In 1970, 20 million Americans took to the streets on the very first Earth Day. They demanded these three things: clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a healthy future for their families. Just a few months later, Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) to deliver on that vision – the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts soon followed.

Now, over 50 years later, the E.P.A is under attack. Let’s meet some of the groups and people, who seem to be working to undermine our fundamental right to clean air and clean water. These are our nominees for the alternative E.P.A – the Environmental Pollution Agency. 

1) E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. of the Cornwall Alliance of the Stewardship of Creation, (CASC)

This group, led by Calvin Beisner, who holds a Ph.D. in Scottish history,believes “…that by God’s design Earth and its physical and biological systems are robust, resilient, and self-correcting. We deny that they are fragile,” as noted in point 9 of their 30 point ‘affirmation’ page. 

Climate science is often disputed to be a ‘false religion’ by groups that deny climate change. 

Mr.Besiner has testified as an expert witness on the ethics and economics of climate and energy policy before congressional committees and argues that environmental action is a deception which can potentially harm impoverished people more than others. The people living in “Cancer Alley,” who cannot afford to move away from petrochemical plants, might beg to differ. The cancer rates in “Cancer Alley” have been documented as being 12-16% higher than the rest of the US.  

Plus, if Administrator Zeldin eliminates E.P.A enforcement efforts that focus on prioritizing the protection of ‘poor communities’ – will Mr. Beisner actively campaign against these measures? Given that he feels that impoverished people should not be harmed more than others? You can find out more about how our rights to clean water and clean air are under attack HERE

2) “Big Oil” 

ExxonMobil, with a market capitalization of over $492 Billion as of September 25, 2025, i.e. the total value of all its outstanding shares, has, according to research first published in the journal Science,  been accused of spending decades misleading the public about climate change.

A 2017 Harvard study comparing ExxonMobil’s internal documents and peer-reviewed papers vs. its advertorials found that 80% of internal documents/peer‑reviewed work acknowledged human-caused climate change, while 81% of Exxon’s public advertorials expressed doubt. Their own internal documents show that their scientists understood the science of climate change and the role of greenhouse gases back as far back as the 1970s. 

Exxon has consistently denied the accusations that it misled the public.

Chevron, with a market cap of over $321 billion as of September 2025, inadvertently helped to create the legal doctrine that became known as, “the Chevron Deference”. This 1984 ruling gave the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) the broad authority to interpret and enforce ambiguous laws, including those regulating pollution. But in 2024, the Supreme Court overturned this doctrine significantly reducing the EPA’s regulatory power. 

Chevron, like most major fossil fuel companies, is a member of the American Petroleum Institute, (API), a powerful lobbying group for the oil and gas industry. The API has criticised the Endangerment Finding and hopes the new Trump administration will loosen emission regulations.

Chevron contributes to the ​​Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), which is aligned with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF).  

Shell, with a market cap of around $212 billion, as of September 2025, publicly supports the Paris Climate Agreement and pledges to reach “net zero” emission by 2050. Howevert Shell spends tens of millions on lobbying groups that oppose clean energy policies. 

As of 2019 lobbying disclosures, Shell spent $49 million on lobbying in the U.S. — nearly more than any other oil company that year.

3) U.S Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright

Chris Wright, is President Trump’s U.S Secretary of Energy, and Wright has built a career on downplaying climate change, this year he said that “climate change isn’t a crisis”.

A self proclaimed “outdoor enthusiast” he doesn’t seem that keen on protecting the outdoors.  He used data to argue that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could hurt the economy more than rising global temperatures would. 

In March, 2025, Secretary Wright spoke at CERA Week, one of the world’s premier annual energy conferences, in Houston, Texas. Sadly just a few weeks later, some 200 miles southeast in the Central Texas Hill Country – tragedy struck when devastating floods killed at least 135 people.  While it is almost certainly true that natural weather patterns and geography caused the immediate flooding, it is also most likely to be true that climate change made these floods more extreme and therefore more deadly. Both things can unfortunately be true at the same time.

Wright champions fossil fuels as he believes they help to drive the U.S economy, but the real cost of his unbridled support are potentially, likely to be more extreme weather events across the U.S, with the homes and lives of Americans destroyed by climate change. 

4) Senator Ron Johnson (R‑WI)

Senator Ron Johnson ran a plastics manufacturing company (PACUR) before entering politics. He has called climate change “bullsh*t” and stated that carbon dioxide “helps trees grow.” It does. It also powers climate change when too much of it is released into the atmosphere. Again, two things can be true at the same time.

The science is proven. There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and more than 99.9% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activities—chiefly the burning of fossil fuels—are the main cause.

This consensus is supported by evidence ranging from the rapid rise in global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide, to melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, and shifting weather patterns measured across the globe by NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As well as pretty much every major national science academy worldwide. 

The League of Conservation Voters, revealed in 2022, that Senator Johnson’s office accepted over $700,000 in donations from the fossil fuel industry and voted to deregulate domestic oil drilling. 

5) Alan Carlin Ph.D.

Alan Carlin, has a PhD in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and earned an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology (CIT). 

In 2009, while a senior operations research analyst at the E.P.A’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), he wrote a 98-page report attacking the science behind greenhouse gas regulation. It was largely discredited by climate change experts but widely cited in the conservative media.

This is not true. In fact global temperatures have risen dramatically since the mid-20th century. According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the global average surface temperature has increased by at least 1.1°C (1.9°F) since 1880. With most of that occurring after 1975. In fact the five hottest years on record (as of 2023) have all occurred since 2015. 2024 was either the hottest or second-hottest year ever recorded, depending on the data set. In 2010 Carlin resigned from the EPA.

How to Take Action to Protect Clean Air and Clean Water For Us ALL

At EARTHDAY.ORG we just do not think that belief systems should determine the quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink. 

