writing-agency-regulations/notice-and-comment/">rulemaking procedures</a> that required agencies creating new policies to alert the public, seek comments, and then consider that input before making most policies final. <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.2307/1073060">Many states followed suit</a> with their own versions of this measure.</p>
<h2>Silent Spring</h2>
<p>The environmental, worker safety, and other social movements that arose during the 1960s and early 1970s led Congress to create agencies like the <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/birth-epa.html">Environmental Protection Agency</a> and the <a href="https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/osha-at-30.html">Occupational Safety and Health Administration</a>. Lawmakers then delegated authority to make policy to those new agencies regarding the issues within their purview.</p>
<p>For example, the public pressure for greater automobile safety in the wake of consumer safety activist Ralph Nader’s book “<a href="https://nader.org/books/unsafe-at-any-speed/">Unsafe at Any Speed</a>” prompted Congress to empower the Department of Transportation to more strictly regulate automakers. Scientist <a href="https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rachel-carson">Rachel Carson’s</a> “<a href="http://www.rachelcarson.org/SilentSpring.aspx">Silent Spring</a>,” a seminal book that exposed the damage caused by pesticides, expedited the passage of <a href="https://environmentallaw.uslegal.com/federal-laws/clean-air-act/">numerous environmental statutes</a> in the <a href="http://www.environmentandsociety.org/exhibitions/silent-spring/overview">U.S. and elsewhere</a> and the creation of the <a href="https://ceq.doe.gov/">EPA during the Nixon administration</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286639/original/file-20190801-169696-b0micg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286639/original/file-20190801-169696-b0micg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286639/original/file-20190801-169696-b0micg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286639/original/file-20190801-169696-b0micg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286639/original/file-20190801-169696-b0micg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286639/original/file-20190801-169696-b0micg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286639/original/file-20190801-169696-b0micg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286639/original/file-20190801-169696-b0micg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alice Rivlin championed the practice of methodically assessing the potential impact of new policies and policy changes, while letting the public weigh in.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Financial-Meltdown/443af838982c4b7795573f72e68d3ebe/23/0">AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the wake of these new responsibilities, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/23065473?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">starting with Gerald Ford</a>, all presidents, Republican and Democratic alike implemented and refined the requirements for analysis and input from the public prior to the unveiling of new policies. The analysis requirement championed by pioneers like <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-episode/alice-rivlin-a-career-spent-making-better-public-policy/">Alice Rivlin</a>, who served as President Bill Clinton’s budget chief, has led to <a href="https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784714765">many successes</a>.</p>
<p>One example is when the <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective.html">EPA decided in the 1980s</a> to require the <a href="https://web.mit.edu/ckolstad/www/Newell.pdf">removal of all lead from gasoline</a> because the analysis of costs and benefits showed how many lives would be saved or improved by its elimination. I relayed another success story in my <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2017.1286019">policy analysis textbook</a>: when the Department of Homeland Security scaled back its proposal for stringent requirements on <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/01/13/2014-00415/aircraft-repair-station-security">aircraft repair stations</a> in 2014. The Obama administration took this step after finding the costs to be too high for minimal security benefits.</p>
<p>These mandatory analyses forced agencies to use basic economic principles to calculate costs and benefits and to make the <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_Redirect.myjsp">calculations available to the public</a>. </p>
<p>But this approach can also fail, at least partly because it can make decisions seem overly technocratic. That’s often the case when values are at stake, such as deciding whether protecting an <a href="https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/publications/1995-The-Science-Charade-in-Toxic-Risk-Regulation">endangered species</a> is worth increasing the cost of <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060092887">construction and infrastructure projects</a> – or blocking them altogether. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286641/original/file-20190801-169672-1ev0ibt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286641/original/file-20190801-169672-1ev0ibt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286641/original/file-20190801-169672-1ev0ibt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286641/original/file-20190801-169672-1ev0ibt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286641/original/file-20190801-169672-1ev0ibt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286641/original/file-20190801-169672-1ev0ibt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286641/original/file-20190801-169672-1ev0ibt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286641/original/file-20190801-169672-1ev0ibt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Workers who make tunnels and toil in them are at risk for inhaling airborne silica, which can cause lung disease.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-Nevada-United-St-/31e4ff58e3e6da11af9f0014c2589dfb/4/0">AP Photo/Laura Rauch</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What’s more, following the requisite steps can also mean the rule-making process takes not just years but decades. OSHA, for example, has taken decades to issue some <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1372818?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">rules that protect workers</a>. Its <a href="https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/03/the-regulation-that-took-four-decades-to-finalize-000078">industrial quartz</a> regulations, for instance, reportedly took 45 years to finish. Technically known as crystalline silica, the substance, when finely ground up for manufacturing or <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/silicupd.html">blasted during construction</a>, can cause workers to contract <a href="https://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/silicosis/silicosis-symptoms-causes-risk.html">silicosis</a>, an incurable lung disease, and lung cancer.</p>
<h2>Shifting gears</h2>
<p>The Trump administration hasn’t declared that it’s doing anything different. It hasn’t, as far as I know, ever declared that “policy analysis is bad” or said, “Let’s ignore the public and ignore expertise.”</p>
<p>But the public record shows that <a href="https://www.epi.org/press/dol-scrubs-economic-analysis-that-showed-its-tip-pooling-rule-would-be-terrible-for-workers/">Trump’s team has either ignored</a>, <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/451095-clean-power-plan-repeal-shows-strengths-and-limits-of-policy">manipulated</a> or <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-cost-benefit-analysis-reform">subverted</a> the requirements for analysis and <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3049004">participation</a> on numerous policy actions that range from addressing climate change to the division of waiters'tips.</p>
<p>Whether a federal agency analyzes its decisions or asks for public input on them may seem like the ultimate in inside baseball. But processes make a difference. I believe that its failure to follow the long-established policy analysis process is a key reason why Trump administration is <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/trumps-deregulatory-efforts-keep-losing-in-court-and-the-losses-could-make-it-harder-for-future-administrations-to-deregulate/">losing many court battles</a>. </p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=thanksforreading">Thanks for reading! We can send you The Conversation’s stories every day in an informative email. Sign up today.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120392/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Shapiro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The process known as policy analysis requires careful consideration and deliberation. In most cases, the public also gets to weigh in.Stuart Shapiro, Professor of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1157112019-06-05T04:14:15Z2019-06-05T04:14:15ZAustralia should give victims a voice in tackling environmental crimes<p>Contrary to popular belief, crimes against the environment are not “<a href="https://www.unodc.org/documents/NGO/EIA_Ecocrime_report_0908_final_draft_low.pdf">victimless</a>”. They affect many people, animals, plants and landscapes. Crimes against the environment should not be taken lightly. </p>
<p>Broadly defined, environmental crimes are those that harm the environment. This <a href="https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp109?fbclid=IwAR1WqiIBS09fDlyFazBncppU6zQlaDucmXLtWAGGZavyLdyS2RBIAIO_apI">includes</a> acts such as polluting water or air, illegal fishing or trade in wildlife, and water theft. The international Environmental Investigation Agency <a href="https://www.unodc.org/documents/NGO/EIA_Ecocrime_report_0908_final_draft_low.pdf">reports</a> environmental offending is “one of the most profitable forms of criminal activity”.</p>
<p>Australia is currently missing out on a hugely useful tool in the fight against environmental crime: restorative justice. This approach, which has been used successfully in New Zealand, deserves a nationwide commitment. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-narrow-view-of-restorative-justice-blunts-its-impact-67258">Why a narrow view of restorative justice blunts its impact</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Restorative justice conferencing</h2>
<p>Australia is a <a href="https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi186">world leader</a> in using restorative justice to deal with both <a href="https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp127/restorative-justice-australia">adult and young offenders</a>.</p>
<p>Simply defined, restorative justice is a process in which the victim, offender, and other parties affected by a crime come together to discuss the aftermath of the offence and its impact. Each party plays a role in resolving the dispute with the help of an impartial facilitator. </p>
<p>Restorative justice is all about restoring harm, preventing the crime from reoccurring, and fixing (or building) relationships. </p>
<p><a href="https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp127/impact-restorative-justice">Research has found</a> that, compared with the traditional criminal court process, restorative justice can reduce the chances of <a href="http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/RJ_full_report.pdf">reoffending</a>, increase <a href="https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb170.pdf">victim satisfaction</a>, and prompt <a href="https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/research-monograph-22.pdf">offenders to feel more responsibility</a> for their actions. </p>
<p>During a conference, victims can explain the effect a crime had on them, and ask questions – giving them a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article-abstract/17/1/1/411623?redirectedFrom=fulltext">voice</a> in traditional proceedings. Offenders can give reasons why the crime happened, and apologise. A range of other outcomes may be agreed to in a conference, including <a href="https://www.cla.asn.au/News/victims-meet-perpetrators/">compensation and community work</a>.</p>
<p>However, our research reveals that conferencing is underused when it comes to environmental crimes in Australia. </p>
<h2>New Zealand leads the way</h2>
