The exploitation of threatened slow lorises has spread to Turkey. New research shows that the country is the latest to use the tiny primates as tourist props, where people can pose with the animals for a nominal fee. Researchers found dozens of examples of tourists posing with two vulnerable South Asian loris species, despite the fact that no primate has ever been legally imported into Turkey. Lorises, perhaps best known from seemingly adorable YouTube videos, have become increasingly illegally trafficked in recent years. The fragile, nocturnal animals suffer greatly from the practice and rarely survive long in captivity.
Conserving Forests for the Good of All
The Old-Growth Forest Network works to protect America’s shrinking woodlands.
Oaks, tulip poplars and hickory trees rise to form the old-growth canopy of the James Madison Landmark Forest, which encompasses 200 acres behind Montpelier, the fourth president’s historic home. In the spring in Virginia, a walk among these giants is warm and breezy. Shade and sun shift, a wood thrush sings, an inchworm wafts midair, and the old woods offer a sense of both escape and belonging.
The James Madison Landmark Forest is one of 65 such areas in 16 states operating under the banner of the Old-Growth Forest Network, an organization that identifies, protects and connects U.S. forests. Founded in Maryland in 2012, the network serves to unify pro-forest groups, tree-loving activists and landowners around the goal of creating a network of accessible old-growth and “future old-growth” forests across the country — one within each county where forest naturally grows. Only forests made accessible to the public and protected from commercial timbering can join the network.
The network is “the only group focused specifically on forest preservation, nationally,” founder Joan Maloof explains to me via email. While other groups focus on forests, she says, they may concentrate on forests within a specific region, with a specific ownership, or on a broader range of conservation areas.
The organization also serves to connect smaller groups. “So many ’Friends of the Forest‘ types groups exist,” Maloof says, “but they have no umbrella group to assist, advise and help with communications. Think of all the land trusts before the Land Trust Alliance. We want to be the organization that helps to network all the smaller groups together.”
She adds that she hopes by working together they can all protect more forests, something that’s much needed. “We’re still losing forest cover and ancient forests,” she says. “That’s unacceptable. Something must be done.”
While planning out the network, Maloof, a professor emeritus at Salisbury University, evaluated the types and distribution of forests across the United States and calculated that out of 3,140 counties, an estimated 2,370 will support forests. In many of these counties, the forests are already located on protected state or federal land. When this is not the case, the network plans to work with cities, local nonprofits and private citizens to establish protected and visitor-friendly forested areas.
For example, Whiteoak Canyon in Virginia’s Shenandoah National Park is already protected and accessible, so the group “merely draws attention to it,” Maloof explains.
At other times forests receive additional protections. When the city of Salisbury, Maryland, was planning to build a ball field in a Wicomico County wooded park — which protects the town’s main municipal drinking well — the network stepped in. It drew public attention to the plan and the community convinced the city to save the forest.
In other instances, potential network forests are protected but not yet open to all; Camp Oty’okwa in Ohio opened its woods trail to the public in order to join.
In some cases, according to Maloof, the network encounters “fear and skepticism” from forest managers who don’t want to be “constrained” by blocking commercial timbering. “Even those in charge of our giant sequoia groves act this way,” she says. “Do we want to constrain what can happen to those forests? Absolutely. They should want that too.” But, she adds, some forest supervisors and managers “get it” and embrace the network immediately.
The Need for Old-growth Forests
As Maloof traveled the United States and studied the history of the land, she learned that only a small portion of the untouched forests remain. According to the U.S. Forest Service, the country contained more than 1 billion acres of forest in 1530. By 2014 that was down to 766 million acres, much of which contained fairly young trees.
In terms of old-growth forests, a 2015 United Nations Forest Resource Assessment found, about 186 million acres of primary or “not significantly disturbed” native forests remain in the United States, down from 257.4 million just 10 years earlier.
Old-growth forests contain trees hundreds or thousands of years old, which typically have wide diameters and create complex canopies. To Maloof these forests are “so much more than trees,” she says. “We need ancient forests as habitat for other organisms as much as we need them for clean air and clean water.”
The loss of old-growth forests is also the loss of powerful carbon sequestration sites.