Only facts, science and strong government regulation should do that. Right now your family’s health is on the line.  The time to act is now. Nobody, no matter how rich or powerful lives in a bubble. We all breathe the same air in the end. 

Want to make a difference? On a related issue, you can speak out by writing to strongly oppose Section 453 of the Interior Appropriations Bill, which would grant pesticide manufacturers broad legal immunity, even when their products cause harm.

The post Do These 5 People Care If We Breathe Dirty Air? appeared first on Earth Day.

On July 28, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made a big announcement: the agency plans to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding. That might sound like something out of a Marvel movie, but it’s actually the cornerstone of U.S. climate policy. The Finding legally establishes that greenhouse gas emissions, from new motor vehicles, threaten public health and welfare.  It gives the EPA the power to regulate these emissions not just from cars, but from power plants, factories, and other major pollution sources.

Without it? The EPA’s hands are tied when it comes to regulating emissions. This move raises eyebrows and questions, and the agency released a one-pager explaining their decision. We read it. We checked it. Here’s our fact check of their one pager HERE and here’s the highlights: 

1) Making it Easy… or Not?

EPA Claim: “Through this reconsideration, EPA will give the public a chance to weigh in on the science, law, and policy choices at issue in the Finding”. 

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: While the EPA says it’s opening the floor to debate, the federal government is cutting off the tools that make public comment more accessible; specifically, the API (Application Programming Interface) that allows people to submit comments through third-party platforms instead of directly through their Regulations.gov website.

In other words, yes, you can weigh in, but only if you go through the official portal, which many grassroots campaigns and advocacy orgs can’t easily access anymore. So it’s like being told you can speak… but only if you do it exactly the way they want. 

2) Driving an Unbiased Dagger into our Hearts

Claim: “EPA cannot prejudge the outcome of this reconsideration process.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Okay, sure. But if the EPA isn’t prejudiced, why did Administrator Zeldin recently declare: “”We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion…” That’s not exactly a “wait and see” kind of comment. That is clearly a judgment. Also, let’s be clear: climate change isn’t a religion. It’s science. Hard science. As in, 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity. 

3) What is the Endangerment Finding & Why Does it Matter?

Claim: “The 2009 Endangerment Finding was the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s overreaching climate agenda… That evasion ends today.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Let’s unpack this one, because it’s doing a lot of heavy lifting.The claim here is that the Endangerment Finding kicked off, “trillions of dollars of cost on Americans” and by rescinding it we will save $54 billion in costs annually. Funny how Zeldin doesn’t mention the real price tag Americans are paying: climate change-linked illnesses, death, and pollution-related diseases have been know for over a decade and some studies estimate they will cost the U.S. over $820 billion annually. 

Also, those 2027 vehicle emissions standards the EPA now wants to reverse? They were projected to prevent 7.2 billion tons of CO₂ through 2055; that’s four times what the entire U.S. transportation sector emitted in 2021. 

4) Duty to Regulate 

Claim: “Massachusetts vs. EPA, held that the Clean Air Act’s general, Act-wide definition of “air pollutant” was broad enough to include carbon dioxide. Massachusetts explicitly did not hold that EPA was required to regulate these emissions from these sources.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: The 2007 Supreme Court ruling was very clear: greenhouse gases, such as excess carbon dioxide, are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. That means the EPA has a duty to regulate them unless it can show they DO NOT endanger public health or welfare. So unless Zeldin has some groundbreaking scientific discovery to share (spoiler: he doesn’t), the law still stands. The EPA still has a legal obligation to act.

5) By the Books

Claim: “The Endangerment Finding took an unorthodox approach… It never makes a straight-line conclusion that carbon dioxide from new motor vehicles is causing endangerment. It looked at this mix of six gases, from all sources over the world, … to determine that this mix contributed … an unknown amount above zero to climate change, and that climate change contributed … an unknown amount above zero of endangerment to public health. The Finding looked at U.S. vehicle emissions … and said that they were a big enough piece of the pie (some 4 percent of global emissions) to be “causing or contributing” to the mix of six gases—not to the endangerment itself.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: This one reads like a climate denialist word salad, but let’s chop it up. The EPA’s original Finding didn’t go rogue. It followed the law, the science, and the courts. It reviewed research from the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, and U.S. agencies to conclude, based on overwhelming scientific evidence, six key greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, SF₆) collectively contribute to climate change.

Cars emit several of these, the most significant being carbon dioxide. That’s enough under the Clean Air Act. The law doesn’t require proof of direct causation by U.S. cars alone, just a finding that their emissions contribute to the problem. Which they very much do; in 2022, 29% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. came from the transportation sector, the vast majority of which were from cars and truck emissions.

This whole “unorthodox” claim of government overreach is like saying a seatbelt is illegal because it wasn’t designed to stop every car accident. It’s just not how the law, or logic, works.

6) Massachusetts Still Stands

Claim: “These legal issues require fresh scrutiny, particularly in light of major Supreme Court cases… and new developments in science and technology.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Here’s where the EPA throws some legal spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. They cite recent Supreme Court cases, none of which overturn Massachusetts v. EPA.

Loper Bright Enterprises et al. (Loper) overturned the Chevron deference, which used to let agencies like the EPA interpret unclear laws, but not Massachusetts as the case clearly gives the EPA authority to regulate emissions. 

West Virginia v. EPA didn’t question whether the EPA can regulate emissions; instead, it said the EPA went too far by trying to shift the entire power industry from coal to cleaner energy without clear permission from Congress. So while the majority in West Virginia may have been skeptical of Massachusetts they did not overrule it.

Also, is Administrator Zeldin seriously claiming that “new science” or “new technology” means we have to reconsider whether greenhouse gases are dangerous? That’s like arguing a better thermometer means we should rethink whether fire is hot.

