Walker’s Wasting Taxpayer Money Fighting Democracy

Esquire – U.S.

Walker’s Wasting Taxpayer Money Fighting Democracy

Charles P. Pierce, Esquire March 29, 2018

From Esquire

Being our semi-regular weekly survey of what’s goin’ down in the several states where, as we know, the real work of governmentin’ gets done, and where the shepherd is asleep and the willows weep.

Because we are on our way to San Antone-mandatory nod to Bob Wills-we are making only two stops on our tour this week, but both of them are cherce. We begin in Wisconsin, where the desperate attempts of Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage that particular midwest subsidiary, and his pet legislature to subvert both democracy and the duties of Walker’s office have reached the level of what my sainted mother used to call high-sterics.

For the benefit of customers who may have come to tinhorn politicians late, the Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature gerrymandered the state so badly that even this Supreme Court gagged on the result. In addition, two seats in the state legislature came open and Walker was required by law to call special elections to fill them. Given the pasting Republicans have taken in similar elections around the country, this did not fill Walker and his pet legislature with either optimism or glee. So, he simply refused to call the elections.

Last week, however, a judge that Walker appointed told him to get the Koch Brothers’ mitts off his puppet strings and call the elections. This occasioned a week of huffing and blowing all throughout the capitol in Madison. The legislature has before it a bill that would eliminate the special elections on the grounds that the Republicans might lose them. (I’m paraphrasing here.) Meanwhile, Walker appealed the previous court’s decision and, on Wednesday, another court in Dane County slapped him down. From The Wisconsin State Journal:

“Walker hasn’t argued that he can’t order the elections or that Reynolds was wrong in requiring him to do so, Niess said. Rather, he said, the governor wants to be allowed to delay carrying out “his mandatory, compulsory duty because there are now other reasons that he has brought to the court’s attention.” “But these other reasons don’t change the fact that his duty under the law remains the same,” Niess said. “No court that I’m aware of is at liberty to ignore the law in order to facilitate the Legislature’s consideration of bills that might become law. When and if a legislative bill becomes law it can be brought to the court, and at that time the arguments can be made as to what the effect of that law is on an already pending (order).”

In other words, Walker argued that his pet legislature will pass his blatant power-grab and so the judge should stay the elections until he and the legislature get their chance to destroy them entirely. This argument, while quaint, did not impress the judge.

Walker then threatened to bring the whole matter before the state supreme court, but he chickened out almost instantaneously, largely because an appellate court judge did everything but knock him silly with the gavel. From the State Journal:

“Earlier Wednesday, 2nd District Appellate Court Judge Paul F. Reilly dismissed Walker’s argument that the court should allow time for the Legislature to rewrite state law that would effectively block the special elections. Reilly issued the one-page ruling hours after DOJ appealed two Dane County judges’ decisions ordering Walker to call the special elections. “Representative government and the election of our representatives are never ‘unnecessary,’ never a ‘waste of taxpayer resources,’ and the calling of the special elections are as the Governor acknowledges his ‘obligation’ to follow,” Reilly wrote.”

Walker had been thumping his tubs for weeks about how “outside forces” were making the good people of Wisconsin pay for special elections that Walker was obligated by law to call. (This is not dissimilar to the argument he made successfully against the campaign to recall him.) Judge Reilly had quite enough of that. Walker finally hollered uncle and scheduled the special elections for June 5. (The bill to do away with them appears to be dead as well.) There was no accounting for all the money the good taxpayers of Wisconsin had to kick into Walker’s attempts to find a legal way not to do his job. They really would rather some people not get to vote. Jesus, these people.

And we conclude, as is our wont, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Derelict Gas Station Inspector Friedman of the Plains brings us an illuminating moment from a debate in that state’s legislature regarding education policy. From KFOR-4, Oklahoma’s News:

“On Monday, members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives debated a bill that would fund a teacher pay raise through several revenue-raising measures. “Money is not the number one issue,” said Rep. John Bennett. “Maybe if we spanked our kids at home a little better with a paddle, made them mind and be good kids, the teachers wouldn’t have it so hard in the classroom.” On Tuesday, Bennett stood by his words. “I’ve told all my kids’ teacher that, ‘If they get out of line, use a paddle on them,’” Bennett said. “If they get out of line after that, call me and I’ll come up and paddle them in front of the whole class because they will not disrespect their elders or teachers in school.” Bennett said bad behavior in schools is costing the state money. “Oh, absolutely,” Bennett said. “It wastes the teachers’ time, and money and effort because teachers aren’t supposed to be parents. They’re a role model but not a parent. The parents need to do what they’re supposed to do as parents, put them on the learning foundation and then send them to school. And, then our teachers can do their job, which they do so well, and teach their kids.”