“Old forests sequester more carbon and more efficiently than any other terrestrial ecosystem,” says Ernie Reed, president of the forest preservation nonprofit Wild Virginia. A study published in the journal Ecology in 2015 backs up this statement. It found the total carbon density in old-growth forests to be 30 percent higher than in younger forests, and dead-wood carbon density to be 1,800 percent higher.
“Highlighting those remnants of old-growth forests that embody a hint of their earlier majesty and diversity is of the utmost importance,” says Reed, in praise of the network’s mission. Wild Virginia runs a grassroots Forest Defense Task Force that allows trained volunteers to participate in forest management and engagement with the Forest Service. Reed thinks habitat fragmentation is the most significant risk to Virginia forests, pointing out forests are often carved “into smaller and smaller pieces” by the creation of energy infrastructure and resource extraction.
Moving Toward the Future
The Trump administration’s actions relating to the environment — including restarting protested pipelines, reviewing national monuments and deleting climate change data — have alarmed many conservationists. Maloof says she is “especially concerned about the current talk of monetizing our natural resources and opening more areas to industry. These natural areas are most valuable just as they are.”
© 2017 Julia Travers. All rights reserved.
Chasing Coral and Ice, Running Out of Time
Director Jeff Orlowski’s documentary "Chasing Coral" is visual evidence from the front lines of a planet falling apart.
“Without a healthy ocean, we do not have a healthy planet,” explains Richard Vevers, founder of a nonprofit called The Ocean Agency, at the outset of director Jeff Orlowski’s sobering new documentary Chasing Coral. The ocean, he says, “controls the weather, the climate, the oxygen we breathe.”
But despite the ocean’s existential role in planetary health, many people have no idea we’re currently engineering the extinction of aquatic life around the globe. That includes our monumental coral reefs, often referred to as the “rainforests of the sea,” about which we know quite little and won’t have much time to learn, because climate change is killing them faster than we can study them.
And what we have recently learned about reef extinction is partially thanks to Vevers, one of Chasing Coral’s chief subjects, whose stunning 360-degree image surveys of ravaged coral in 13 countries provide some of the documentary’s most powerful moments.
Orlowski’s award-winning 2012 documentary Chasing Ice painstakingly documented the titanic collapse of glaciers across the Arctic. When Vevers screened that movie, he knew he’d found the filmmaker who could communicate the accelerating madness of global warming and our responsibility for creating and solving it.
“We look at it as visual evidence,” Orlowski told me by phone, ahead of Chasing Coral’s July 14 premiere on Netflix. “People dismiss so many threats from climate change as being part of the natural cycle. Instead of just providing a snapshot of what that looks like, we need to show people, in greater detail, the evidence of what’s going on.”
Even before its online premiere, the film is already having an impact. Footage from Chasing Coral and Orlowski’s earlier film will be used as evidence in Juliana v. U.S., the landmark climate change lawsuit filed against the United States government on behalf of a group of teens, and supported by by Our Children’s Trust, which recently landed a trial date in February 2018.
Scott Thill: So you’ve gone from chasing ice to chasing coral.
Jeff Orlowski: Yes. Unintentionally, we’ve been on the front lines of the planet falling apart.
Thill: What did you learn on the front lines once you trained your cameras on reefs?
Orlowski: I hadn’t spent much time in the ocean before this project. And with Chasing Ice, I thought I knew everything there is to know about climate change. But once I started learning about the ocean’s story, it completely transformed me. I didn’t realize how fast the ocean was changing; that was the biggest thing. The hit to the biological diversity was across the board.
Thill: The speed at which this was happening is what surprised you the most?
Orlowski: Yeah, the acceleration. There’s a statistic explaining that 93 percent of the energy from climate change is being absorbed by the ocean. So what we see with coral reefs right now is they have reached the tipping point between living and dying. The oceans have warmed enough, and are projected to continue warming enough, that we will lose them. What still constantly surprises me is how many other tipping points there are around this temperature threshold. We’re starting to hit those points at which species will not survive; that is probably the most shocking thing.
Something I learned more recently, which is not in the film, is that we are at a state right where we’re starting to lose oxygen in the atmosphere, in large part because we are killing the large oxygen producers on the planet. These are the consequences of carbon emissions.