<p>New Zealand is leading the world in using restorative justice to deal with environmental crimes. This is largely a result of two pieces of legislation passed in 2002. First, the <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/vra2002184/">Victims’ Rights Act 2002</a> says that, if possible, the court (or other representative) must arrange a restorative justice conference at a victim’s request. Second, the <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/sa2002121/">Sentencing Act 2002</a> makes it mandatory for a judge to take into account any outcomes reached in a conference. </p>
<p>While more research focusing on the precise benefits is needed, anecdotal evidence from shows New Zealand’s approach is effective. Several <a href="http://www.rmla.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/rmla_nov04_journal.pdf">judges</a>, <a href="https://www.ecan.govt.nz/get-involved/news-and-events/zone-news/banks-peninsula/what-happens-when-values-are-put-to-work/">prosecutors</a> and <a href="http://202.89.49.21/%7Edebclaps/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Restorative-justice-finalarticle.pdf">facilitators</a> have praised environmental justice in addressing environmental crime. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/three-rivers-are-now-legally-people-but-thats-just-the-start-of-looking-after-them-74983">Three rivers are now legally people – but that's just the start of looking after them</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Australia is failing to reap the benefits</h2>
<p>Unlike New Zealand, Australian courts have not embraced restorative justice for environmental offending. In fact, Australia has only used restorative justice conferencing in two cases of environmental crime: <em><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2007/96.html?context=0;query=Garrett%20v%20Williams;mask_path=">Williams</a></em> (2007) and <em><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2018/205.html">Clarence Valley Council</a></em> (2018).</p>
<p>Both <em>Williams</em> and <em>Clarence Valley Council</em> involved offending against Aboriginal cultural heritage, in breach of New South Wales’s <a href="https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1974/80/part6/div1/sec86">National Parks and Wildlife Act</a>. The outcomes reached in the conferences went well beyond what a court could have imposed on the offenders. </p>
<p>For example, in <em>Williams</em>, where a mining company built exploratory pits and a private railway siding across areas of Indigenous significance, the maximum penalty at the time was a fine of A$5,500 and 6 months’ imprisonment. The judge suggested the parties engage in a restorative justice conference, during which Craig Williams donated A$32,200 worth of items to the local Aboriginal people.</p>
<p>In <em>Clarence Valley Council</em>, which concerned the council cutting down a protected tree, the council agreed in the conference to donate A$300,000 to the local Aboriginal community to fund research into cultural heritage. The council also agreed to create employment opportunities and youth initiatives for Aboriginal people. </p>
<p>These outcomes are far better in repairing the damage done than a mere fine or prison term. </p>
<h2>Complementary to traditional prosecution</h2>
<p>Despite these significant benefits, restorative justice conferencing is not a replacement for prosecution. It should be used only after the offender has been assessed as suitable, as in the cases of <em>Williams</em> and <em>Clarence Valley Council</em>.</p>
<p>Restorative justice conferencing can be suitable for all sorts of environmental crime, from water pollution to breaches of planning laws. In the case of offending against Aboriginal cultural heritage, conferencing may be appropriate given its ability to give a voice to members of the Aboriginal community who would otherwise be unable to participate in the formal court process. </p>
<p>The ideal time to integrate conferencing is after conviction but before sentencing, which we refer to as a “back-end model” of conferencing (the method most commonly used in New Zealand). </p>
<p>Typically, a back-end model involves the prosecution bringing charges before the court. The court then considers holding a restorative justice conference and, if appropriate, the proceedings are postponed to allow the conference to occur. The matter is later referred back to the court for sentencing. </p>
<p>This creates an opportunity for the sentencing judge to consider any results from the conference, but maintains a court’s essential oversight role by ensuring the outcomes reached are adequate, achievable and legally binding.</p>
<h2>A more environmentally friendly response</h2>
<p>Restorative justice conferencing can provide a more effective way of dealing with environmental harms because, <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/climate-talks-pollution-restorative-justice-1.3473076">according to Trevor Chandler</a>, a facilitator in Canada, “punishment makes people bitter, whereas restorative solutions make people better”. </p>
<p>Of course, conferencing is not without <a href="http://www.antoniocasella.eu/restorative/Daly_2005.pdf">limits</a>. Just as restorative justice may not work for <a href="https://theconversation.com/restorative-justice-may-not-work-for-all-young-offenders-4116">all young people</a>, it may not work for all environmental offenders. Conferencing can require more time, money and energy than traditional court processes. However, this may be an investment well worth making for the environment.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/restorative-justice-may-not-work-for-all-young-offenders-4116">Restorative justice may not work for all young offenders</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is time for Australia to follow New Zealand’s example by embracing a back-end model of restorative justice. </p>
<p>This would give victims a much-needed voice in the process, and create a better chance to heal ruptured relationships and restore the harm done to the environment as far as possible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Evidence shows restorative justice can help fix environmental crime – so why isn’t Australia using it more?Dr Al-Alosi, Lecturer, School of Law, Western Sydney UniversityMark Hamilton, PhD Candiate (Law); Sessional tutor in criminology (School of Social Sciences), UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1086402019-01-03T11:22:45Z2019-01-03T11:22:45ZThe EPA has backed off enforcement under Trump – here are the numbers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251952/original/file-20181223-103634-gj9l0s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Oil refiners are fined for exceeding air pollution limits when rules are enforced.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/David J. Phillip</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump administration has sought to weaken the Environmental Protection Agency in a number of ways, from <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/with-a-shrinking-epa-trump-delivers-on-his-promise-to-cut-government/2018/09/08/6b058f9e-b143-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.764ff79ad360">staff</a> and proposed <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/379679-spending-bill-rejects-trumps-proposed-epa-cut">budget cuts</a> to attempts to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-epas-secret-science-proposal-alarms-public-health-experts-96000">undermine the use of science in policymaking</a>. </p>
<p>Now, our <a href="https://envirodatagov.org/publication/a-sheep-in-the-closet-the-erosion-of-enforcement-at-the-epa/">new research</a> finds that one of the EPA’s most important functions – enforcement – has also fallen off dramatically.</p>
<p>Since its founding, the EPA has been the nation’s environmental enforcer of last resort. Enforcing environmental laws is a fundamental role of the EPA. William Ruckelshaus, the agency’s first administrator, famously described its role in environmental enforcement as that of a “<a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/william-d-ruckelshaus-oral-history-interview.html">gorilla in the closet</a>” – muscular, dexterous, smart and formidable – not omnipresent, but ready to take decisive action to enforce laws if need be.</p>
<p>But the data we have collected show that EPA enforcement under Trump is more accurately characterized as sheep-like – meek and mild, often following the lead of regulated industry rather than acting as an independent, scientifically and statutorily driven regulator. The <a href="https://envirodatagov.org/publication/a-sheep-in-the-closet-the-erosion-of-enforcement-at-the-epa/">report</a> is based on interviews with EPA staff and recent retirees and analysis of the EPA’s own data and internal documents. In this article we’ve also used recently updated data and included an expanded analysis of regional and statutory declines.</p>
<h2>Fewer cases, fewer fines</h2>
<p><a href="https://envirodatagov.org/">EDGI</a> is an international network of researchers formed after the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Our focus is on documenting and analyzing changes to federal environmental data and governance under the Trump administration, with a particular focus on the EPA.</p>
<p>Our analysis of the EPA’s preliminary data – the raw data that forms the basis of the final numbers that will be published in the agency’s annual report – shows the agency’s enforcement of federal environmental laws has decreased dramatically under the Trump administration. There have been steep drops in civil and criminal enforcement, and across environmental programs under major environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and in nearly all regions of the U.S. </p>
<p>Enforcement, in general, <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/enforcement/cases/">takes many forms</a>. Various statutes direct the EPA to ensure compliance with environmental laws in different ways. Polluters may have to clean up their pollution, stop doing an environmentally harmful activity, or pay fines for violating an environmental law. </p>
<p>For example, in 2016, the EPA found that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/citgo-petroleum-corporation-and-pdv-midwest-refining-llc-settlement#sep">CITGO</a> Petroleum Corporation’s refineries were in violation of the Clean Air Act regulations on benzene emissions and flare operations. Benzene is known to cause cancer. The EPA and CITGO settled before going to court, with CITGO required, among other things, to pay almost US$2 million in civil penalties, install technologies to reduce benzene emissions and flares, and put benzene monitors around its facility. </p>
<p>Some violations of environmental law are criminal, and can result in criminal fines and jail sentences. However, most enforcement actions are civil, and rich data on criminal enforcement is not yet publicly available for 2018, so we have focused on the civil side.</p>
<p>Civil enforcement actions in fiscal year 2018 were the lowest they have been in at least 10 years. EPA orders requiring industry to comply with environmental regulations, reimburse the agency for cleaning up hazardous waste, and pay fines for illegally polluting the air, water and land have steadily declined under the Trump administration. Enforcement of every major statute – from the Clean Air Act to the Toxic Substances Control Act – has fallen since the previous fiscal year. And these drops have occurred in every EPA region. </p>
<p><iframe id="KW9qs" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/KW9qs/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The EPA is also imposing fewer fines on environmental law breakers. The EPA imposed civil penalties of $69 million in fiscal year 2018, the lowest since at least 2006 by a wide margin. The average for the period from 2006 to 2017 was $846 million, and the next lowest year (2009) still had $109 million in fines.</p>
<p>Costs for regulated entities to comply with environmental regulations, such as upgrading pollution control equipment, were the lowest they have been in at least 12 years. Compliance costs in 2018 were $3.95 billion, down 81 percent from the previous year, and well below the average of $10.9 billion from 2006 to 2017.</p>
<p>Finally, inspections are also down, which means that the EPA does not know if many facilities are complying with the law, and, further, that next year’s enforcement actions will also be low.</p>
<h2>Extreme deference to states</h2>
<p>In interviews with EDGI researchers, EPA staff discussed how these significant changes to EPA enforcement have happened so quickly. They reported a process where Trump’s political appointees appear to be using under-the-radar shifts in agency policy and procedures to weaken enforcement.</p>