I think Representative Bennett should be at the top of the list of any PTA that classifies its students as enemy combatants.

This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

More Cabinet trouble for Trump? EPA chief lived in condo tied to lobbyist ‘power couple’

ABC News

EXCLUSIVE: More Cabinet trouble for Trump? EPA chief lived in condo tied to lobbyist ‘power couple’

By John Santucci, Matthew Mosk, Stephanie Ebbs March 29, 2018

Scott Pruitt: Everything you need to know

For much of his first year in Washington, President Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt occupied prime real estate in a townhouse near the U.S. Capitol that is co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist, property records from 2017 show.

Neither the EPA nor the lobbyist, J. Steven Hart, would say how much Pruitt paid to live at the prime Capitol Hill address, though Hart said he believed it to be the market rate. The price tag on Pruitt’s rental arrangement is one key question when determining if it constitutes an improper gift, ethics experts told ABC News.

ABC News. A townhouse near the U.S. Capitol where EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt is said to have stayed. The building is co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist, property records from 2017 show. more +

“I think it certainly creates a perception problem, especially if Mr. Hart is seeking to influence the agency,” said Bryson Morgan, the former investigative counsel at the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics. “That’s why there is a gift rule.”

Hart confirmed to ABC News in a brief interview that Pruitt had lived in the flat, which is owned by a limited liability company that links to an address listed to Hart and his wife Vicki Hart, a lobbyist with expertise in the healthcare arena. Steven Hart said Vicki Hart co-owns the condo. He said his wife was not the majority owner, but would not identify her partners.

“I have no ownership interest,” he said. “Obviously, I know the owners.”

Vicki Hart does no lobbying involving the EPA, her husband said. Her website says she previously worked as a senior health policy advisor for two Senate Majority Leaders before establishing her firm in 2002.

Steven Hart served in the Reagan Justice Department and became, according to his website, is one of the nation’s top fundraisers, donating more than $110,000 to Republican political candidates and committees last election cycle, records show.

In 2010, the newspaper Roll Call referred to the Harts as a “lobbyist power couple.”

Mr. Hart is the chairman and CEO of Williams and Jensen, a firm that reported more than $16 million in federal lobbying income in 2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Among his many clients are the NRA, for whom he serves as outside legal counsel.

Just last year, Cheniere Energy Inc. reported paying Hart’s firm $80,000.

Hart’s firm specifically lobbied on “issues related to the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), approval of LNG exports and export facilities.” The firm also lists on its website that it lobbies on other EPA policies like the Clean Air Act.

EPA spent almost $118,000 on Scott Pruitt’s flights, many of them first class

Environmental groups launch ads on Fox & Friends to ‘boot Pruitt’

EPA chief Scott Pruitt defends Italy trip after increased scrutiny of travel costs

Cheniere Energy Inc. owned the only active Liquid Natural Gas export plant in the United States at the time. Liquid natural gas exports was on the agenda for discussion during Pruitt’s December 2017 trip to Morocco, according to an agency press release.

On the trip, Pruitt pitched “the potential benefit of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports on Morocco’s economy,” the release said.

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, right, meets with Moroccan Minister of Energy, Mines and Sustainable Development, Aziz Rabbah during a trip to Morocco in December of 2017. more +

The revelations about Pruitt’s living situation come as more questions are being raised by members of Congress about his travel habits. The Morocco trip was one of Pruitt’s most expensive. ABC News has learned that Pruitt, his head of security, and an additional member of his staff, Samantha Dravis, all flew first class on the trip.

The EPA inspector general expanded an audit of Pruitt’s travel to include the Morocco trip in response to a request from Sen. Tom Carper, the ranking Democrat on a committee with oversight of EPA. Carper specifically asked the agency watchdog to look into whether Pruitt’s activities on the trip were “in line with EPA’s mission ‘to protect human health and the environment.”