In fact, the latest science only makes the case for greenhouse gases being the cause of climate change stronger. We’ve seen the impacts firsthand. The climate crisis is no longer hypothetical, it’s happening in real time. So using “technological progress” as an excuse to scrap foundational climate protections isn’t just misleading – it’s backward.

This so-called “reconsideration” of the Endangerment Finding isn’t about science. The Finding has been upheld, reaffirmed, and scientifically validated. What’s changed isn’t the evidence – it’s the EPA’s leadership. Want to make a difference? On a related issue, you can speak out by writing to strongly oppose Section 453 of the Interior Appropriations Bill, which would grant pesticide manufacturers broad legal immunity, even when their products cause harm.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Let’s Fact Check the Environmental Protection Agency appeared first on Earth Day.

The Foundation of Environmental Policy

As the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, comes under increasing attack from a U.S government that does not value clean air, clean water, caring for the environment or even acknowledging the indisputable reality of climate change – it’s a good moment to look back and explore why a functioning EPA touches all of our lives, both here in the U.S and abroad. 

The EPA has been the biggest player guiding environmental policy in the U.S, since it was formed in 1970, under the leadership of Republican President Richard Nixon, just a few months after the very first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. Seeing 20 million Americans marching in the streets demanding action on the terrible smog choking cities across the country and filthy water ways, proved people cared about these issues.  Nixon was decisive and the EPA was born with bi-partisan support.  Suddenly ‘the concept of quality of life’ took hold. 

But the EPA’s reach is global. It advises not just the United States, but also plays a pivotal role in world environmental policy and its leadership was until recently a guiding light on all United Nations Environmental Programme negotiations. 

Rachel Carson

Prior to the 1960s, environmental protection wasn’t a widely talked about issue among the American public or any public for that matter. 

This changed when the 1962 bombshell book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. The book critiqued the widespread use of the pesticide DDT, which had been relatively new at the time. Invented in 1939, DDT is an incredibly powerful pesticide that was created to kill malaria carrying insects to protect troops during World War II. It hit the shelves for consumers in 1945. 

The problem with DDT is that it accumulates in the tissues of wildlife and humans alike, disrupting hormones and causing reproductive problems, developmental issues, and increased risk of cancer. It is particularly harmful to birds, leading to thinning eggshells and population declines. Carson’s book foresaw a future with no songbirds due to the impact of DDT and it shocked people into starting to care. 

Up until then, very few people had sounded the alarm about its negative effects of DDT, and those who did, were not taken seriously. In effect their warnings were regarded as ‘fake news’.  It was only after being denied an article in Reader’s Digest to discuss the results of testing and the harmful effects of DDT, that Carson decided to write her seminal book detailing her findings. 

The book discussed how DDT had entered the food and water supply chain by way of runoff and bio-magnification, wherein chemicals increase in concentration in each organism as the food chain rises. As well as this she explained bioaccumulation – a process that means as each animal eats food contaminated with DDT  – it builds up inside them over time. Carson brought these concepts up to the public and compelled them to care for the very first time. 

This, combined with disasters such as the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that killed countless marine animals and seabirds forced the average American to be much more aware of environmental issues than ever before. This reached a fever pitch on Earth Day in 1970, which saw President Nixon finally unveil a comprehensive environmental plan to tackle oil spills, invest in environmental research, set limits for emissions to guarantee good air quality and new rules around clean water. These were soon consolidated into one agency and the Environmental Protection Agency was created. 

Landmark Policy & Global Influence

In 1972, ten years after Silent Spring was first published, the EPA banned the use of DDT. Thanks to those efforts, the presence of DDT in wildlife, domestic animals and our water ways has decreased, but the effects of DDT still linger and it is important to continue to advocate for banning it globally.

While the EPA helped negotiate and signed the Stockholm Treaty on POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants, like DDT), it is still used in some countries in Africa to combat malaria. Harm reduction is the goal, both from pollutants and the disease carrying insects DDT kills, so having many advisory voices, which includes experts from the EPA, is key. As the EPA comes under domestic attack, its global influence will wane.

The Hudson River Poisoning 

In 1976, public concern was sparked again by the discovery of chemical pollution in New York’s Hudson River. PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are industrial chemicals once widely used in electrical equipment, paints, and pesticides, known for their toxicity and environmental persistence. 

It was revealed that from 1947 to 1977, General Electric’s manufacturing plants at Hudson Falls and Fort Edward discharged over a million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River. To this day, PCB-contaminated sediments in the riverbed continue to leach PCBs into the water through processes like desorption, resuspension, and groundwater seepage.

The EPA was able to take direct action through the Toxic Substances Control Act, which gave them the authority to require testing, reporting, and set guidelines for toxic substances. This policy still stands today and keeps people, wildlife, farm animals, and the environment safer from reckless use of harmful chemicals and discharges from industrial complexes. Without the EPA and this sort of power we would all be at risk of more exposure to toxic chemicals. 

Similarly, policies such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act allow for the EPA to regulate our biggest polluters and ensure that we have clean air and water. 

How Growing EPA Responsibilities Strengthened Our Protection

Following the Toxic Substances Control Act’s passing, it became clear that a fund was needed to pay for cleanups following toxic chemical spills.

In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as ‘Superfund’. This gives the EPA the resources and authority to lead cleanup efforts in the event of oil spills, and industrial chemical discharges. As well dealing with disasters that do not typically come to mind when we think of environmental events, such as efforts to clean up the aftermath of 9/11,  where the EPA coordinated hazardous material removal at Ground Zero, and responses to anthrax poisoning attempts.

The Power and Importance of the Endangerment Finding

Building on its critically important role in addressing industrial  pollutants and environmental disasters through programs like Superfund, the EPA also began tackling emerging challenges related to air quality and climate change. 