Thill: Chasing Coral likens temperature degree rise in the ocean to that of our bodies, a more accurate way of gauging its danger than comparing it to surface temperature.
Orlowski: That was another huge shift in my understanding in how to communicate the issue. Because the oceans have absorbed so much heat, they operate very differently than air. So when people think about climate change, they tend to think that they can survive a wide temperature range, but that’s not how it happens with oceans.
Thill: Speaking of acceleration, Chasing Coral begins by talking about how time slows down when humans dive into the ocean, but ends with exponential bleaching taking place over months, barely years, with coral dying before your eyes.
Orlowski: I’m so glad you picked up on that. An interesting thing for me was learning about the physiological experience you have when scuba diving. Apparently, there is a shift in your body chemistry — metabolism, resting heart rate, and so on — that particularly happens when your face is submerged in water. When you dive, it really does feel like time slows down. So in Chasing Coral, as well as Chasing Ice, we try to play with time using time-lapse and slow-motion shooting. The manipulation of time is a recurring theme of both films, although I’ve only recently begun to think of it in that way.
After scuba diving, when I watch underwater footage of aquatic life in real time, it actually feels like it’s sped up. When you’re seeing it happen in the water, because your body is processing time in a different way, it feels like it’s actually slower. Almost all of the underwater footage in the film is shot and played back in slow motion, so that when you’re experiencing it, it feels closer to what you feel in the water and not what real-time footage looks like. It’s a very odd thing that goes on in the brain.
Thill: Which bleeds into another of your film’s themes, that of aliens and alienation. Humans are alienated from processes taking place in oceans that cover the majority of Earth, but we still consider oceanic biodiversity to be alien.
Orlowski: Humans are alienated from the processes that allow life to exist on the planet. We have systematically alienated ourselves from nature over the last couple of centuries, and I think that’s one of the big issues we’re confronting in the film. There is a concept called nature deficit disorder, which is when children grow up without exposure to nature, and then don’t have a care and concern for it.
I grew up in New York, so my upbringing was in Manhattan. Look at any big city; food just comes to you, and waste just disappears. You’re just a pass-through. Most people aren’t aware of how their food is made, or where their water comes from. The resources that keep us alive come in, and then someone magically takes the garbage away. So we are seeing huge consequences happening to those parts of the planet where our food is made and trash is taken.
Thill: The part of Chasing Coral when your crew dives into bleached reefs off of a floating restaurant, whose customers have no idea what is happening, hammers that disconnection home.
Orlowski: That was a very poignant moment for all of us. That’s the whole problem in a nutshell.
Thill: How do you think governments are failing the reefs and what do you think they should be doing to save them?
Orlowski: Governments are failing reefs, but they are also failing human civilization, and the future. One of government’s roles is to protect people from threats they might not even know about, because we cannot expect the public to know all of them. Are you familiar with the Our Children’s Trust lawsuit?
Thill: Absolutely. It’s awesome.
Orlowski: Yeah, it’s phenomenal. They’re using footage from Chasing Ice and Chasing Coral as evidence in the lawsuit, which is really exciting. This is a prime example of youth coming out and explicitly arguing that the government is not protecting their rights. Youth are disproportionally going to be affected by climate change, because it’s going to get worse, so the whole premise of their legal argument is that government is screwing over kids.
Thill: So you’re doing the government’s job by documenting these processes so youth can understand and protect themselves. To get meta, much of your film is about the role of film, in terms of what it can do to illuminate and combat warming and extinction.
Orlowski: We look at it as visual evidence; this is what I learned from photographer James Balog on Chasing Ice. People dismiss so many threats from climate change as being part of the natural cycle. Instead of just providing a snapshot of what that looks like, we need to show people, in greater detail, the evidence of what’s going on. Instead of a polar bear on an iceberg, we need to show time-lapses of glacial retreat. Instead of showing them bleached coral, we really wanted to show the process in action, what the transition over time looks like. It’s a harder thing to capture, but a much more impactful argument.
Thill: The technical and emotional struggle to capture all of it is a major part of the film.