Both environmental groups and members of Congress pointed out that the jurisdiction over natural gas exports typically falls to the Department of Energy – not the EPA.

Obtained by ABC News. A photo obtained by ABC News shows EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt deplaning a military-owned plane in June 2017 at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. more +

A spokeswoman for Cheniere Energy declined to comment.

Another lobbying client of Hart’s, the railroad Norfolk Southern, spent $160,000 last year on lobbying Congress on “issues affecting coal usage, oil production, and transportation, including EPA regulation.”

Norfolk Southern also declined to comment when reached by ABC News.

Morgan, an ethics expert in private practice in Washington, D.C., said the lobbying connection only further muddies the living arrangement. He said the rental agreement could create ethics problems for Pruitt even if he did reimburse his landlord for rent.

“What are the terms of the rental agreement?” Morgan asked. “It’s not just a question if he is paying market rent. Was he given the ability to end it immediately? Would someone come after him if he were not to pay rent?”

Morgan said the most recent guidance from the Office of Government Ethics “emphasized that executive branch officials should decline even a permissible gift if it could cause the public to question their integrity or impartiality.”

EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox declined to answer questions about the arrangement.

Vicki Hart reached on her cell phone, said she would call back to discuss the matter but never did.

Steven Hart declined to address details of the rental agreement, saying it was a private matter and up to Pruitt to decide whether they should be made public.

The White House has not responded to a request for comment from ABC News.

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders and Ali Dukakis contributed to this report

Why I blew the whistle on the Rick Perry meeting

CNN

Why I blew the whistle on the Rick Perry meeting

By Simon Edelman March 29, 2018

Simon Edelman is the former Department of Energy chief creative officer. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.

(CNN) I was fired from my job as Department of Energy chief creative officer for releasing public domain photos of a meeting between Rick Perry, secretary of energy, and Robert Murray, CEO of Ohio-based Murray Energy, a large US coal company. There was no classified information present, I didn’t engage with either of them and I didn’t interrupt their conversation.

The pictures showed Murray, who donated $300,000 to Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration, give Perry an “action plan.” Murray’s company has previously lobbied the Trump administration to end new federal public health protections for greenhouse gas emissions and smog pollution, loosen mine safety rules, and cut the staff of the Environmental Protection Agency by “at least half.”

Simon Edelman

Perry and Murray shook hands, hugged and agreed to get it done. Then they kept everything that happened that day a secret.

If this raises a few flags for you, then you understand the predicament I was in when I was still employed at DOE in March 2017. I thought about it and decided to release the photos and the story to the public, after which I was placed on leave and then fired. My personal laptop was seized (though it was recently returned to me), and I was subjected to intimidation tactics from DOE staff.

Some of the policies Murray’s company has advocated for have been faithfully executed without research, thoughtful public comment periods or policy input from public health professionals. President Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement on climate that cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions globally, and his administration gave notice of repealing the landmark Clean Power Plan, which reduced greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants nationwide. The Trump administration attempted to delay, but was eventually forced to proceed due to lawsuits, clean air protections against smog pollution. The President also nominated a coal company consultantto oversee national mine safety and began cutting EPA scientists and other career agency staffers in droves.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry reviews Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray’s “action plan.”

Additionally, during this time, the rapidly growing clean energy industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people was also relegated to a footnote through cuts to solar and wind energy research and shifts in focus to fossil fuel development. Perry also tried, unsuccessfully, to manipulate the energy market by attempting to force electricity customers to pay billions of extra dollars to prop up uneconomic coal plants that were ready for retirement. Not surprisingly, the news reports and industry analysts found that the coal plants that would benefit the most from Perry’s manipulation attempt would be ones supplied by Murray’s coal mines.

But that’s not even the worst of it. At that same meeting, Andrew Wheeler, the nominee for the number two position at the Environmental Protection Agency, was present. Prior to his nomination, Wheeler spent much of his career as a mining lobbyist, where he worked for Murray and other mining interests in Washington, fighting to shape clean air and water protections in his clients’ favor.