In 2009, the EPA published the seminal Endangerment Finding, which asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, threaten our present and future wellbeing.  That is because carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are scientifically proven greenhouse gases that unequivocally drive climate change, this is an established fact, not a matter of belief.

The Endangerment Finding followed the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, thereby granting the EPA the authority to regulate them.

The 2007 court directed the EPA to determine whether scientific research supported the claim that greenhouse gas emissions from cars and other vehicles harm public health. 

The EPA gathered evidence that included peer-reviewed assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the National Research Council, compiling thousands of studies demonstrating the multiple harmful impacts of GHGs such as causing rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of extreme weather, degraded air quality, and negative effects on agriculture and ecosystems. 

The EPA concluded that emissions from new motor vehicles contributed to this pollution, justifying regulation under the Clean Air Act. With this evidence, the EPA issued the Endangerment Finding in 2009, empowering the agency to regulate greenhouse gases as a watchdog. This Finding has been upheld in court and serves as the foundation for numerous greenhouse gas regulations

Protecting the Public Health From Administrator Lee Zeldin

The policies the EPA has passed have made all of our lives better,every single day. But the work and the authority of the EPA  are under attack from the present U.S Administration.

Just last month, July 28, 2025, the EPA’s own Administer Lee Zeldin, a lawyer not a scientist, proposed repealing the Endangerment Finding. This would deliberately undermine the EPA’s own power to regulate for clean air and clean water for us all. Two critically important issues in keeping the American public safe and healthy. 

We need your help in letting him know that this is not acceptable.Your children deserve to breathe air unpolluted by greenhouse gasses, have a government actively fighting climate change and trying to diminish extreme weather events, and ensure you are drinking clean, chemical free water. These are basic human rights and they are not negotiable.

You can write directly to Administer Zeldin here to demand he walk back this harmful plan. The EPA has protected us for decades, we must act now to ensure that it continues to do such for decades to come. 

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post How the Environmental Protection Agency Cleaned Up America appeared first on Earth Day.

OPINION

I grew up attending Catholic private schools, marching for life, and even advocating for pro-life beliefs in conversations with Virginia delegates. I know what it means to stand up for the sanctity of life, to believe that every human being has inherent dignity from conception to natural death. 

But in all those conversations about protecting life, I rarely heard anyone mention the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the planet we leave behind. That needs to change. Many pro-lifers fight to protect life, but what will happen if the planet is no longer able to support it? 

Abortion still dominates the conversation, despite the fact that climate change threatens the exact lives that pro-lifers are trying to protect. Shouldn’t the goal of respecting and conserving life be equally centered on preserving the environment?

If we are truly pro-life, we must also be pro-environment.

Recently, President Donald Trump announced his plan to revoke the Environmental Protection Agency’s  (EPA) authority to take action on climate change. This move isn’t just about bureaucracy or regulations, it’s about dismantling one of the few agencies tasked with protecting the health of millions of Americans. Climate change isn’t some abstract issue for future generations to worry about. Its effects are already here, harming real people, right now.

Consider this: according to the World Health Organization, air pollution is responsible for an estimated 7 million premature deaths annually across the globe. In the United States alone, studies show that pollution from fossil fuel combustion is responsible for 350,000 premature deaths annually. These are not just numbers, they are lives lost to preventable causes.

If we claim to care about life, how can we turn a blind eye to policies that poison our air and water?

Babies Suffer Most

It’s not just adults who suffer. According to the National Library of Medicine, air pollution may indirectly harm lung development by causing low birth weight, early birth, or improper immune system development. 

The health implications of this exposure on unborn babies is  especially important as air pollution during the prenatal period may interfere with organ development and organogenesis, the critical process where organs are formed. This would not be the first time that environmental pollution had catastrophic effects on infants. In Flint, Michigan, an entire generation of children was exposed to lead-contaminated water. Even low levels of lead in blood are associated with developmental delays, difficulty learning and behavioral issues, according to the CDC. The science is clear: environmental harm directly threatens the health and development of unborn and newborn children, and adults. 

Being Pro-life Shouldn’t End At Birth

When hurricanes fueled by rising sea levels destroy homes, when wildfires made more intense by climate change force families to evacuate, when rising temperatures increase the spread of diseases like West Nile Virus, these are life issues too.

 In fact, the National Medical Association has called climate change “the greatest public health challenge of the 21st century.”

But it is the most vulnerable who pay the highest price. Low-income communities and communities of color  are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation. The unborn, the elderly, and those with preexisting health conditions are at greatest risk. As pro-life advocates, we should be the loudest voices standing up for those who cannot protect themselves. That includes the victims of environmental injustice.

I’m not writing this from a leftist point of view. I know how quickly conversations about the environment get dismissed as partisan politics. But protecting life has no political party. When Pope Francis wrote Laudato Si’, his encyclical on the environment, he called on people of all faiths and political backgrounds to recognize that “the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor.”

We must understand that dismantling the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions is not pro-life, it’s anti-life. Weakening environmental protections is not just about rolling back regulations; it’s about rolling back the future of every child we claim to protect.

I’m not here to argue, but to find common ground. If we are united by a belief in the sanctity of life, then we should be outraged when policies disregard the health of our children and grandchildren. Pro-life values demand consistency. You can’t defend life in one breath and support policies that threaten it in the next.

We can’t afford to be selective in our defense of life. The same passion that drives us to protect the unborn should drive us to protect the earth they will inherit. What’s the point of saving a life if we’re willing to destroy the world it lives in?

It’s time for a new kind of pro-life movement. One that sees the environment not as a political talking point, but as a sacred duty. One that understands that caring for creation is not separate from caring for life, it is the foundation of it.