Orlowski: Exactly, and the hope there is to make it more accessible through a human story and the experience of a team, so it’s not just the science speaking. It’s a team of humans, and you can sense their concerns, passions and hopes. Through them, hopefully you can connect to the issue in a broader way.
Thill: Speaking of the wider lens, what do you hope the film will accomplish?
Orlowski: I look at the film as trying to be this definitive argument that helps end denialism. I haven’t met anyone who has seen the film and still said climate change is a hoax. I’m trying to find more and more climate deniers to share the film with, just to get a sense of what their take is. But we need to get past this argument, so we can actually move toward solutions. Our hope is that this film can be another piece of visual storytelling that will open people’s hearts and minds to what is going on.
Thill: The last time we talked, you said that we are slaves to fossil fuels. Has that changed?
Orlowski: We have a civilization that has thrived because of fossil fuels, just like, prior to that, we had a civilization that thrived on whale oil. But we don’t need it to continue living the quality of life that we want, and I think that’s the big shift we’re seeing in technology right now. You can put solar panels on your house and you can drive an electric car. I’m blown away by the changes in clean energy technology that we have seen in only the last five years. NASA and Boeing are developing hybrid planes; there is a company in France which announced an electric plane that can travel 600 miles on a single charge. The technology is changing so rapidly, which gives me hope more than anything else. Our civilization prospered because of fossil fuels, but that doesn’t mean we need fossil fuels to continue to prosper.
Watch the trailer to Chasing Coral below:
200 Environmental Activists Killed in 2016
A record number of environmental activists and defenders were killed in 2016 — at least 200 people in 24 countries, according to records compiled by the organization Global Witness. The list includes activists who were protesting dams, mines, logging or agriculture, as well as wildlife rangers, forest guards and indigenous peoples. Global Witness says the actual number of slain activists may be much higher, as many deaths go unreported. Will this number continue to rise? Global Witness has tracked at least 98 more murders in the first five months of 2017.
Trump Has Secretive Teams to Roll Back Regulations
An investigation finds many appointees with potential conflicts of interest.
by Robert Faturechi, ProPublica, and Danielle Ivory, The New York Times
President Trump entered office pledging to cut red tape, and within weeks, he ordered his administration to assemble teams to aggressively scale back government regulations.
But the effort — a signature theme in Trump’s populist campaign for the White House — is being conducted in large part out of public view and often by political appointees with deep industry ties and potential conflicts.
Most government agencies have declined to disclose information about their deregulation teams. But ProPublica and The New York Times identified 71 appointees, including 28 with potential conflicts, through interviews, public records and documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Some appointees are reviewing rules their previous employers sought to weaken or kill, and at least two may be positioned to profit if certain regulations are undone.
The appointees include lawyers who have represented businesses in cases against government regulators, staff members of political dark money groups, employees of industry-funded organizations opposed to environmental rules and at least three people who were registered to lobby the agencies they now work for.
At the Education Department alone, two members of the deregulation team were most recently employed by pro-charter advocacy groups or operators, and one appointee was an executive handling regulatory issues at a for-profit college operator.
So far, the process has been scattershot. Some agencies have been soliciting public feedback, while others refuse even to disclose who is in charge of the review. In many cases, responses to public records requests have been denied, delayed or severely redacted.
The Interior Department has not disclosed the correspondence and calendars for its team. But a review of more than 1,300 pages of handwritten sign-in sheets for guests visiting the agency’s headquarters in Washington found that appointees had met regularly with industry representatives.
Over a four-month period, from February through May, at least 58 representatives of the oil and gas industry signed their names on the agency’s visitor logs before meeting with appointees.
The EPA also rejected requests to release the appointment calendar of the official leading its team — a former top executive for an industry-funded political group — even as she met privately with industry representatives.
And the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security provided the titles for most appointees to their review teams, but not names.
When asked for comment about the activities of the deregulation teams, the White House referred reporters to the Office of Management and Budget.
Meghan Burris, a spokeswoman there, said: “As previous administrations have recognized, it’s good government to periodically reassess existing regulations. Past regulatory review efforts, however, have not taken a consistent enough look at regulations on the books.”