In addition to Wheeler’s past relationship with Murray, it’s also been reported that he proactively fundraised last year for two senators on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. This committee is responsible for determining Wheeler’s fitness for the EPA and voting to bring his nomination to the Senate floor, making Wheeler’s confirmation out of committee along partisan lines last month a potential conflict of interest.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray meet.

If he is confirmed by the entire Senate, he will likely vigorously try to prop up the coal industry in the same ways Perry has, despite the fact the coal industry has been in a tailspin for the past decade. The United States has rapidly been transitioning to cleaner, cheaper resources like solar, wind and energy efficiency, while coal plants are being retired due to their costs and pollution.

With full knowledge of these market realities, however, Wheeler, Murray and the Trump administration are adamant on using taxpayer funds to create rules to prop them up — and for releasing some photos that highlighted this fact, I was let go.

I showed the public what I felt they were entitled to see and now believe we need to do more to hold the Trump administration accountable. We cannot turn back time and undo a meeting that’s already been done, but Congress does have an opportunity to limit the extent to which fossil fuel billionaires and D.C. lobbyists influences our government’s policies.

Some good first steps would be delving into the governmental access given to coal, oil and fracked gas executives and rejecting the nomination of Wheeler when it comes to the floor of the Senate for a final vote.

Rick Perry fired me for exposing the truth about how energy policy was being made under the Trump administration. Now it’s up to Congress to hold him and this administration accountable.

Editor’s Note: DOE spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes declined to comment on the circumstances surrounding Edelman’s firing, but she did reiterate her earlier statement to CNN, saying Edelman’s conclusions about the significance of the Perry-Murray meeting were “ridiculous” and that Edelman’s statements are “based on his own subjective opinions and personal agenda.”

Critics concerned Pruitt could limit the type of science EPA can cite

ABC News

Critics concerned Pruitt could limit the type of science EPA can cite

By Stephanie Ebbs March 27, 2018

EPA plans to roll back major Obama-era climate rule

The former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and other critics say they worry EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is considering a rule change that would require researchers to make more of their methodology and raw data public — a move which could impact regulations intended to limit pollution, among other consequences.

Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote that the move would “paralyze” the agency in an op-ed in The New York Times.

“This approach would undermine the nation’s scientific credibility. And should Mr. Pruitt reconsider regulations now in place, this new policy could be a catalyst for the unraveling of existing public health protections if the studies used to justify them could no longer be used by EPA,” McCarthy and Janet McCabe, a former administrator in the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times.

David Doniger, senior strategic director for the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the main target of this policy is a set of studies that began in the 1990s and were cited as the basis for public health standards like regulations of soot and other tiny particles of pollution that are linked to respiratory issues like asthma.

He said the administration wants to disqualify that research.

“This is diabolical because if Pruitt follows through he would toss out this body of work because the patient records weren’t made totally public so that your health status and your personal experience and all that for 20,000 or more people could be pored over by industry hacks and people wouldn’t participate in these studies,” Doniger said in an interview with ABC News.

Critics say a new policy requiring raw data to be completely public could threaten rules intended to protect public health because they rely on research that involves summarizing individuals’ personal medical information. In those studies, scientists followed individuals for years on the condition that none of the personal health information would be shared. E&E News first reported last week that Pruitt was working on the plan and discussed it in a meeting at the Heritage Foundation.

But the EPA says those characterizations are too narrow and that Pruitt is looking more broadly at how to make the science cited by the agency more transparent. They said there has not been any announcement or change in policy at this time.

“Administrator Pruitt believes that Americans deserve transparency, with regard to the science and data that’s underpinning regulatory decisions being made by this Agency,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in a statement.

Pruitt’s goal is similar to what House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, proposed in his Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017, nicknamed the HONEST Act. That bill would have blocked the EPA from crafting any rule unless all scientific and technical information was available to the public “in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”

Scott J. Ferrell/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images, FILE. Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, listens during the House Judiciary hearing on medical liability issues.

That bill passed the House in 2017 but was blocked in a Senate committee.

EPA documents, including Pruitt’s schedules recently obtained by ABC News through a Freedom of Information Act request, show that he met with Smith on April 5 of last year and that the topics for discussion included the agency’s scientific advisory boards and the HONEST Act.