So the next time a politician promises to “protect life,” we must ask: Whose life? And for how long? Because life doesn’t end at birth, and neither should our efforts.

If you agree, make your voice heard – tell the EPA we expect them to protect clean air and clean water for all living things by adding your name to our public comments urging the EPA not to revoke the Endangerment Finding, which gives the agency the authority to regulate pollution.

The post Stripping the EPA’s Ability to Regulate Emissions is Anti-Life appeared first on Earth Day.

The Trump Administration recently announced its plan to overturn a 2009 scientific finding that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 

Backed by an overwhelming literature of science, the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” concluded that greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide pose a risk to human health. This gave the EPA the authority to regulate fossil fuels under The Clean Air Act, and regulate sources of greenhouse gas emissions like cars, factories and power plants. 

The proposal, if finalized, would leave the EPA with no authority to regulate the U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere and contributing to global warming under the Clean Air Act, which currently prevents over 230,000 premature deaths each year.

Transportation accounts for the largest sector of the U.S. climate emissions, making up 28 percent. In early 2024, the Biden administration introduced the strongest-ever pollution standards for cars, which was projected to prevent 7.2 billion tons of CO2 emissions through 2055 as well as up to 2,500 premature deaths by reducing fine particulate matter and ozone. .  

In its EPA press release announcing the proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding, the EPA said getting rid of greenhouse emission regulations on motor vehicles would decrease the cost of living for American families by reducing the price of products driven by trucks and making cars cheaper. 

Supporters of the change have echoed this sentiment, arguing that the main purpose of rescinding the endangerment is helping average Americans. EARTHDAY.ORG clearly refutes these claims and you can see our official response here in our EPA Statement.

At first glance, one might presume that this action by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin was taken with the intent of helping poor or lower class individuals and families. But if you read between the lines – figuratively and literally (more on that later) – it becomes clear that as much as this was marketed as pro-consumer, in reality, it’s nothing more than a gift to fossil fuel companies at the expense of public health. 

“Pro Poor” or Pro-Fossil Fuels? 

It is well documented that in the U.S. and worldwide, low-income individuals and communities are disproportionately exposed and more vulnerable to air pollution. In the U.S., Black and Hispanic Americans are demonstrably more likely to live in locations with higher levels of pollution. Getting rid of protections that limit the pollution industry can pump into the air will only make areas with high levels of pollution and all of their associated economic, social, and health effects worse. 

Take Cancer Alley, for instance. Grim name, right? It’s a place with a grim reality. The moniker refers to an 85 mile stretch along the Mississippi River in Louisiana, in between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, that houses over 200 petrochemical plants and refineries. Residents – disproportionately black – are immersed alongside factories, pipelines and tank farms. As a result, the area has among the highest concentrations of toxic chemicals nationwide, with a cancer rate nearly 50 times higher than the national average. 

Fossil fuel fired power plants like those along the Mississippi – the very plants this proposal would allow complete freedom to – are the largest stationary source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, which contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (the main ingredient in “smog”) and particle pollution. 

Decades of research shows that ground-level ozone and fine particles aggravate lung and heart disease, cause strokes, asthma and heart attacks, and can increase susceptibility to respiratory infection.

According to the EPA itself, every year, “pollution from power plants causes fine particle and ground level ozone-related premature deaths, new asthma cases and asthma exacerbations, heart attacks, and lost school and work days.” 

Anti Health and Anti Life Policy Is Bad for the Economy

When work days are lost due to the health impacts linked to climate change the economy is hindered and not helped. 

Zeldin and the Trump administration EPA are well aware of this fact. In its own Regulatory Impact Analysis of the proposal to repeal limits on climate pollution from power plants, which it was legally required to prepare, the EPA found that following through with the proposal would cause thousands of premature deaths and cost Americans billions in healthcare costs. 

On page 4-8, table 4-4 of the analysis, the EPA shows that the total increase in healthcare costs from this proposed rule – even without accounting for the costs of its associated climate change impacts – would be as much as $130 billion through 2047. Furthermore, on page 4-5, table 4-1, the EPA found that repealing Carbon Pollution Standards would cause up to 120 additional deaths from smog and 1,100 premature deaths from fine particulate matter in 2035 alone. 

Zeldin and Trump’s EPA know its harmful climate decisions will cause deaths. The reason they don’t care? Could it be that these deaths won’t come from their communities and neighborhoods? These deaths will more than likely be of America’s poorest citizens, who, despite how often this Administration uses them as a political bargaining chip, they could not care less about. Proposals like this make that crystal clear. It is strange how the conservative obsession with human life becomes anti-life when it suits them.

Fighting Back 

The endangerment finding is under attack, which means science is under attack and lives are at risk. The EPA, 55 years after its formation after the very first Earth Day back in 1970 is at risk. Which means all of us are under attack. Because all of us need clean air to breathe. 

At EARTHDAY.ORG, we reject the idea that the quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink should be determined by faulty ‘belief’ systems. The time to act is now. Add your name to our public comments on the EPA’s intentions to gut the agency’s ability to regulate pollution due to climate change, also known as the Endangerment Finding.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Who Pays the Price of Environmental Deregulation? appeared first on Earth Day.

On July 29th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s 17th administrator Lee Zeldin proposed removing the agency’s power to regulate fossil fuels. 

Zeldin proposes rescinding the Endangerment Finding  – the E.P.A’s 2009 scientific determination that greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, pose a threat to public health. It gives the E.P.A legal authority (under the Clean Air Act) to regulate emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other sources contributing to climate change.   Repealing it would remove the foundation for most federal climate regulations, allowing increased greenhouse gas pollution with severe consequences for public health. Administrator Zeldin seems delighted by this reckless move and appears motivated by his politics not about his duty to protect the public.