<p>The best example of this is past EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and current Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s embrace of “cooperative federalism,” which the agency describes as <a href="https://www.epa.gov/home/cooperative-federalism-epa">“working collaboratively with states, local government, and tribes.”</a> But staff told us that in practice it means extreme deference to states.</p>
<p>Since the EPA was established, its role has been to collaborate with states to enforce environmental laws. Most enforcement happens at the state level. The EPA’s role is to provide oversight and funding, address interstate pollution, make technical assistance and inspection equipment available, and step in when cases are large and/or complex or the state is not doing the job.</p>
<p>One example of this is EPA’s role in cleaning up the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051105212.html?noredirect=on">Chesapeake Bay</a>, a critical ecosystem which suffers from a large number of environmental impacts originating in multiple states. The EPA works with <a href="https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-chesapeake-bay-program-office">six states</a> on programs to reduce pollution to the bay and watershed. </p>
<p>We found what has changed under the Trump administration is that under the guise of cooperative federalism, staff are getting the message from management to leave states alone, rather than act as strong backup to their efforts. “If a state government decides enforcement isn’t important, in the past EPA might step up its efforts in that state. Now we’re really not allowed to unless there is some justification,” one staffer told us.</p>
<h2>Budget impact</h2>
<p>State environmental programs are also vulnerable to funding cuts and may lack equipment and highly trained staff for complex inspections. When industries operate in multiple states, the EPA brings an important national perspective on compliance issues that can increase the efficiency of inspection and enforcement. </p>
<p>A good example of this is a national enforcement program focused on addressing <a href="https://www.edf.org/climate/oil-and-gas">environmental problems</a> caused by oil and gas extraction that have occurred in multiple states. The EPA brings lessons learned on how to address these problems to all affected states. However, under the Trump administration, it appears that <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060095163">this initiative</a> is being phased out. </p>
<p>The EPA can also typically impose fines on industries that violate environmental laws and can turn egregious cases over to the Department of Justice for further action. The threat of the EPA taking action against a polluter can serve as a strong incentive for compliance.</p>
<p>Combined with regulatory rollbacks and structural weakening of the EPA, the steep declines in enforcement nearly across the board show that Trump’s EPA is on what we consider a dangerous path – one that is at risk of failing in its mission to protect public health and the environment from a wide range of threats such as climate change, air and water pollution, and exposure to toxic chemicals.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to correct data about the decline in civil penalty fines and the costs for complying with environmental regulations. Also, two charts showing regional enforcement and declines by statute were removed because they included erroneous data.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108640/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marianne Sullivan received funding from the Environmental Protection Agency Science to Achieve Results grant program from September 2005-September 2008. She is affiliated with the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. She is currently a Visiting Fellow at Ecologic Institute in Berlin, Germany.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Sellers is affiliated with the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leif Fredrickson works for the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Lamdan is affiliated with the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. </span></em></p>Data gathered from EPA reports, staffers and retirees show the Trump administration has brought fewer environmental enforcement actions to conclusion and deferred more to states.Marianne Sullivan, Associate Professor of Public Health, William Paterson UniversityChris Sellers, Professor of History and Director of the Center for the Study of Inequalities, Social Justice, and Policy, Stony Brook University (The State University of New York)Leif Fredrickson, Researcher for the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative; adjunct instructor, University of MontanaSarah Lamdan, Professor of law and librarian, CUNY School of LawLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1050962018-10-23T10:45:06Z2018-10-23T10:45:06ZE-cigarettes and a new threat: How to dispose of them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241648/original/file-20181022-105748-i9ta7f.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A discarded Juul on the floor of a San Francisco streetcar March 20, 2018.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julia McQuoid</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The two largest global brands of capsule coffee, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-24/former-nespresso-boss-warns-coffee-pods-are-killing-environment/7781810">Nespresso</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/business/energy-environment/keurigs-new-k-cup-coffee-is-recyclable-but-hardly-green.html">Keurig</a>, are regarded by many as <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/01/28/379395819/coffee-horror-parody-pokes-at-environmental-absurdity-of-k-cups">environmental nightmares</a>. Billions of the throwaway nonrecyclable plastic products currently clutter waste dumps, waterways and city streets. Both inventor of the “K-cups” <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/the-abominable-k-cup-coffee-pod-environment-problem/386501/">John Sylvan</a> and former Nespresso CEO <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-24/former-nespresso-boss-warns-coffee-pods-are-killing-environment/7781810">Jean-Paul Gaillard</a> have publicly bemoaned the environmental consequences of the products they once championed. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/the-abominable-k-cup-coffee-pod-environment-problem/386501/">Sylvan</a> has stated that the disposable (but not biodegradable) coffee capsule is “like a cigarette for coffee, a single-serve delivery mechanism for an addictive substance.”</p>
<p>The comparison between cigarette butts and capsule coffee is surprisingly fitting. Both butts and capsules are intentionally designed to be convenient, single-use products. Both are also nonbiodegradable and unrecyclable. As pervasive and polluting as cigarette butts are, however, the e-waste from e-cigarettes presents an even more apt comparison.</p>
<p>As a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco with a background in environmental philosophy and public health, I became curious how the waste stream of e-cigarettes has passed <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304699">completely outside the regulatory radar</a>. </p>
<h2>A smoking gun?</h2>
<p>San Francisco’s Pax Labs, maker of the market-leading electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) <a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/04/pax-juul-ecig/">Juul</a>, thinks of its product as a “Nespresso machine, if Nespresso still made great coffee.” It also describes its e-cigarette as a <a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/04/pax-juul-ecig/">“gun.”</a> </p>
<p>The product has soared in popularity, particularly among teenagers, leading Dr. Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in September 2018 to call Juul smoking among teens an <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/13/fda-chief-targets-juul-for-epidemic-of-teens-using-e-cigarettes.html">epidemic</a>.</p>
<p>While the health outcomes for e-cigarette vapor versus an inveterate capsule coffee drinker vary greatly, both “disruptive” products present lingering harms to the environment greater than the products they replace. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241286/original/file-20181018-67176-1bt1dr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241286/original/file-20181018-67176-1bt1dr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241286/original/file-20181018-67176-1bt1dr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241286/original/file-20181018-67176-1bt1dr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241286/original/file-20181018-67176-1bt1dr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241286/original/file-20181018-67176-1bt1dr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241286/original/file-20181018-67176-1bt1dr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=627&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Volunteers pick up cigarette butts at Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey, on Oct. 12, 2012.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Beach-Sweeps/f7415c90f11d42018c07b2735092807b/62/0">Michael Parry/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The legacy of cigarette butts imparts a dark story. An estimated <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40572-014-0016-x">two-thirds of cigarette butts are littered</a>, clogging sewer drains, blighting city parks and contributing to estimated cleanup costs of <a href="http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/50/49409.pdf">US$11 billion</a> yearly for U.S. litter alone. Cigarettes are environmentally irresponsible by design, and yet <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/environmental-impact-overview/en/">e-cigarettes pose an environmental threat</a> of considerable proportions. Instead of merely being thrown away, these complex devices present simultaneously a <a href="http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0956053X15000884">biohazard risk</a> with potential high quantities of leftover or residual nicotine and an environmental health threat as littered electronic waste.</p>
<p>Their <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29526076">endocrine-disrupting plastics</a>, lithium ion batteries and electronic circuit boards require disassembly, sorting and proper further recycling and disposal. Their instructions do not say anything about disposal. Electronic waste (e-waste) already presents <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(13)70101-3/abstract">a daunting environmental quandary</a> and is notoriously difficult to recycle. When littered, broken devices can leach metals, battery acid and nicotine into the local environment and urban landscape.</p>
<h2>A preventable environmental health disaster</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241283/original/file-20181018-67164-18xcdyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241283/original/file-20181018-67164-18xcdyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241283/original/file-20181018-67164-18xcdyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241283/original/file-20181018-67164-18xcdyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241283/original/file-20181018-67164-18xcdyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241283/original/file-20181018-67164-18xcdyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/241283/original/file-20181018-67164-18xcdyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">E-cigarettes remain controversial because of the inability to know whether they are a gateway to cigarette smoking. One thing is clear: They are an environmental threat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-woman-inhaling-electronic-cigarette-140876200?src=nKklxIak-EQeSpManB5h2g-1-2">RedPixel.pl/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A main question public health regulators must face is: How are these new devices being disposed of? Are e-cigarettes being thrown away carelessly, like cigarette butts? Or disposed of in special electronic waste facilities, like smartphones? Preliminary results from litter pickups give mixed results. Juul pods are found routinely littered, especially where young people congregate. But because of the double-bind of e-cigarette waste being both electronic waste due to the components and hazardous waste due to the nicotine liquid residue, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.005">currently there is no legal way to recycle them in the U.S.</a> The Office on Smoking and Health and the EPA need to coordinate their regulations to allow for the safe recycling and waste minimization of these products. </p>