The EPA said that the HONEST Act has the same goal of transparency Pruitt is looking into but did not offer specifics about conversations between Smith and Pruitt.

Smith’s spokespeople did not respond to ABC News’ question about whether he requested the policy change.

EPA blocks some scientists from serving on advisory boards

Smith has been a vocal critic of existing climate science and said in a statement that the HONEST Act would allow the public to independently determine whether data supports the EPA’s conclusions.

“Administrator Pruitt feels strongly that Americans deserve to see the underlying data, and the American people will appreciate his efforts to make sure regulations are based on good science, not science fiction,” Smith said in a statement.

Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, the co-ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee, criticized statements that Pruitt wanted to increase transparency on Twitter:

Rep. Don Beyer: Pruitt’s new desire for “transparency” is bogus.
Pruitt runs the EPA with profound secrecy to prevent the public from uncovering his waste of taxpayer funds and frequent talks with polluters about how to undermine public health safeguards.

This is about attacking science. Again https://twitter.com/LFFriedman/status/978402524196687872 …

And a representative of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists tweeted last week that the proposal is a “trojan horse” to restrict science at the agency:

Yogin Kothari: @EPAScottPruitt “secret science” plan would sever the @EPA’s ability to rely on science in making public health and environmental decisions. It’s a Trojan Horse with the intention of replacing science with politics https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scott-pruitt-will-restrict-epas-use-of-legitimate-science/ … See Yogin Kothari’s other Tweets

One of the biggest points of concern with the proposal is that a lot of regulations intended to limit pollution like smog are based on public health research that relies heavily on summarized data based on personal health information.

The HONEST Act would have required that public datasets redact personal information. The EPA has not yet released details of any upcoming policy change.

A cost-benefit analysis of the Clean Air Act, for example, cites research that reducing particulate matter could prevent 230,000 premature deaths in the year 2020.

Another study on the EPA’s website found that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could prevent between 1.4 million and 3 million premature deaths in the year 2100.

Supporters of Smith’s bill and moves to increase access to data cited by EPA say that they question some of those findings and want researchers to provide more of the raw data so anyone can try to replicate the conclusions.

Steve Milloy, who served on Trump’s EPA transition team and is a vocal critic of what he calls “junk science,” wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that there were questions about the original research the EPA used to regulate particulate matter and that an analysis of public health data released by the state of California found that particulate matter was not associated with death.

“The best part is that if you don’t believe the result, you can get the same data for yourself from California and run your own analysis. Then we’ll compare, contrast and debate. That’s how science is supposed to work,” Milloy wrote in the op-ed tweeted out by an EPA spokesperson.

McCarthy and McCabe also wrote that any limits on the use of these kinds of public health studies at EPA could also impact rulemaking at other agencies that rely on health-related research, including the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals.

“The E.P.A. administrator simply can’t make determinations on what science is appropriate in rule-making without calling into question decisions by other federal agencies based on similar kinds of studies, including on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, and research into cancer and other diseases. All rely to some extent on data from individual health records. If one agency rejects studies based on that sort of data, it could open up policies by other agencies based on similar studies to challenge,” they wrote.

Pruitt previously announced that scientists who receive any grant money from the EPA would not be able to serve on committees intended to advise the agency on scientific questions, a move that he said would increase transparency on possible conflicts of interest.

Republicans now want to balance the federal budget after passing $1 trillion tax cut

ThinkProgress

Republicans now want to balance the federal budget after passing $1 trillion tax cut

It’s all for show.

Rebekah Entralgo March 28, 2018

Republicans propose a balanced budget amendment after voting for trillion dollar legislation. Credit: Alex Edelman-Pool/Getty Images.

Congressional Republicans are planning to push a balanced budget amendment when they return from recess in April, Politico reported on Wednesday. The vote comes directly after many of those same Republicans voted to pass two massively expensive measures, a $1.3 trillion dollar spending bill and a $1 trillion dollar tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans.

The attempt at a balanced budget amendment is mostly a shiny gimmick meant to gin up support for Republicans as they approach the 2018 midterm elections. The tax bill is largely unpopular with Americans and very few have actually seen any change in their paychecks, contrary to what President Donald Trump and other Republicans promised.