Administrator Zeldin’s actions would remove dozens of protections against air and water pollution – including losing limits on soot from smokestacks and pushing restrictions on emissions of mercury back to levels allowed over ten years ago. Mercury is ranked as one of the most hazardous substances on the planet and has no beneficial function in the human body. 

Lee Zeldin is effectively the one leading the charge to undermine ‘his’ own Agency making him the perfect person to lead what should be called the Environmental Pollution Agency. 

Qualified or Not? 

Lee Zeldin holds a bachelor’s degree in political science as well as a juris doctorate. Neither of these degrees are scientific or environmental in their scope. While holding science degrees is not universal or a prerequisite for the role in recent years it has become more customary. Of the six most recent administrators, five of them — Michael Regan, Andrew Wheeler, Gina McCarthy, Lisa P. Jackson, and Stephen L. Johnson, dating back to the Bush era — all had some scientific qualifications. Only Scott Pruitt, a 2017 President Trump pick, had no science background.

So, how did Zeldin end up at the E.P.A? Here’s his trajectory: he served in the U.S military for over two decades, which we honor. He was elected to the New York State Senate in 2010, serving in the 3rd Senate District, before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2014, where he served till 2023.

While the EPA’s website emphasizes his ‘contributions’ to environmental legislation, made as a Congressman, a closer look at his policies reveals a worrying trend: As a Long Island congressman, Lee Zeldin voted repeatedly to weaken the Clean Air Act, and he has supported fracking, ​​NPR reported he prefers to describe it as, ‘the safe extraction of natural gas’.  

Thanks to the rising sea levels, brought on by climate change, areas of the Long Island South Shore flood at least monthly with the tides. This issue prompted the creation of the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Project, federally funded by U.S taxpayers to the tune of 2.4 billion dollars. Which Zeldin supported. Perhaps that is because in this specific case the consequences of climate change were literally impossible to ignore?

In fact of the 94 pieces of legislation he sponsored throughout his time in office, only 7 were under the category of “public lands and natural resources.”  It seems that his work to dismantle and establish clean air and clean water protections is just more of the same – his  March 12th, announcement of the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history” is not surprising. Nor is it triggering, it’s just what he does. 

Zeldin’s Not Alone In Undermining the Work of the EPA 

We know Administrator Zeldin has ardent supporters across industry for his actions, he also has an army of non-industry supporters too. 

For example, Mandy Gunasekara, a former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A), in the first Trump Administration. Gunasekara is not a climate change scientist but she helped to write the environmental section of the conservative policy agenda known as Project 2025. Her chapter appears to be the unofficial playbook outlining how the E.P.A should roll back the ‘Endangerment Finding’. 

Which seems very much at odds with this sentiment from her from 2019.

Ms Gunasekara is acknowledging how the E.P.A has kept our air and water clean. But how can our water and air stay clean if the Endangerment Finding is rescinded? 

Her thinking, and Zeldin’s, is very much at odds with US voters: 76% of Trump voters and 86% of all voters oppose weakening the E.P.A, 72% of Trump voters and 80% of all voters support increasing federal funding to communities harmed by air and water pollution.  Over 90% of Americans across party lines support strong clean water protection.

Another potential Zeldin ally is John Christy. He is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991, after his team developed a global temperature data set. Yet, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus, 99% of actively published climate scientists agree that human activities are causing climate change, Professor Christy claims fossil fuels are more helpful than harmful. 

In 2019, he was appointed to key EPA science advisory boards under the first Trump administration, and in 2025 the U.S. The Department of Energy funded and released a 150-page report co-authored by Professor.Christy, called “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” It claims human-caused climate change “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” and states that mitigating against climate change might be more harmful than beneficial. 

Internationally recognized climate scientists have described this report as “deceptive,” “cherry-picked,” and “antiscientific.”

What motivates Prof Christy to be a contrarian? While not funded by the fossil fuel industry, his stance aligns with libertarian, and anti-regulatory values, and he frames his motivation as a desire for scientific independence and skepticism of consensus. It is as if he is invoking historical analogies like Galileo versus the establishment.

We fully anticipate that Prof. Christy’s deceptive/cherry-picked/antiscientific report will be presented as credible evidence by Lee Zeldin, to the Supreme Court, when the battle to protect the Endangerment Finding reaches it. 

We The People – Demand Clean Air and Clean Water

In 1970, 20 million Americans took to the streets on the very first Earth Day. They demanded these three things: clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a healthy future for their families. Out of that movement Republican President Richard Nixon was inspired to create the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) to deliver on the public’s vision –  clean air and clean water for us all.

Now, over 50 years later, the E.P.A is under attack. But we are not helpless. At EARTHDAY.ORG we don’t believe that ‘belief’ systems should determine the quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink. Only strong government regulation can.  Your family’s health is on the line and we urge you to join the thousands of other citizens who have made their feelings known by speaking up. 

If you are in the U.S., use your voice; add your name to our public comments on the EPA’s intentions to gut the agency’s ability to regulate pollution due to climate change. 

The time to act is now. Do it for your children’s health. For all of our children’s health. Nobody, no matter how rich or how powerful lives in a bubble. We all breathe the same air- in the end. Even if Lee Zeldin seems to have forgotten.

The post From Politics to Pollution: Administrator Lee Zeldin’s Path to Leading the Environmental Protection Agency appeared first on Earth Day.