With billions of dollars at stake in the push to deregulate, corporations and other industry groups are hiring lawyers, lobbyists and economists to help navigate this new avenue for influence. Getting to the front of the line is crucial, as it can take years to effect regulatory changes.
“Competition will be fierce,” the law firm Clark Hill, which represents businesses pitching the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a marketing memo. “In all likelihood, interested parties will need to develop a multi-pronged strategy to expand support and win pre-eminence over competing regulatory rollback candidates.”
Jane Luxton, a lawyer at the firm, said she advised clients to pay for economic and legal analyses that government agencies, short on staff, could use to expedite changes. She declined to identify the clients.
“You may say this is an agency’s job, but the agencies are totally overloaded,” Luxton said.
On a cloudy, humid day in March, Laura Peterson, a top lobbyist for Syngenta, arrived at the headquarters for the Interior Department. She looped the letter “L” across the agency’s sign-in sheet.
Her company, a top pesticide maker based in Switzerland, had spent eight years and millions of dollars lobbying the Obama administration on environmental rules, with limited success.
But Peterson had an in with the new administration.
Scott Cameron, newly installed at the Interior Department and a member of its deregulation team, had just left a nonprofit he had founded. He had advocated getting pesticides approved and out to market faster. His group counted Syngenta as a financial partner.
The meeting with Peterson was one of the first Cameron took as a new government official.
Neither side would reveal what was discussed. “I’m not sure that’s reporting information I have to give you,” Peterson said.
But lobbying records offered clues.
Syngenta has been one of several pesticide manufacturers pushing for changes to the Endangered Species Act. When federal agencies take actions that may jeopardize endangered animals or plants, they are generally supposed to consult with the Interior Department, which could raise objections.
For decades, the EPA largely ignored this provision when approving new pesticides. But recently, a legal challenge from environmental groups forced its hand — a change that affected Syngenta.
Pesticide lobbyists have been working behind the scenes at agencies and on Capitol Hill to change the provision. Companies have argued that they should be exempt from consulting with the Interior Department because they already undergo EPA approval.
Along with spending millions of dollars on lobbying, they have funded advocacy groups aligned with their cause. Cameron’s nonprofit, the Reduce Risks From Invasive Species Coalition, was one such group for Syngenta.
The organization says on its website that its goals include reducing “the regulatory burden of the Endangered Species Act on American society by addressing invasive species.” One way to do that is to use pesticides. The nonprofit’s mission includes creating “business opportunities for commercial products and services used to control invasive species.”
Because donations are not publicly reported, it is unclear how much Syngenta has contributed to Cameron’s organization, but his group has called the pesticide company one of its “generous sponsors.”
Cameron also served on a committee of experts and stakeholders, including Syngenta, that advised the federal government on decisions related to invasive species. At a committee event last July, he said that one of his priorities was “getting biocontrol agents to market faster,” according to meeting minutes.
Paul Minehart, a Syngenta spokesman, said: “Employees regularly engage with those in government that relate to agriculture and our business. Our purpose is to balance serving the public health and environment with enabling farmers’ access to innovation.”
A spokeswoman for the Interior Department did not respond to questions about how Cameron’s relationship with Syngenta might influence his review of regulations.
Under the law, members of the Trump administration can seek ethics waivers to work on issues that overlap with their past business careers. They can also formally recuse themselves when potential conflicts arise.
In many cases, the administration has refused to say whether appointees to Trump’s deregulation teams have done either.
One such appointee is Samantha Dravis, the chairwoman of the deregulation team at the EPA, who was a top official at the Republican Attorneys General Association. Dravis was also president of the Rule of Law Defense Fund, which brought together energy companies and Republican attorneys general to file lawsuits against the federal government over Obama-era environmental regulations.
The Republican association’s work has been criticized as a vehicle for corporate donors to gain the credibility and expertise of state attorneys general in fighting federal regulations. Donors include the American Petroleum Institute, the energy company ConocoPhillips and the coal giant Alpha Natural Resources.
The Republican association also received funding from Freedom Partners, backed by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch. Dravis worked for that group as well, which recently identified regulations it wants eliminated. Among them are EPA rules relating to clean-water protections and restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
Liz Bowman, an EPA spokeswoman, declined to say whether Dravis had recused herself from issues dealing with previous employers or their backers, or had discussed regulations with any of them.