“It’s almost election season, and it would be helpful if GOP lawmakers could go home and be able to say they voted to support balancing the federal budget, even though they voted boosted discretionary spending by a ton, and have not touched entitlement spending, which, they have said for years, is the driver of U.S. budget deficits,” Politico’s Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer, and Daniel Lippman wrote.

Also in the works is a plan for a second round of tax legislation to make tax cuts for individuals permanent. Republicans came under fire during negotiations for providing corporations with a permanent tax cut while individuals and families only received temporary ones, and making individual cuts permanent might help stem the backlash in the lead up to midterms.

Senate passes overwhelmingly unpopular tax bill in the dead of night

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady confirmed the existence of such legislation earlier in March, after President Trump stated three times in the month of February that Brady was working on a second tax bill.

“We think even more can be done,” Brady said during a Fox Business appearance on March 14. “While the tax cuts for families were long-term, they’re not yet permanent. So we’re going to address issues like that. We’re in discussions with the White House, the president, on this issue.”

Making the individual cuts permanent will cost an estimated $1.5 trillion in the decade after 2025, according to a Tax Foundation analysis using numbers from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

As Politico previously reported, Republicans are attempting to use the second round of tax cuts as a way to shame Democrats who fail to support what the GOP sees as their biggest legislative accomplishment during the Trump administration.

Adam Jentleson, who served as deputy chief of staff for the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told Bloomberg there’s “very little chance” that the nine Democrats needed to pass the tax cuts would back a bill centered on making the individual tax changes permanent.

“It is a cheap political exercise and they shouldn’t lend it any more credence than it deserves,” he said.

Legislation like the balanced budget amendment, which forces Washington to be more fiscally responsible, sounds good in theory, but the reality is that, to achieve that goal, cuts will have to made and taxes will likely have to be raised. With a Republican-controlled Congress and a House speaker who has dreamed of slashing entitlement programs since taking office, that most likely means devastating cuts to welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, at the very least.

That Republicans have their eye on slashing government programs comes as no surprise, of course. Shortly after Congress passed the tax bill, The New York Times warned of the “Trojan horse” hidden in the legislation that will serve as the setup for steep cuts. Paul Ryan himself said outright that Medicare and Medicaid were his next targets for 2018.

“We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky’s talk radio show. “… Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that’s really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch Is Now Three Times The Size Of France And Keeps Growing

BuzzFeed News

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch Is Now Three Times The Size Of France And Keeps Growing

The massive accumulation of plastic and other debris in the Pacific Ocean continues to grow as global consumption of the material remains high.

Michelle Broder, BuzzFeed Reporter March 22, 2018.

The giant floating mass of plastic and other debris in the Pacific Ocean is now three times the size of France and growing exponentially, scientists warned in a new report Thursday.

The Ocean Cleanup

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, or GPGP, is not a solid mass, but instead a large area between Hawaii and California where ocean currents have brought together a massive amount of debris that grows denser toward the center of the area.

The Ocean Cleanup

Some of the plastic pieces are very large, while others are tiny fragments called microplastics.

The Ocean Cleanup

About 60% of the plastic produced in the world is less dense than seawater, so when it’s introduced to the marine environment, buoyant pieces are often transported by surface currents and winds, researchers say. Some of the debris gets broken down by sun, wind, and waves and sink. But a lot of it remains on the surface.

The mapping study took three years and employed 30 boats and two aircraft to survey the pollution, which was 16 times larger than previously thought, or three times the size of France. It is also estimated to weigh the equivalent of 500 jumbo jets.

The Ocean Cleanup

The study was conducted by the Ocean Cleanup foundation, which was founded by a Dutch teenager Boyan Slat, now 23, in conjunction with researchers in the US, New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, and Denmark, and published in Scientific Reports.

Peter Dejong / AP

Slat said the data “underlines the urgency of dealing with the plastic pollution problem. Since the results indicate that the amount of hazardous microplastics is set to increase more than tenfold if left to fragment, the time to start is now.”

The trash travels on currents across the ocean, but much of it comes from Asia and fishing activity in the Pacific Ocean, the study found.

The Ocean Cleanup

The study also found that 46% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is made up of discarded fishing nets, which are known to entangle whales, seals, and other marine life.