The need for stronger chemical safety regulations in the US is critical. Disturbingly, chemical disasters occur on average once every two days. This year alone, our environment has been ravaged by over 150 incidents, polluting water, air, and soil while jeopardizing human, biodiversity, and ecosystem health. These catastrophes disproportionately affect fenceline communities, predominantly consisting of marginalized and low-income communities. As the Biden administration has pledged to advance environmental justice for all, it is imperative we hold them accountable for their promise.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated steps in the right direction, concerns are growing over their efforts being insufficient to prevent chemical disasters and adequately protect vulnerable communities. In August 2022, the EPA proposed the Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention (SCCAP) rule, a revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) applied to approximately 12,000 RMP facilities nationwide. The proposed revisions aim to restore several provisions made under the Obama administration in 2017, which is seen as a positive step.

However, closer scrutiny of the proposal has revealed various shortcomings. As a result, 49 Congress members warned the EPA the proposed regulations are inadequate to prevent chemical disasters in their districts. Addressing the risks posed by intensifying climate change and natural hazards is particularly crucial for driving meaningful change in chemical safety.

These urgently needed regulatory improvements have been a decade in the making, with earlier progress hindered by the previous government prioritizing the interests of the chemical industry. Therefore, now is the time to implement even bolder measures. The SCCAP rule, currently in the finalization stage and expected to be released by fall this year, presents a critical opportunity for us to demand more decisive actions.

Meanwhile, chemical disasters continue to occur at an alarming rate. In February 2023, a catastrophic incident unfolded when a train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, carrying cancer-causing chemicals. The derailment involved 38 train cars and resulted in a massive fire, forcing hundreds of nearby residents to evacuate. The toxic substances being transported — such as vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate, and isobutylene — are widely recognized as highly dangerous materials. Vinyl chloride, specifically, has been linked to an increased risk of rare forms of liver cancer and other cancers.

The aftermath of the derailment left a trail of devastation. Residents of East Palestine are suffering from a range of health issues, including lung scarring, rashes, headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, disorientation, burning eyes, and numbness. Furthermore, Ohio’s Department of Natural Resources reported over 43,700 animal deaths within a 5-mile radius three weeks after the incident. Extensive decontamination efforts required the removal of 15,000 pounds of soil and 1.1 million gallons of water from the affected area. Even months later, the area still experiences lingering chemical smells, and displaced residents remain uncertain about the safety of returning home.

In another major disaster in March, a significant amount of toxic chemicals — estimated to be between 8,100 and 12,000 gallons — spilled into the Delaware River upstream of a treatment plant supplying drinking water to surrounding areas in Philadelphia. This incident posed a significant threat to the drinking water supply of over 975,000 people. The spilled toxic chemicals included butyl acrylate, the same substance spilled in the East Palestine train derailment, known to cause skin irritation, headaches, dizziness, and vomiting at high levels of exposure.

Philadelphia city officials issued a cautionary advisory to residents, urging them not to use tap water for drinking and cooking. Although the advisory was lifted quickly after tests showed no contamination, the incident triggered panic buying of bottled water. Equipment failure was identified as the cause of the spill, accounting for 49% of total chemical spills or unpermitted discharges between 2010 and 2019.

To ensure more comprehensive protection against chemical catastrophes, the SCCAP rule should incorporate four additional requirements:

1. Identify and mitigate climate risks:

Approximately one-third of hazardous facilities in the US are at increased risk from climate impacts without adequate preparation. The EPA must designate high-risk areas prone to chemical plant failures during natural disasters. These facilities should be required to develop plans to safeguard themselves and adjacent communities.

2. Safer Technologies and Alternatives Analysis (STAA)

All hazardous facilities covered by the RMP rule should conduct an STAA. The current draft exempts 95% of RMP facilities from considering and assessing safer chemicals and processes able to reduce hazards.

3. Recognition of workers and communities as partners

Workers and communities at chemical facilities possess valuable knowledge about plant operations. They should be granted stop work authority and the ability to anonymously report unsafe practices at their workplaces without fear of retaliation.

4. Information access and transparency

The EPA should maintain a publicly accessible RMP database and commit to delivering it in the shortest possible time frame. RMP facilities should improve outreach efforts to inform the public about hazards and emergency response plans during incidental releases.

Individuals have a vital role to play in demanding concrete actions and ensuring environmental justice for all. As the revisions to the rule near completion, we must seize this narrowing window of opportunity. Take action now to Invest In Our Planet and make your voice heard. Join the Earth Day community and become part of an impactful and impossible to ignore worldwide environmental movement. Together, we can secure a safer future for everyone.

The post Battling the Invisible Enemy: U.S. Chemical Spills Run Rampant appeared first on Earth Day.

The legacy of the first Earth Day in 1970 is rooted in the sweeping environmental laws and regulations that followed as a result. Much of this legislation is now under threat today. With less than one week left until the US presidential inauguration, EARTHDAY.ORG is rolling out the policy initiatives we want to see within the first 100 days of the Biden administration, by Earth Day 2021.

This blog is the tenth in our series and focuses on implementing environmental justice comprehensively into our nation’s climate response.

The announcement of Michael Regan to head EPA is good news for environmental justice. Decades of experience with environmental regulatory schemes have demonstrated that unless equity and justice are at the heart of environmental policy, any efforts to restart the federal commitment to environmental protection will be only half complete.

Many states have already recognized that environmental justice is a key component to reducing pollution, addressing the health effects of continuing and past pollution and providing for a just transition to a new energy economy. Now, the federal government promises to join arms with state and local advocates and give leadership to this effort.

Beginning with an updating of Executive Order 12898 on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, the new administration must ensure that the basic regulatory infrastructure that dates back to the original Earth Day can address the concerns raised by the movement for environmental justice. A simple but fundamental beginning would be to get the agencies to dust off their strategic plans for implementing the Executive Order and bring them up to date.