<p>More than <a href="https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303660">58 million e-cigarette products were sold in the U.S.</a> (not including those sold in vape shops or online) in 2015, 19.2 million of which were disposable e-cigarettes. A <a href="https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/suppl_2/ii54">2014 study</a> found that none of the surveyed e-cigarette packages contained disposal instructions.</p>
<p>The major transnational tobacco companies so far primarily sell throwaway, one-use <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/trsg/trs/2017/00000003/00000003/art00008;jsessionid=lfubscfo1k9r.x-ic-live-01">“closed” system products</a>. Vuse and MarkTen, owned by Reynolds American and Altria, respectively, are <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/285116/us-e-cigarettes-companies-trend-in-market-share/">two leading U.S. e-cigarettes</a>, and both are closed systems. While these products may prevent nicotine poisoning in small children, their environmental health harms may be significantly larger due to their expendable design. </p>
<p>Most independent vaporizer manufacturers sell open, or reusable, systems, which are more popular with longer-term users and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4992632/">possibly more effective to quit than traditional cigarettes</a>. In other markets, however, like the U.K. and Japan, transnational tobacco companies British American Tobacco (BAT) and Japan Tobacco International have begun to heavily market open systems. </p>
<p>BAT’s <a href="https://www.govype.com/uk/disposal">website</a> on the disposal of their Vype e-cigarette warns “electrical waste and electronic equipment can contain hazardous substances which, if not treated properly, could lead to damage to the environment and human health.” So <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.150502">neither open</a> nor closed systems are environmentally sustainable.</p>
<p>The World Health Organization, in its report <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/environmental-impact-overview/en/">Tobacco and Its Environmental Impact: An Overview</a>, recently noted the “quieter but shockingly widespread impacts of tobacco from an environmental perspective.” <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO_FCTC_english.pdf">Article 18</a> of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that all signatory parties “agree to have due regard to the protection of the environment and the health of persons in relation to the environment in respect of tobacco cultivation and manufacture within their respective territories.” It is time to close the loop and pay increased attention to tobacco product disposal as well.</p>
<p>As regulatory agencies continue deciding how to regulate e-cigarettes, not only should the immediate health effects and secondhand effects of the products be taken into account, but I believe the <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304699">environmental effects</a> of these products should be too.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/01/28/379395819/coffee-horror-parody-pokes-at-environmental-absurdity-of-k-cups">mounting environmental impact</a> of the single-use nonrecyclable coffee fad has left coffee capsule Keurig inventor John Sylvan regretting his invention. Will apocryphal e-cigarette inventor Hon Lik ever have a similar reckoning regarding the mountains of e-cigarette e-waste? Let’s hope it never gets to that point.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105096/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yogi H. Hendlin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>E-cigarettes are hotly debated because of the uncertainty of whether they are a gateway to cigarette smoking for teens, or an aid to smoking cessation. One thing is clear: They are not biodegradable.Yogi H. Hendlin, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Public Health Policy, University of California, San FranciscoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1019442018-08-23T10:43:05Z2018-08-23T10:43:05ZTrump’s coal plan – neither clean nor affordable<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233154/original/file-20180822-149496-139csyi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rather than fade into the night, coal plants could stick around longer under Trump's proposal.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dukeenergy/4587280506/in/faves-41182236@N00/">Duke Energy</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Is climate change a problem? Consider the evidence: <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/extreme-heat-wildfires-worsened-climate-change-say-scientists-n895496">wildfires</a> in <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-wildfires-how-do-we-know-if-there-is-a-link-101304">California</a>, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-sets-the-world-on-fire/a-40152365">Sweden</a> and <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nasa-siberia-wildfires-21576">Siberia</a>; flooding in coastal areas due to <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html">sea level rise</a>; droughts in some places and <a href="https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report">extreme weather</a> and rainfall in others; new and emerging patterns of disease; heat waves; and much more. Yet, looking at the policy changes announced in the last 17 months by the Trump administration, one would think there is no such thing as climate change. </p>
<p>This week the Trump administration proposed a rule for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired electrical generating plants, fulfilling a promise to replace an Obama-era plan to cut emissions from coal plants by one-third between now and 2030. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-affordable-clean-energy-ace-rule">Affordable Clean Energy proposal</a> does not disappoint coal executives: It lays out what the EPA appears to view as the minimum needed to meet statutory obligations set out in the 2007 Supreme Court decision in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html">Massachusetts v. EPA</a>, which held that the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act if carbon dioxide endangered public health and welfare. </p>
<p>Beyond attempting to meet the letter of the law as obligated by the Supreme Court, I see the Affordable Clean Energy plan as a regulatory attempt to keep the coal industry alive, despite its poor prospects, and not as a serious effort to deal with the effects of coal-fired power plants on the climate and public health.</p>
<h2>Impact on emissions</h2>
<p>Consider first what the Trump coal plant rule would accomplish. It would reduce coal-fired power plant emissions by between 0.7 percent and 1.5 percent by 2030. According to the proposal, this is a big deal and worthy of praise. To put this in context, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body for evaluating the science on the sources and impacts of climate change, estimates that developed countries like the United States will have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by some <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">80 percent by 2050</a>, relative to a 2005 baseline. Electricity generation accounts for <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=11">one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector</a>, so a 1 percent to 2 percent reduction is a blip in the picture.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233173/original/file-20180822-149475-1cq49rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233173/original/file-20180822-149475-1cq49rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233173/original/file-20180822-149475-1cq49rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233173/original/file-20180822-149475-1cq49rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233173/original/file-20180822-149475-1cq49rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233173/original/file-20180822-149475-1cq49rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233173/original/file-20180822-149475-1cq49rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233173/original/file-20180822-149475-1cq49rf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Different states rely on coal power more than others.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Electricity_by_Coal.pdf/page1-1650px-Electricity_by_Coal.pdf.jpg">Efrain Hernandez Jr.</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To make sense of the Affordable and Clean Energy rule, it helps to know what the <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan.html">2015 Clean Power Plan did</a>. It recognized that climate change is a serious global issue, for many parts of the world an existential one, and that serious action is needed to address it. The plan assigned emission reduction targets to each state, then outlined options for states to meet them: improving plant efficiency, expanding use of low-carbon fuel sources like natural gas, relying more on zero-carbon renewable energy, and promoting energy efficiency. The plan used the Clean Air Act format of calling for state plans which the EPA would then review and approve.</p>
<p>Although the CPP was expected to increase the unit costs of energy in the near term, the Obama administration argued the big savings from improving energy efficiency would more than make up for that. And the CPP not only reduced carbon emissions behind climate change, it would have led to big cuts in pollutants that harm health, including particulates, nitrogen oxides and mercury, all of which come from coal-fired power plants. In contrast, the ACE plan will have trivial effects on these emissions.</p>
<h2>Cooperative federalism argument</h2>
<p>One claim running through justifications for the ACE is that the previous administration was exceeding the bounds of what was always known as cooperative federalism, the idea that states and the federal government can work together as partners in protecting environmental quality. Yet in my view as an environmental policy expert and former EPA official, with many years working on a range of regulatory issues, the Clean Power Plan granted plenty of flexibility to states in determining a path to cutting emissions by setting targets and allowing states to decide how to meet them. The goal was to stimulate energy efficiency and use of genuinely cleaner sources to meet energy needs.</p>
<p>And if the administration is so concerned about state authority, why did it also just propose to roll back the <a href="https://www.bna.com/epa-fuel-economy-n73014481336/">Obama fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles</a> and, at the same time, to take away <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-and-california-are-on-collision-course-over-vehicle-emissions-rules-100574">California’s long-established authority</a> to enforce vehicle efficiency standards more stringent than the federal ones? Since 1967, California has had authority to set vehicle standards exceeding the EPA’s. Twelve states follow California’s lead, so taking away its authority affects many other states as well. To me, it’s clear the agenda is less to realize a principled federalism than to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clean-power-states-20180821-story.html">avoid any real climate action</a>. </p>
<p>For the sake of stretching out the lifespan of some aging coal-fired power plants and propping up the declining coal industry, the Trump plan misses out on the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-trump-power-plant-plan-would-release-hundreds-of-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-air/2018/08/18/be823078-a28e-11e8-83d2-70203b8d7b44_story.html?utm_term=.3df5f67a1f75">health benefits</a> of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 19 percent, sulfur oxides by 24 percent, nitrogen oxides by 22 percent, and mercury by 16 percent. These cuts would have led to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage">thousands of premature deaths avoided</a> and major cuts in carbon emissions. In addition, the plan was designed to bring big gains in energy efficiency, and introduce the economic, environmental, health and job benefits of having a vibrant, energy-efficient economy based more on renewable energy.</p>