\Peter Dejong / AP

Up to 20% of the debris in the GPGP also came from the 2011 Japanese tsunami, according to the report.

Peter Dejong / AP

Researchers said the data show “plastic pollution levels are increasing exponentially” inside the patch, “and at a faster rate than in surrounding waters.”

Ocean Cleanup is working on a system to remove the trash and fishing nets, which is set to launch this year.

Michelle Broder Van Dyke is a reporter and night editor for BuzzFeed News and is based in Hawaii.

Contact Michelle Broder Van Dyke at michelle@buzzfeed.com.

British diver films sea of rubbish off Bali

British diver films sea of rubbish off Bali

This video speaks for itself. (Credit: Rich Horner)

Posted by Hashem Al-Ghaili on Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Watchdog: EPA chief’s trip to Italy cost taxpayers $120,000

UPI

Watchdog: EPA chief’s trip to Italy cost taxpayers $120,000

By Susan McFarland March 21, 2018

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is being scrutinized for the amount of money it took to send him to Italy last year. Documents show the costs amount to $120,000. File Photo by Mike Theiler/UPI

March 21 (UPI) — A trip to Italy last year for Environmental Protective Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt cost U.S. taxpayers $120,000, a watchdog said Wednesday.

Costs for Pruitt’s security detail added more than $30,000 to the bill than previously revealed, according to the Environmental Integrity Project, a non-partisan and non-profit watchdog group.

The trip, taken last June, is also under review by the agency’s inspector general.

Previously released travel documents showed the EPA spent close to $90,000 to send Pruitt and his staff to Italy for one day for the G7 environmental summit. Included in that amount was a $36,000 military flight so Pruitt could join President Donald Trump at a Cincinnati event, and then make it to New York in time for his flight to Rome.

A statement by EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said the agency did not deviate from standard protocol when approving that security detail, and followed the same procedures it’s has used for nearly 15 years.

“Administrator Pruitt’s security detail followed the same procedures for the G7 environmental meeting in Italy that were used during EPA Administrators Stephen Johnson, Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy’s trips to Italy,” Wilcox said.

Eric Schaeffer, director of the watchdog and former director of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement, is still critical of the amount spent.

“That’s a lot of money for Mr. Pruitt to tour the Vatican, pose for photos, and tell his European counterparts that global warming doesn’t matter,” he said. “And it doesn’t even include salary costs for everyone who signed up for this tour.”

Pruitt has also faced criticism for flying luxury class during official trips. According to records the EPA provided to the House Oversight Committee, Pruitt spent more than $105,000 in taxpayer funds on first-class flights since becoming President Donald Trump’s EPA chief in February 2017.

Related UPI Stories

E.P.A. broke law by not releasing smog data, judge rules

EPA proposes $236M to partially excavate, cap Missouri Superfund site

EPA pushes Obama-era water rule back two years

Trump EPA Plans New Restrictions on Science Used in Rule Making

Bloomberg – Politics

Trump EPA Plans New Restrictions on Science Used in Rule Making

By Jennifer A Dlouhy March 20, 2018

Scott Pruitt. Photographer: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Bloomberg

EPA Chief Pruitt says data should be objective, transparent

Move could limit reliance on health studies with shielded data

The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to restrict the scientific studies it uses to develop and justify regulations, making it harder to rely on research when its underlying data are shielded from view.

The planned policy shift, urged by conservatives and advisers who guided Donald Trump’s presidential transition, could affect EPA regulations governing climate change, air pollution and clean water for years to come. The move was described by a person familiar with the plan, who asked not to be named discussing the change before it is formally announced.

Although the EPA hasn’t formally announced the policy change, expected in the coming weeks, Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined the broad strokes of the plan for conservatives in a recent meeting and told The Daily Caller he would insist on the details of studies underpinning environmental regulations.

The EPA should rely on science that is “very objective, very transparent and very open,” Pruitt said in a March 13 interview with Bloomberg News, casting his concern as focused on third-party research in which findings are published but the underlying data and methodology aren’t open for scrutiny.

“That’s not right,” Pruitt said. Whenever the EPA gets scientific evaluations from third parties, “the methodology and data need to be a part of the official record — the rule making — so that you and others can look at it and say, ‘was it wisely done?’”