“As you will find when you receive Samantha’s calendar, she has met with a range of stakeholders, including nonprofits, industry groups and others, on a wide range of issues,” Bowman said.
Bowman said the calendar could be obtained through a public records request. ProPublica and The Times had already filed a request for records including calendars, but the agency’s response did not include those documents. (An appeal was filed, but the calendar has not yet been released.)
“We take our ethics responsibilities seriously,” Bowman said. “All political staff have had an ethics briefing and know their obligations.”
Addressing the agency’s regulatory efforts, she said, “We are here to enact a positive environmental agenda that provides real results to the American people, without unnecessarily hamstringing our economy.”
At the Agriculture Department, the only known appointee to the deregulation team is Rebeckah Adcock. She previously lobbied the department as a top executive both at CropLife America, a trade association for pesticide makers, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group for farmers.
The department deals with many issues involving farmers, including crop insurance and land conservation rules, but it would not disclose whether Adcock had recused herself from discussions affecting her past employers.
At the Energy Department, a member of the deregulation team is Brian McCormack, who formerly handled political and external affairs for Edison Electric Institute, a trade association representing investor-owned electrical utilities.
While there, McCormack worked with the American Legislative Exchange Council, an industry-funded group. Both organizations fought against rooftop solar policies in statehouses across the country. Utility companies lose money when customers generate their own power, even more so when they are required to pay consumers who send surplus energy back into the grid.
Though the Energy Department does not directly regulate electrical utilities, it does help oversee international electricity trade, the promotion of renewable energy and the security of domestic energy production. After joining the department, McCormack helped start a review of the nation’s electrical grid, according to an agency memo.
Clean-energy advocates fear the inquiry will cast solar energy, which can fluctuate, as a threat to grid reliability. Such a finding could scare off state public utility commissions considering solar policies and serve as a boon for electrical utilities, said Matt Kasper, research director at the Energy and Policy Institute, an environmental group.
Disclosure records show that while McCormack was at Edison, the trade group lobbied the federal government, including the Energy Department, on issues including grid reliability.
The department would not answer questions about McCormack’s involvement with those issues.
Across the government, at least two appointees to deregulation teams have been granted waivers from ethics rules related to prior jobs, and at least nine others have pledged to recuse themselves from issues related to former employers or clients.
Some of the recusals involve appointees at the Small Business Administration and the Education Department, including Bob Eitel, who leads the education team and was vice president for regulatory legal services at an operator of for-profit colleges.
Another recusal involves Byron Brown, an EPA appointee who is married to a senior government affairs manager for the Hess Corporation, the oil and gas company.
Hess was fined and ordered to spend more than $45 million on pollution controls by the EPA during the Obama administration because of alleged Clean Air Act violations at its refinery in Port Reading, N.J. Disclosure records show that Brown’s wife, Lesley Schaaff, lobbied the EPA last year on behalf of the company.
An EPA spokeswoman declined to say whether Brown or Schaaff owned Hess stock, though an agency ethics official said Brown had recused himself from evaluating regulations affecting the company.
The agency declined to say whether Brown would also recuse himself from issues affecting the American Petroleum Institute, where his wife’s company is a member. The association has lobbied to ease Obama-era natural gas rules, complaining in a recent letter to Brown’s team about an “unprecedented level of federal regulatory actions targeting our industry.”
Before being selected to lead the deregulation team at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Maren Kasper was a director at Roofstock, an online marketplace for investors in single-family rental properties. Financial disclosure records show Kasper owned a stake in the company worth up to $50,000.
Changes at HUD could increase investor interest in rental homes, affecting a company like Roofstock. The agency, for example, oversees the federal government’s Section 8 subsidies program for low-income renters.
Ethics officials allowed Kasper to keep her stake, but she pledged not to take actions that would affect it. (A spokesman for HUD said Kasper’s tenure on the deregulation task force has since ended.)
One by one, scientists, educators and environmental activists approached the microphone and urged government officials not to weaken regulations intended to protect children from lead.
The forum, run by the EPA in a drab basement meeting room in Washington, was part of the agency’s push to identify regulations that were excessive and burdensome to businesses.