<p>If the goal is to meet the legal obligations set out in the Massachusetts case while not making coal-fired generating plants do much to reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants, the ACE proposal may meet the bill. That proposition will be tested in an array of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/states-blast-trump-administration-coal-plan-mull-lawsuits/2018/08/21/1c2287e4-a589-11e8-ad6f-080770dcddc2_story.html?utm_term=.37718d711309">lawsuits that are sure to come</a>. </p>
<p>If your perspective is that climate change is a non-issue or one not worth dealing with, then the Affordable and Clean Energy rule is your cup of tea. Looking at it in the context of withdrawing from the global <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-agreement-on-climate-change-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-52242">Paris Agreement on climate change</a> and the canceled 2025 fuel standards, one can at least give the Trump EPA credit for being consistent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101944/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Fiorino has received funding from EPA for some workshops on water technology innovation. </span></em></p>Trump’s energy plan may meet the letter of the law but the Affordable Clean Energy Plan reflects the administration’s clear agenda to move slowly or not at all on climate change.Daniel Fiorino, Director of the Center for Environmental Policy, American University School of Public AffairsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1005742018-08-02T20:54:33Z2018-08-02T20:54:33ZTrump administration and California are on collision course over vehicle emissions rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230457/original/file-20180802-136649-1gb0mnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">California and the Trump administration are going different directions on mileage standards.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Car-Pollution-Rules/4c98b6670bc941e5ac88ea7ecccc6ba6/13/0">AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump administration on Aug. 2 formally announced a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/safer-and-affordable-fuel-efficient-vehicles-proposed">proposal</a> to freeze fuel economy standards and tailpipe emission standards for new cars. In addition, it is proposing to revoke California’s authority to set more stringent rules.</p>
<p>This move by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, while expected for months, is the most significant action yet in rolling back efforts by the Obama administration and California to cut greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up an unprecedented legal battle between California and the federal government while breaking with decades of practice on regulating tailpipe pollution.</p>
<p>In fact, only hours after the announcement California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/400076-california-readies-lawsuit-against-trump-administration-over-car">indicated</a> he intends to file a lawsuit in conjunction with 19 other state attorneys general to challenge the proposal. </p>
<h2>Taking aim at California’s waiver</h2>
<p>Under current regulations put in place by the EPA and NHTSA under Obama in 2012, auto manufacturers must make continuing improvements in fuel economy and tailpipe carbon emissions through 2025, up to an average of 54 miles per gallon and 163 grams of CO2 per mile. Built into the Obama-era regulations was a review process to assess manufacturers’ ability to meet those standards. The Obama administration conducted its own <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100QQ91.pdf">midterm review</a> in January 2017, concluding the planned increases in fuel economy and more stringent tailpipe standards should remain in place. </p>
<p>In April 2018, the agencies under the Trump administration <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-04-13/pdf/2018-07364.pdf">reversed their earlier position</a>, finding the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midterm-evaluation-light-duty-vehicle-greenhouse-gas">standards were not feasible</a>. Now, the agencies have finished their review and seek public comment on a proposal to freeze both sets of standards at 2020 levels. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230471/original/file-20180802-136649-3p3n6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230471/original/file-20180802-136649-3p3n6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230471/original/file-20180802-136649-3p3n6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230471/original/file-20180802-136649-3p3n6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230471/original/file-20180802-136649-3p3n6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230471/original/file-20180802-136649-3p3n6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230471/original/file-20180802-136649-3p3n6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230471/original/file-20180802-136649-3p3n6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has said that he wants a national mileage standard and, along with the Department of Transportation, is taking on California’s ability to set more stringent fuel economy rules.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Wheeler/73f4fbeb9c4a4b1fab7e3de05b1e1d0e/7/0">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the EPA and NHTSA’s proposal doesn’t stop at the national standards. The agencies are also attacking California’s ability to set its own, more stringent standards. Because 13 other states and the District of Columbia have chosen to adopt California’s standards, <a href="http://calcleancars.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Clean-Cars-Campaign-State-Backgrounder.pdf">35 percent</a> of the U.S. population would be impacted by any change. </p>
<p>What legal questions does this showdown between California and the federal government raise? In general, the <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-04-13/pdf/2018-07364.pdf">Supremacy Clause</a> of the United States Constitution provides that federal laws pre-empt, or supersede, conflicting state laws. Some federal laws also contain “express pre-emption clauses” that lay out the exact kinds of state laws Congress intends to pre-empt. The Clean Air Act’s express pre-emption clause generally bars states from setting their own laws relating to motor vehicle emissions. </p>
<p>But <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379">California has the unique authority</a> to set its own motor vehicle emission standards due to the state’s notoriously poor air quality and its history of regulation predating congressional action on vehicle emissions. This authority dating back to 1967 is enshrined in a Clean Air Act provision, allowing California to seek a pre-emption “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543">waiver</a>” from the EPA. Other states can then <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7507">opt in</a> to California’s standards. California has received <a href="https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations">numerous waivers</a> from the EPA over the years for each new iteration of the state’s vehicle regulations. </p>
<p>The EPA and NHTSA have proposed revoking California’s most recent waiver granted in 2013 for its <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program">Advanced Clean Cars program</a>, an unprecedented attack against California’s historical authority. The EPA has only once denied California’s request for waiver, and even this was promptly <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/california-greenhouse-gas-waiver-request">reversed</a> following a change in administration from Bush to Obama. In the 50 years since the Clean Air Act was enacted, the EPA has never revoked an existing waiver. And there is no textual authority in the Clean Air Act’s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543">waiver provision</a> for the EPA to do so.</p>
<h2>Legal arguments</h2>
<p>In particular, the Trump administration is seeking to eliminate California’s greenhouse gas tailpipe emission standards and the state’s Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program, which mandates an increasing percentage of vehicles sold in the state be zero-emission vehicles, such as electric vehicles. The EPA and NHTSA have proposed <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/420f18903.pdf">three possible legal arguments</a> for revoking California’s waiver for these standards. </p>
<p>The first two arguments are based on the Clean Air Act’s criteria for denying a request for a new waiver, which have never before been used to justify revoking an existing waiver.</p>
<p>One of the three criteria that allow EPA to deny a request for waiver is if the state does not need the proposed regulations to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” The Trump administration argues that the greenhouse gas tailpipe standards and the ZEV program are not needed to meet compelling and extraordinary circumstances particular to the state because climate change is a global problem. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230479/original/file-20180802-136667-1us45t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230479/original/file-20180802-136667-1us45t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/230479/original/file-20180802-136667-1us45t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230479/original/file-20180802-136667-1us45t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230479/original/file-20180802-136667-1us45t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230479/original/file-20180802-136667-1us45t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230479/original/file-20180802-136667-1us45t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/230479/original/file-20180802-136667-1us45t7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">California’s ‘waiver’ to set its own air quality standards was driven historically by its bad air quality but foes of the waiver have questioned whether it can also cover the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cwsteeds/5337739724/in/photolist-98Fj4f-indSyV-aQY4qK-oqvuf5-9v5Kca-mMbW4q-mMfzPk-q1kEJA-rxAAsh-qyQdJs-efyDYB-pZybKo-ks6Pft-aQGtVP-9uwtHE-cKK9zu-9WtWJD-nmf7X4-5Pn8SJ-coL8TS-mKqnFT-767RQ7-iag9jk-fU2a2y-oySWQg-fU29Eb-q12sbz-mMcriB-RzLk6T-aQY4RZ-9W2uK6-mNeAWW-nhqSWd-efEfsE-njbECr-dxmAhL-mMccaC-ssj83U-njvGDA-mMcaMX-efEzCY-mMdtEQ-9Fiind-njvHuU-9TVJjD-oHXzQP-saY2Zh-dbwi1i-mQQJsV-5pX6ug">Clinton Steeds</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But this ignores that the ZEV program was <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0364-0112">originally enacted</a> in the 1990s for the purpose of reducing conventional pollutants like nitrogen dioxides (NOx) and other smog precursors as a necessary part of California’s statutory duty to meet health-based ambient air quality standards for ozone. Indeed, California’s unique smog and ozone problems are <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379">the primary reason</a> the Clean Air Act allows California to seek a waiver in the first place. California continues to have the <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/hnc.html">worst ozone problems</a> in the country, and the ZEV program remains a key part of <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/rev2016statesip.pdf">the state’s plan</a> to meet the ozone standards.</p>
<p>Second, the EPA and NHTSA argue California’s greenhouse gas tailpipe standards and ZEV program are technologically infeasible, another basis on which the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to deny a request for waiver. Once again, we find that this argument ignores existing evidence to the contrary. The California Air Resources Board <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/mtr/acc_mtr_summaryreport.pdf">recently concluded</a> that automakers were already over-complying with the state’s greenhouse gas tailpipe standards and exceeding the ZEV program’s annual requirements. </p>
<p>Finally, the EPA and NHTSA argue that California is pre-empted from regulating vehicle greenhouse gas emissions under a different federal law. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA, was enacted in 1975 and set up the framework for NHTSA to issue national fuel economy standards. EPCA <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/32919">expressly pre-empts</a> any state laws “relating to” fuel economy. The EPA and NHTSA argue that California’s Clean Air Act pre-emption waiver to set vehicle emission standards does not extend to greenhouse gas tailpipe standards or the ZEV program because such standards are “related to” fuel economy, and thus pre-empted by EPCA. </p>