Advocates of the change say that by revisiting the science that underpins a swath of environmental rules, including those governing ozone and mercury pollution, the EPA can begin to undo them.

“The EPA has gotten away from honestly comparing the costs and benefits of regulation, by using black box science that where they are essentially saying ‘trust us,’” said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute that advocates limited government. “It’s a way to justify regulations, far beyond any environmental or health benefits.”

Critics said the move is a way to undermine environmental laws too popular to be undone by Congress.

“It’s just another way to prevent the EPA from using independent science to enforce some of our bedrock environmental laws, like the Clean Air Act,” said Yogin Kothari, a Washington representative with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. “You know you’re not going to be able to undo the Clean Air Act, so instead of attacking the law itself, you attack the process by which the law is implemented.”

Conservatives have pointed to a landmark 1993 air pollution study conducted by Harvard University’s School of Public Health that paved the way for more stringent regulations on air pollution by linking fine particulate matter to mortality risk. The underlying data from that federally funded research, known as the Six Cities Study, was never publicly released because its participants were promised confidentiality, according to the university.

“This canard about ‘secret science’ began as an attempt by industry to undermine the landmark research — from more than two decades ago — that determined air pollution is bad for your health,” said John Walke, director of the clean air project at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “As a result of those findings, EPA forced polluters to clean up their act, saving or improving tens of thousands of lives.”

Depending on the details, the policy could affect both epidemiological studies that rely on confidential medical records, as well as industry-backed research by companies reluctant to share data recorded at oil wells and power plants.

Pruitt to Restrict Use of Scientific Data in EPA Policy-making

EcoWatch

Pruitt to Restrict Use of Scientific Data in EPA Policy-making

Lorraine Chow March 21, 2018

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt. Mitchell Resnick

In the coming weeks, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to announce a proposal that would limit the type of scientific studies and data the agency can use in crafting public health and environmental regulations.

The planned policy shift, first reported by E&E News, would require the EPA to only use scientific findings whose data and methodologies are made public and can be replicated.

The idea has long been championed by House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). The prominent climate change denier proposed a bill last year called the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act, formerly known as The Secret Science Reform Act, that prohibits any future regulations from taking effect unless the underlying scientific data is public.

Smith’s legislation, which is widely criticized by scientific organizations, passed in the House last March but hasn’t left the Senate Environment And Public Works Committee.

Pruitt indicated at a closed-door meeting at the conservative Heritage Foundation last week that he would adopt elements of Smith’s stalled bill, E&E News reported.

Also, in a recent interview with The Daily Caller, the EPA boss said his latest proposal was a transparency measure against what he and his Republican colleagues consider “secret science.”

“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt told the conservative news site. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”

Last year, the EPA head controversially announced a policy that would limit the presence of researchers who have received EPA research grants on the agency’s Scientific Advisory Board.

Those in opposition to Pruitt’s latest policy move say it would undermine the essential mission of the EPA.

Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out that the proposed changes would prohibit the use of personal health data such as private medial records, and confidential business information from even being considered in EPA policymaking.

“Companies could evade accountability for the pollution they create by declaring information about that pollution a ‘trade secret,'” Rosenberg said.

“Fortunately, this nonsensical and dangerous proposal has never been able to make it out of Congress, but Pruitt seems intent on imposing it anyway.”

Sierra Club Associate Director of Federal & Administrative Advocacy Matthew Gravatt said, “By limiting what studies can be used to help keep our air and water clean, our climate safe, and our homes free of toxic chemicals, Pruitt is trying to make it harder for the EPA to protect the health and safety of American families.”

On Tuesday, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents that outline the details of this new policy and its development.

“By limiting what studies can be used to help keep us safe, this reported policy would make it harder for EPA to protect American families from pollution, toxic chemicals, and other threats. The result would be more serious health impacts—from asthma to cancer—for communities across the country,” said EDF Senior Attorney Martha Roberts.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Pruitt to restrict the use of data to craft EPA regulations | TheHill ›

Scott Pruitt: California Can’t ‘Dictate’ National Emissions Policy ›

EPA Sued Over Failure to Release Correspondence With Heartland … ›

Pruitt Sees EPA As Political Stepping Stone ›