The proposal to create a new division in the Department of Justice that has as its mandate the pursuit of environmental and climate justice is a promising initiative, but likely a non-starter in the current legislative environment. A more promising approach would be to reorganize the existing Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) to put environmental justice front and center. The National Environmental Justice Advisory Council should be charged with providing recommendations that can be pursued by executive action alone and propose amendments to the basic environmental statutes. The new focus on environmental justice in a reorganized ENRD cannot be permitted to languish like the Environmental Crimes section did as it struggled to find a coherent approach to defining and prosecuting environmental crimes.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s External Civil Rights Compliance Office must be awakened from its slumber and given the authority and incentive to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The many good people in that office should be supported in their efforts to do what Congress intended. The full remedial power of our framework environmental laws will be complete only if they eliminate the injustice that under-enforcement has permitted to remain.

Consistent with this strategy would be a restoration of a private right of action under Title VI so that communities that are most burdened by pollution and other environmental hazards can speak for themselves and augment any efforts undertaken by the federal government. The EPA’s Office of Civil Rights can again become a partner in the long struggle to make environmental enforcement a struggle for justice. No Title VI settlement should be undertaken without a process for full consultation with the affected community and without providing a straightforward substantive remedy for Title VI discrimination.

The administration can also reform the permitting process to ensure that environmental justice concerns are not raised only after the fact. Community consultation and prioritization of environmental justice concerns must be key to elements of any permitting process. Communities that are already burdened with a heavier pollution load should not be asked to take on more.

Finally, the reality of climate change adds a dimension to achieving environmental justice that was not contemplated when the Executive Order 12898 was adopted. Environmental justice communities are and will continue to be the ones that disproportionately bear the burden of climate change. We cannot pretend this is not true, and we must act now with that knowledge in mind.

The new administration has its work cut out for it, but it has expressed a commitment to achieve environmental justice while it reduces pollution and creates a just transition to a new green energy economy. Its actions on environmental justice can leave no community behind and we must hold the administration accountable to restore justice, equity, opportunity and the earth. With the appointment of Michael Regan to lead the EPA, environmental justice may finally get its due.

In order to Restore Our Earth, climate change solutions must center and benefit those most disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation and climate change. If you want to help us fight for the protection of our environment and the education and empowerment of our citizenry, please consider becoming a member today.

The post Finally, a chance for environmental justice appeared first on Earth Day.

The EPA is proposing changes that roll back regulations of the highly potent greenhouse gas methane, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. The changes would apply to methane released from oil and gas industries.

The latest rollbacks spell trouble for the planet. In short, more methane in the atmosphere means a hotter planet means more problems for everyone. Here’s how it works.

Packing a punch

When released into the air, methane traps heat and warms the planet with drastic efficiency. Methane makes up just 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, but that number is misleading: The hydrocarbon is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide, which makes up 82 percent of the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions, but methane packs a much harder punch.

Unlike carbon dioxide, which influences our atmosphere over centuries, methane gets to work much faster, with dramatic warming occurring in years, not decades. Over a 20-year period, methane is more than 80 times as powerful than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in our atmosphere.

Methane’s so bad that some scientists are even trying to convert methane molecules into carbon dioxide to cleanse the atmosphere of the highly potent gas.

Not just cow burps

Methane can occur naturally, but most methane released into the atmosphere is linked to human activities. Many point to agricultural practices — think cow burps — as the main culprit of methane emissions, but that’s not the case. The highest emitter of methane is the oil and gas industry.

According to the EPA, natural gas and petroleum systems account for nearly a third of all of U.S. methane emissions. Now the EPA wants to loosen the restrictions on these systems.

The proposed changes are not the EPA’s first push toward protecting the interests of the natural gas industry. In late 2018, millions of acres of drilling rights in Wyoming were auctioned off to major oil and gas developers.

The U.S. is currently undergoing a major shift to natural gas because it’s cheaper, more abundant and when burned, produces less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels. But while natural gas is often promoted as a clean alternative to coal, it’s not as harmless as you think.

Two-thirds of the natural gas in the U.S. is captured through a process called “hydraulic fracking,” or just fracking. In short, fracking is a drilling process that forces millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to crack open shale rock and release natural gas.

But here’s the catch: As fracking increases so do greenhouse gas emissions, specifically from methane. A Cornell University study published this month concluded that “shale-gas production in North America over the past decade may have contributed more than half of all of the increased emissions from fossil fuels globally and approximately one-third of the total increased emissions from all sources globally over the past decade.”

Leaky pipes

The major source of methane emissions from natural gas drilling is from leaks. Methane leaks are especially tricky to quantify because leaks can happen anywhere in the supply chain, which is why some estimates can greatly underestimate the amount of methane being leaked.

Recent estimates have shown that fracking operations lose anywhere between 2 to 6 percent of the gas produced because of leaking, venting and flaring. The problem, though, is that some estimate that if this threshold gets over 4 percent, which it may be already, natural gas may become worse than coal when it comes to climate change.

And some leaks can get out of control, as was the case in Aliso Canyon, California, when natural gas spewed out of a leaking well for four months, emitting not only methane but other volatile compounds, including the cancer-causing chemical benzene.

Meanwhile, the EPA’s new proposal would remove all federal requirements to install anti-leak technology within wells, pipelines and storage facilities on fracking sites.

The EPA cites economics as the major reason for the move, estimating that the proposed changes would save the oil and natural gas industry $17 to 19 million. As is the case of so many greenhouse gases and pollutants, though, the estimate doesn’t take into consideration the economic costs of a warming planet: rising sea levels, more intense weather events, retrofitted infrastructure, increased healthcare needs, forced migrations — costs that measure into the hundreds of billions.

We should be tightening regulations on natural gas drilling, not loosening them. Tell the EPA and your representatives in the House and Senate that these proposed changes stink. Join the environmental movement and take action in the days and months leading up to the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, April 22, 2020.

The post What the frack: EPA proposes rollbacks on regulations for methane appeared first on Earth Day.