<p>As fellow UCLA law scholar Ann Carlson has <a href="http://legal-planet.org/2018/04/27/the-new-epa-plan-to-roll-back-auto-emissions-standards-and-revoke-the-california-waiver-is-legally-indefensible/">explained in detail</a>, this argument has already been explicitly rejected by <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1483620/green-mountain-chrysler-plymouth-dodge-v-crombie/">two</a> <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/20071680529fsupp2d115111597">different</a> federal courts, each of whom concluded that California’s greenhouse gas tailpipe standards are not pre-empted by EPCA because protecting public health by regulating greenhouse gas emissions is not the same thing as increasing energy efficiency by regulating fuel economy.</p>
<h2>What comes next</h2>
<p>While the announcement was made with great fanfare, it is still at this stage only a proposal. Under federal administrative law, the EPA and NHTSA first publish a proposal for how they intend to regulate. Once it is officially published in the Federal Register, every member of the public – the auto industry, the energy sector, states, environmental groups and everyday citizens – will have an opportunity to submit comments. Public hearings are also being scheduled in Washington D.C., Detroit and Los Angeles. Agencies must consider what the public has to say about the standards before they can be finalized.</p>
<p>Once the new regulations are finalized, the litigation will begin. <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/california-and-states-representing-over-40-percent-us-car-market-sue-defend">States</a> and <a href="https://www.edf.org/media/trump-administration-poised-attack-usas-successful-clean-car-standards-news-reports">environmental nonprofits</a> are chomping at the bit to sue the Trump administration over its actions to freeze fuel economy and tailpipe emission standards. California has <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-ol-patt-morrison-mary-nichols-fuel-economy-20180509-htmlstory.html">already warned</a> it will challenge any determination that limits its long-standing authority to set more stringent standards.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1025021124608835584"}"></div></p>
<p><a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44699.pdf">Judicial review</a> will focus on whether the relevant scientific and technical evidence support the EPA and NHTSA’s final decision. Judges often defer to agencies on these types of questions on the basis that agencies have the necessary technical expertise, but will force agencies to reconsider decisions when they are out of step with the weight of the evidence before them. </p>
<p>The coming litigation will most likely focus both on the evidentiary question of whether the EPA and NHTSA have adequately supported their determination that the Obama-era standards are infeasible, and the legal questions surrounding California’s authority to regulate vehicle emissions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100574/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Law scholars from California unpack the legal questions raised by the Trump administration’s plan to roll back mileage standards and revoke California’s ability to set more stringent rules.Meredith Hankins, Shapiro Fellow in Environmental Law and Policy, University of California, Los AngelesNicholas Bryner, Assistant Professor of Law, Louisiana State University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/989182018-07-02T10:42:35Z2018-07-02T10:42:35ZThe US natural gas industry is leaking way more methane than previously thought. Here’s why that matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225549/original/file-20180629-117374-gyqk1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The authors conferring at a natural gas facility in Colorado.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.engr.colostate.edu/colorado-state-leads-in-methane-emissions-research/">Colorado State University</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Natural gas is <a href="http://www.iea.org/tcep/power/gas/">displacing coal</a>, which could help fight climate change because burning it produces fewer carbon emissions. But producing and transporting natural gas releases methane, a greenhouse gas that also contributes to climate change. <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204">How big is the methane problem</a>?</p>
<p>For the past five years, our <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0lwxwbwAAAAJ&hl=en">research teams</a> at <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=mJGre94AAAAJ">Colorado State University</a> have made <a href="https://www.engr.colostate.edu/colorado-state-leads-in-methane-emissions-research/">thousands of methane emissions measurements</a> at more than 700 separate facilities in the <a href="https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.1525/elementa.266/">production</a>, <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02275">gathering</a>, <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es5052809">processing</a>, <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01669">transmission and storage</a> segments of the natural gas supply chain.</p>
<p>This experience has given us a unique perspective regarding the major sources of methane emissions from natural gas and the challenges the industry faces in terms of detecting and reducing, if not eliminating, them. </p>
<p>Our work, along with numerous other research projects, was recently folded into a new study published in the journal <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204">Science</a>. This comprehensive snapshot suggests that methane emissions from oil and gas operations are much higher than current EPA estimates.</p>
<h2>What’s wrong with methane</h2>
<p>One way to quantify the magnitude of the methane leakage is to divide the amount of methane emitted each year by the total amount of methane pumped out of the ground each year from natural gas and oil wells. The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2016">EPA currently estimates this methane leak rate to be 1.4 percent</a>. That is, for every cubic foot of natural gas drawn from underground reservoirs, 1.4 percent of it is lost into the atmosphere.</p>
<p>This study synthesized the results from a five-year series of 16 studies coordinated by environmental advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which involved more than 140 researchers from over 40 institutions and 50 natural gas companies.</p>
<p>The effort brought together scholars based at universities, think tanks and the industry itself to make the most accurate estimate possible of the total amount of methane emitted from all U.S. oil and gas operations. It integrated data from a multitude of recent studies with measurements made on the ground and from the air. </p>
<p>All told, based on the results of the new study, the U.S. oil and gas industry is leaking 13 million metric tons of methane each year, which means the methane leak rate is 2.3 percent. This 60 percent difference between our new estimate and the EPA’s current one can have profound climate consequences.</p>
<p>Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the climate warming impact of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it is released.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435">An earlier EDF study</a> showed that a methane leak rate of greater than 3 percent would result in no immediate climate benefits from retiring coal-fired power plants in favor of natural gas power plants.</p>
<p>That means even with a 2.3 percent leakage rate, the growing share of U.S. electricity powered by natural gas is doing something to slow the pace of climate change. However, these climate benefits could be far greater.</p>
<p><iframe id="OWP7d" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/OWP7d/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435">EDF found that</a> replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit. </p>
<p>What’s more, some scientists believe that the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/natural-gas-could-warm-planet-much-coal-short-term">leakage rate could be even higher</a> than this new estimate. </p>
<h2>What causes these leaks</h2>
<p>Perhaps you’ve never contemplated the long journey that natural gas travels before you can ignite the burners on the gas stove in your kitchen.</p>
<p>But on top of the 500,000 natural gas wells operating in the U.S. today, there are 2 million miles of pipes and millions of valves, fittings, tanks, compressors and other components operating 24 hours per day, seven days a week to deliver natural gas to your home.</p>
<p>That natural gas that you burn when you whip up a batch of pancakes may have traveled 1,000 miles or more as it wended through this complicated network. Along the way, there were ample opportunities for some of it to leak out into the atmosphere.</p>
<p>Natural gas leaks can be accidental, caused by malfunctioning equipment, but a lot of natural gas is also released intentionally to perform process operations such as opening and closing valves. In addition, the tens of thousands of compressors that increase the pressure and pump the gas along through the network are powered by engines that burn natural gas and their exhaust contains some unburned natural gas.</p>
<p>Since the natural gas delivered to your home is 85 to 95 percent methane, natural gas leaks are predominantly methane. While methane poses the greatest threat to the climate because of its greenhouse gas potency, natural gas contains other hydrocarbons that can degrade regional air quality and are <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas#.WzemFKdKhPY">bad for human health</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="OtK0P" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/OtK0P/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Inventory tallies vs. aircraft surveillance</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2016">EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory</a> is done in a way experts like us call a “bottom-up” approach. It entails tallying up all of the nation’s natural gas equipment – from household gas meters to wellpads – and estimating an annualized average emission rate for every category and adding it all up. </p>
<p>There are two challenges to this approach. First, there are no accurate equipment records for many of these categories. Second, when components operate improperly or fail, emissions balloon, making it hard to develop an accurate and meaningful annualized emission rate for each source.</p>
<p><a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2013JD021272">“Top-down” approaches</a>, typically requiring aircraft, are the alternative. They measure methane concentrations upwind and downwind of large geographic areas. But this approach has its own shortcomings.</p>
<p>First, it captures all methane emissions, rather than just the emissions tied to natural gas operations – including the methane from landfills, cows and even the leaves rotting in your backyard. Second, these one-time snapshots may get distorted depending on what’s going on while planes fly around capturing methane data. </p>
<p>Historically, top-down approaches estimate emissions that are about <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/733">twice bottom-up estimates</a>. Some regional top-down methane leak rate estimates have been as high as 8 percent while some bottom-up estimates have been as low as 1 percent.</p>
<p><a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es506359c">More recent work</a>, including the <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204">Science study</a>, have performed coordinated campaigns in which the on-the-ground and aircraft measurements are made concurrently, while carefully modeling emission events. </p>
<h2>Helpful gadgets and sound policy</h2>
<p>On a sunny morning in October 2013, our research team pulled up to a natural gas gathering compressor station in Texas. Using an US$80,000 infrared camera, we immediately located an extraordinarily large leak of colorless, odorless methane that was invisible to the operator who quickly isolated and fixed the problem.</p>
<p>We then witnessed the methane emissions decline tenfold – the facility leak rate fell from 9.8 percent to 0.7 percent before our eyes.</p>
<p>It is not economically feasible, of course, to equip all natural gas workers with $80,000 cameras, or to hire the drivers required to monitor every wellpad on a daily basis when there are 40,000 oil and gas wells in Weld County, Colorado, alone.</p>
<p>But new technologies can make a difference. Our team at Colorado State University is working with the Department of Energy to <a href="https://energy.colostate.edu/metec/">evaluate gadgetry that will rapidly detect methane emissions</a>. <a href="https://www.edf.org/methane-detectors-challenge">Some of these devices can be deployed today</a>, including inexpensive sensors that can be monitored remotely. </p>
