PFAS chemicals are toxic, widespread and persistent in the environment, and the federal government has been slow to regulate them. A scientist explains why evaluating them one by one isn’t working.
A new study shows that while fine particle air pollution has declined nationwide over the past 40 years, the health and environmental benefits haven’t been shared evenly.
After a 5-year review, the EPA is leaving US standards for fine particle air pollution unchanged, even though recent studies suggest that tightening them could save thousands of lives yearly.
Jason West, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill dan Yang Ou, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
A new study takes an innovative approach to reducing fine particle air pollution and spotlights key sources: factories that burn coal and oil, petrochemical plants and burning wood for home heating.
Gina Solomon, University of California, San Francisco
Starting Feb. 6, 2020, California farmers will be barred from using chlorpyrifos on their crops. The Trump administration says more study is needed, but other states are also moving ahead.
The EPA has just adopted a rule that limits what kinds of science regulators can use in setting rules. A scholar explains how this shift could impede his work mapping child lead poisoning.
Scientists who were appointed to advise the EPA on air pollution kept meeting independently after the agency dissolved their panel. They say current regulations aren’t strict enough.
A 2006 Supreme Court ruling created widespread confusion about which wetlands and other waters are federally protected. The Trump administration’s latest action isn’t likely to clear things up.
Jason West, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill dan Barbara Turpin, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Air quality in the US has improved greatly since 1990, but a new report finds progress stalling in some cities. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is rolling back air pollution controls.
EPA is moving to regulate two chemicals from a group called PFAS that are contaminating drinking water. A public health expert explains why the agency should take much broader action.
An air pollution expert with years of experience advising federal regulators describes how the Trump administration is speeding up reviews and reducing scientific input.
Do high fuel economy requirements make the US auto fleet less safe? The Trump administration says yes and is moving to freeze these standards, but auto experts and US car makers disagree.
After two years of turmoil at the EPA in the 1980s, President Reagan hit the reset button, choosing a Republican who supported environmental protection to head the agency.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has proposed steps that would reduce economic benefits to society from new regulations. An economist who worked for Presidents Clinton and Obama calls this a strategy to justify deregulation.
Chris Sellers, Stony Brook University (The State University of New York); Lindsey Dillon, University of California, Santa Cruz, dan Phil Brown, Northeastern University
Government agencies are supposed to listen to the industries they regulate, but what if they tune out everyone else? Scholars call this regulatory capture, and some staffers see it happening at EPA.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to change the grounds for setting US air pollution targets. An environmental lawyer explains why Pruitt’s approach misreads the law and could roll back decades of gains.
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.
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)