<p>Technology alone won’t solve the problem, however. We believe that slashing the nation’s methane leak rate will require a collaborative effort between industry and government. And based on our experience in Colorado, which has developed some of the nation’s strictest methane emissions regulations, we find that best practices become standard practices with strong regulations.</p>
<p>We believe that the Trump administration’s efforts to <a href="https://theconversation.com/scott-pruitts-approach-to-pollution-control-will-make-the-air-dirtier-and-americans-less-healthy-96501">roll back regulations</a>, without regard to whether they are working or not, will not only have profound climate impacts. They will also jeopardize the health and safety of all Americans while undercutting efforts by the natural gas industry to cut back on the pollution it produces.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98918/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony J. Marchese has current research support from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. Over the past five years, he has worked on methane emissions studies that have been supported by Environmental Defense Fund and multiple natural gas companies. He currently serves as a consultant with Abt Associates on methane emissions projects with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Zimmerle receives funding from the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, and has previously worked on projects for the Environmental Defense Fund, state regulatory agencies and oil & gas industry associations. He is affiliated with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME), American Chemical Society (ACS) and American Geophysical Union (AGU).. </span></em></p>This new and more accurate estimate means that replacing coal with natural gas doesn’t do as much to reduce climate change as it should.Anthony J. Marchese, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering; Director, Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory; Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State UniversityDan Zimmerle, Senior Research Associate and Director of METEC, Colorado State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/960002018-05-18T10:40:45Z2018-05-18T10:40:45ZWhy the EPA’s ‘secret science’ proposal alarms public health experts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219249/original/file-20180516-155607-1wp5dea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The landmark Harvard Six Cities study found a strong link between air pollution and health risks.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/air-air-pollution-chimney-city-221000/">Pixabay</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Later this month, the EPA could finalize a controversial <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-rule-strengthen-science-used-epa-regulations">rule</a> to limit what scientific research the agency can use in writing environmental regulations.</p>
<p>I write as an academic who has been involved in air pollution issues for over 50 years and a former EPA assistant administrator for research and development, a political appointment position, under President Reagan. To understand why this proposed change is so controversial in the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/25/scientists-denounce-pruitts-effort-to-block-secret-science-at-epa/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3c7a499ca50a">scientific community</a>, including the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epas-own-advisory-board-questions-secret-science-plan/">EPA’s own Science Advisory Board</a>, one needs to understand a landmark study in the history of air pollution control and science policy. </p>
<p>Done by Harvard researchers, the 1993 <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401">Six Cities study</a> identified <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution">fine particulate pollution</a> that goes deeply into the lungs, largely produced from fossil fuel combustion, as being harmful to health. This core finding, along with other studies, led to new standards that <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/six-cities-air-pollution-study-turns-20/">saved thousands of lives</a>. </p>
<p>But under the current proposal, data from that study could not be used to inform EPA policy because the underlying data <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=db2a5070-6bf7-45d7-8f28-e42a6348e2ef">was not made publicly available</a>. </p>
<p>Attacking the Harvard Six Cities study as “secret science” has been central to a long and fierce onslaught in the much broader battle over the role of science in protecting the environment. This attack is now poised for success under <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/pruitt-makes-epa-science-board-more-industry-friendly-n817276">industry-friendly</a> EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.</p>
<h2>Industry pushback</h2>
<p>When the EPA was formed in 1970, among its major challenges was controlling smoke from coal-fired power plants and industries as demanded by the Clean Air Act. The CAA requires that science, not economics, determines enforceable outdoor standards. </p>
<p>The gold standard for epidemiology, or the study of diseases and its causes, is the double-blind randomized control trial. In these trials half of an affected volunteer group is given the potential therapy and the other half a placebo – and neither the researcher nor the patient knows which until the code is broken. </p>
<p>But that is an impossible standard for environmental epidemiology. Imagine the outcry if scientists were to secretly expose half of a community to a pollutant. </p>
<p>Instead, public health researchers look at differences in pollution exposure among individuals or communities, such as the extent of pollutant sources. And we do our best to account for potentially confounding factors, such as cigarette smoking. Validation of findings occurs through addressing the same question in different ways by different researchers. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s move to eliminate so-called ‘secret science’ has long been sought by conservatives.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/32342717143/in/photolist-Rh1T1c-RWf4U9-V4Xcrs-RenG4j-Rh1BKT-Rh25qB-ERurNv-25rELGh-Ssp19S-SspigN-Sw4d8r-Shfo7o-Reo2JG-Shfryd-ShfmbE-ShftRE-r9heYS-8vGwz2-Rh23mB-SspkYb-Sspgdj-Sspozo-RenHeq-T3o2LB-qu4gpp-rqKgqb-V7JDmR-roxxSu-U5LrWz-8sDtvi-8sGwmo-ShEL5N-25rERTQ-JpzTw5-QTaihm-eac2U8-8sGsxU-GTigPc-JpzRTW-JpzUFu-8sDqtn-JpzRJC-QTafPW-bRXWVF-nbGnqM-U5LqiV-r7wfNP-rqQygP-U2Uuy1-r9oDqD">Gage Skidmore</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Six Cities study found a clear correlation between pollutant levels and pertinent <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/six-cities-air-pollution-study-turns-20/">adverse health effects</a>, including a higher risk of mortality. </p>
<p>In response, representatives from <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/09/06/landmark-harvard-study-health-effects-air-pollution-target-house-gop-subpoena/2K0jhfbJsZcfXqcQHc4jzL/story.html">different industries</a> attempted to get the raw data and derail new regulations. Similarly today, Pruitt’s allies, including those in industry, say that making data publicly available ensures that scientific studies can be reproduced, and thus that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-rule-strengthen-science-used-epa-regulations">any regulations based on that science are justified</a>. </p>
<p>Then as now, many scientific investigators viewed these efforts as a way to pore over the complex data sets so as to find minor blemishes that could be falsely magnified into scars. The result would force these academic scientists to spend much of the rest of their careers defending this one study. </p>
<p>The Harvard researchers refused to release the confidential data on about 8,000 people in six cities to representatives from industry. In an <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/f12-six-cities-environmental-health-air-pollution/">interview</a>, one of the lead authors of the study, Frank Speizer, expressed concern over “biased groups” having access to the data which could set a precedent that “will undermine future research by academic institutions.” </p>
<h2>Special board</h2>
<p>Left out of industry’s current narrative is that the raw data were turned over to the Health Effects Institute. HEI is an independent research organization funded equally by the EPA and the American automobile industry. Their <a href="https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/reanalysis-harvard-six-cities-study-and-american-cancer-society-study-particulate-air">thorough reanalysis</a> of this and the even larger American Cancer Society study concluded: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Overall, the reanalyses assured the quality of the original data, replicated the original results, and tested those results against alternative risk models and analytic approaches without substantively altering the original findings of an association between indicators of particulate matter air pollution and mortality.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Most importantly, many <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1702747">subsequent studies</a> in the U.S. and internationally provide a coherent body of information that confirmed the core findings of the Six Cities study.</p>
<p>But industry continued its attack. In 1999 Congress passed the <a href="http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Shelby_Amendment">Shelby Amendment</a>. It requires that data from all federally funded studies be made publicly available subject to the FOIA Act. </p>
<p>A 2013 Congressional Research Service <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42983.pdf">analysis</a> showed that this provision has not been used regularly. Yet it has been used to challenge existing regulations: Recently, industry spuriously <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060080501">claimed</a> that data obtained by FOIA invalidates a study that supported the causation of leukemia by formaldehyde.</p>
<h2>Other options for Pruitt</h2>
<p>Success in selling their assertion of secrecy and of bias has led to the current Republican-led House to pass what I would consider anti-science bills. One would require raw data be made available for studies on which regulation is based, which would greatly reduce the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/329671-the-honest-act-is-actually-dishonest-and-will-hurt-the">number of studies</a> <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1430.pdf">used by the EPA</a>. The other would change EPA advisory processes to <a href="https://theconversation.com/im-suing-scott-pruitts-broken-epa-heres-how-to-fix-it-94089">limit involvement by knowledgeable academics</a>. When these bills failed in the Senate, Pruitt moved to institute them administratively.</p>
<p>Administrator Pruitt has other avenues to address his concerns. He could fund further research on the subject of particulate health effects. He could develop an HEI-like independent organization that mixed EPA funding with funding from the fossil fuel industries to fund such research. He could ask the National Academies of Sciences, or set up his own expert committee, to review the specific issues presented by the Harvard or similar studies or to evaluate whether EPA regulatory actions would be improved by changing its advisory process or by requiring raw data for the underlying science. He could work toward nominating a new assistant administrator for research and development with a mandate to pursue these scientific and organizational issues.</p>
<p>Instead, Pruitt is moving to rid the EPA of the science needed for effective regulation. He has particularly focused on academic scientists, who are more independent and whose careers are at risk if they get the science wrong, in favor of those industry consultants who get further industry funding if they can cleverly find blemishes and magnify them into scars.</p>
<p>This attack on American science has shrewdly used the alleged shortcomings of the Six Cities study to cloak its goals. Its potential impact goes well beyond the EPA’s regulatory effectiveness to the underlying role of science in American society.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96000/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernard Goldstein receives funding from none at present.
In my long career in environmental health, beginning in 1966, I have received many grants and programs and have been a government official (1966-68; 1983-85). But there has been no relevant activities in recent years.</span></em></p>The EPA intends to limit what scientific studies can inform policy – a change long sought by industry. A long-time public health researcher explains the single study at the root of the controversy.Bernard Goldstein, Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Occupational Health, University of PittsburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/961612018-05-10T10:48:47Z2018-05-10T10:48:47ZTrump’s deregulatory record doesn’t include much actual deregulation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218359/original/file-20180509-34009-t1mee9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cutting red tape is a high priority, but the execution hasn't always led to results.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump/3931664f4baa417da1e391972a111416/2/0">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One year ago, the Trump administration’s <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/trump-war-on-regulations/">deregulatory push</a> was in full swing. The administration was preparing a proposed rule to <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056742">repeal</a> the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) regulation, and to delay and <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060080679">repeal the restriction of methane emissions</a> from oil and gas extraction on public lands. </p>
<p>Surely these well-publicized deregulatory initiatives which the Trump administration has made a big show of taking credit for have taken effect by now. </p>
<p>Well, not exactly. The WOTUS proposal has not been finalized, and the methane extraction rule is tied up in a <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/05/03/document_gw_03.pdf">thicket of court cases</a>. </p>
<p>President Trump’s record on deregulation has gotten a great deal of attention. He <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-delivering-deregulation/">brags about it regularly</a>. It is often placed alongside the tax cuts passed by Congress when his <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/366429-trumps-top-10-accomplishments-of-2017">chief accomplishments</a> are recounted. To listen to the president (or the media), one would think that thousands of regulations were repealed. </p>
<p>But as the WOTUS and Bureau of Land Management extraction rules indicate, the actual extent of deregulation is much more limited. At the same time, other moves to dismantle the “administrative state” have quietly been more effective. </p>
<h2>No more easy routes</h2>
<p>Early in the Trump administration, Congress used the Congressional Review Act, a statute that allows the Senate to bypass the filibuster to repeal recently issued regulations. <a href="https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs1866/f/downloads/CRA%20Tracker%204-18-2018%20%28Resolution%20Number%29.pdf">By May 17, 2017</a>, Congress had repealed 14 Obama regulations using the CRA in a wide array of policy areas. They would add one more regulation from the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau by the end of 2017. </p>
<p>But these repeals are largely the work of Congress and frequent punching bag for President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. And now, most Obama-era regulations are off limits for the CRA (although Congress has explored <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/383751-senate-votes-to-repeal-cfpb-auto-loan-guidance">expanding its use</a>). That leaves President Trump and his administration to rely on the typical route for writing and revising regulations – the executive branch – if they want to repeal any more of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/obamas-use-of-regulation-to-make-environmental-policy-not-unusual-and-not-illegal-42875">thousands of regulations issued during the Obama administration</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In seeking to roll back fuel economy standards and other regulations, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s staff hasn’t shown the same attention to the rule-making process as his predecessor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/32342717143/in/photolist-Rh1T1c-RWf4U9-V4Xcrs-RenG4j-Rh1BKT-Rh25qB-ERurNv-25rELGh-Ssp19S-SspigN-Sw4d8r-Shfo7o-Reo2JG-Shfryd-ShfmbE-ShftRE-r9heYS-8vGwz2-Rh23mB-SspkYb-Sspgdj-Sspozo-RenHeq-T3o2LB-qu4gpp-rqKgqb-V7JDmR-roxxSu-U5LrWz-8sDtvi-8sGwmo-ShEL5N-25rERTQ-JpzTw5-QTaihm-eac2U8-8sGsxU-GTigPc-JpzRTW-JpzUFu-8sDqtn-JpzRJC-QTafPW-bRXWVF-nbGnqM-U5LqiV-r7wfNP-rqQygP-U2Uuy1-r9oDqD">Gage Skidmore</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Making announcements about a desire to repeal regulations is easy. President Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-delivering-deregulation/">did so in December</a> (although his claim that 22 regulations had been repealed for every new regulation was <a href="https://www.theregreview.org/2018/01/29/lets-be-real-trumps-first-year-regulation/">vastly exaggerated</a>). Actually repealing significant regulations is much harder, as the administration is finding out.</p>
<p>An agency must start by developing a proposal to repeal a regulation. This must often be accompanied by a detailed economic analysis of the repeal. The proposal and the analysis are then sent to the Office of Management and Budget for a review. When that review is complete, the proposal is published in the Federal Register for public comment. Agencies must review the public comments, respond to them, make any changes they feel necessary to their proposal and analysis, and then resubmit it to OMB before publishing a final rule. Finally, the rule is subject to litigation.</p>
<p>To navigate this process takes time and expertise. President Trump and his Cabinet members, particularly <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/scott-pruitt-34386">Scott Pruitt at the EPA</a>, have instead tried to rush through the many steps of this process. This has meant that the last step, the litigation over regulatory repeals, has proven particularly problematic for the administration. At the EPA, courts have struck down delays or repeals of regulations <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-rollbacks.html">six times already</a>. This pattern holds across the government.</p>
<h2>Another kind of damage</h2>
<p>Part of the problem for the Trump administration is that while they have been hasty in trying to repeal regulations, the Obama administration was <a href="https://theconversation.com/promises-promises-how-legally-durable-are-obamas-climate-pledges-51786">thorough in promulgating them</a>. Over the course of eight years, Obama appointees solicited comments on their proposals, did detailed economic analyses, and built strong cases for many of their regulations. For example, the former EPA administration compiled a 1,217-page analysis done over years to buttress its fuel economy rules, while the current administration <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060077987">generated a 38-page document</a> dominated by auto industry comments to justify reviewing and rescinding them.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Repealing existing regulations requires the work of government staffers who know the processes but a number of agencies, including the EPA, have lost many significant employees.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Pruitt/048cf6fb149a4c0c9443eaacd968b18e/1/0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In order to repeal these regulations, the Trump administration will have to convince courts that there are sound legal reasons to ignore all of this work. The statute that governs the creation of regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, requires agencies to demonstrate that they are not arbitrary and capricious.</p>
<p>To do so, the Trump administration will have to rely on the expertise that lies within the federal bureaucracy. But President Trump and his appointees have <a href="https://www.axios.com/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency-trump-unhappy-8507d121-946a-410d-922c-60d7de92355f.html">regularly denigrated those whose help they now require</a>. As a result, many of the most talented people at the agencies have left public service. At the EPA alone, more than <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/epa-employees-leaving-under-pruitt-11b36a220062/">700 employees have left during this administration</a>. </p>
<p>This means not only has the administration failed thus far to repeal many regulations beyond those overturned by Congress using the CRA, but their prospects for doing so in other cases are not strong. These cases include the WOTUS regulation, the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon emissions from power plants, and the recently announced plans to roll back emission standards for automobiles and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/climate/epa-cafe-auto-pollution-rollback.html">take on California over their auto emission requirements</a>. </p>
<p>Stephen Bannon <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPFpTergAGQ">listed the deconstruction of the administrative state</a> as a goal of the Trump administration. The repeal of regulations is often trumpeted as the most important sign that Trump is <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2017/12/20/president-trumps-successes-have-been-underreported-gary-varvel-column-nation-now/968842001/">succeeding</a>. But while the administration is failing at the piece of deconstruction they are talking about most loudly, there are signs that they are succeeding in other ways.</p>
<p>The first is the enforcement of existing regulations. While the Trump administration has ramped up enforcement of immigration regulations, it has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/10/us/politics/pollution-epa-regulations.html">ratcheted down enforcement of environment and worker safety requirements</a>. This selective pattern of <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/law-enforcement-trump-article-1.3879201">enforcing regulations</a> sends signals to firms that they don’t need to worry about complying with the law when it comes to the environment or public health.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, there has been an exodus of employees from the federal government which will likely have a corrosive long-term effect. Replacing talented public servants is not something that can be done overnight, even by a new administration dedicated to doing so. Training these new government employees will take even longer. As government becomes less effective because of the talent drain, faith in government diminishes further and a cycle of cynicism about public service is made worse.</p>
<p>The Trump administration has <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/723199/how-trump-launched-biggest-regulatory-rollback-american-history">declared war on the regulatory state</a>. But the things the administration is reluctant to take credit for, notably not enforcing the law and driving out talented public servants, are likely to have a much larger impact than its largely nonexistent regulatory repeals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96161/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Shapiro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A review of Trump’s stated war on regulations doesn’t find many successful repeals. But it is hurting regulatory enforcement in quieter ways.Stuart Shapiro, Associate Professor and Director, Public Policy Program, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.