Few businesspeople showed up. As public hearings on regulations have played out in recent weeks, many industry and corporate representatives have instead met with Trump administration officials behind closed doors.
Still, the EPA has asked for written comments and held about a dozen public meetings. The agency has received more than 467,000 comments, many of them critical of potential rollbacks, but also some from businesses large and small pleading for relief from regulatory costs or confusion.
After a quiet moment at the meeting to discuss lead regulations, the owner of a local painting company, Brian McCracken, moved to the microphone.
McCracken was frustrated by what he described as costly rules that forced him to test for lead-based paint in homes before he could begin painting. Each test kit costs about $2, and he may need six per room. If a family then declines to hire him, those costs come out of his pocket.
“I don’t think anyone is sitting here saying that lead-based dust does not hurt children,” he said. “That’s not what we are talking about. What the contractor needs is a better way to test.”
His voice quavered: “Why do I have to educate the general public about the hazards that generations before me created? It doesn’t make sense at all.”
Trump is not the first president to take on such frustrations.
President Bill Clinton declared the federal government was failing to regulate “without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society.” He assigned Vice President Al Gore to collect agencies’ suggestions for rules that should go. One rule dictated how to measure the consistency of grits.
President George W. Bush’s regulatory overhaul focused more on how new regulations were created. The administration installed a political appointee inside each agency who generally had to sign off before any significant new rule could be initiated. At the EPA for a time, that official came from an industry-funded think tank.
President Barack Obama ordered regular updates from each agency about the effectiveness of rules already on the books.
“When you raise the profile, when it’s clearly an executive priority, it gets attention,” said Heather Krause, director of strategic issues at the Government Accountability Office, the main auditor of the federal government. According to the auditor’s analysis, the effect under Obama was mostly to clarify and streamline rules, not eliminate them.
Like Bush, Trump has empowered political appointees. Though some agencies have included career staff members on their review teams, an executive order from Trump creating the teams does not require it — nonpolitical employees are generally believed to be more wedded to existing rules. And like Obama, Trump has imposed regular reporting requirements.
But Trump, who spent his business career on the other side of government regulations, has put an emphasis on cutting old rules.
The same day he signed the executive order initiating the review, he addressed a large crowd of conservative activists at a Maryland convention center.
“We have begun a historic program to reduce the regulations that are crushing our economy — crushing,” Trump said. “We’re going to put the regulations industry out of work and out of business.”
Amit Narang, a regulatory expert at the liberal advocacy group Public Citizen, said Trump’s decision to create teams of political appointees — formally known as regulatory reform task forces — should make it easier for the White House to overcome bureaucratic resistance to his rollback plans.
“To the extent there’s a deep state effect in this administration,” Narang said, “the task force will be more effective in trying to get the agenda in place.”
The New York Times’ Kitty Bennett contributed reporting to this story.
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.
Climate Deniers or Neighbors?
Angry messages to the Trump-supporting mayor of Tangier Island illustrate a need to listen, not to shout.
The calls rolled in:
“I hope you sink.”
“You’re racist.”
“We’re going to boycott you.”
So it went for Mayor James “Ooker” Eskridge and the Chesapeake Bay island of 400 fishermen that he calls home: messages from people who knew nothing about Tangier Island or the long, frustrating and exhausting fight to save it.
The backlash began in June, when CNN aired a story on the Tangiermen’s struggles to secure a seawall that would shore up the island. The place is losing land at a rate of about 15 feet a year, and it doesn’t have much more to give. CNN’s report wouldn’t have been so different from other tales of towns losing their battles with climate change — except that Eskridge mentioned two things: He doesn’t believe the sea is rising, and he loves Donald Trump like a family member.
Trump, devoted CNN viewer that he is, called Eskridge and told him not to worry about his future.
“Your island has been there for hundreds of years,” he told Eskridge, “and I believe your island will be there for hundreds more.”
That phone call, recounted in The Washington Post, was apparently enough for strangers to reach out to the picturesque island and wish death upon it. The reaction surprised the mayor, who, like many on the island, works long days catching crabs and then overseeing the activities at his shedding shanty.
“People make comments about us. They don’t know us. They don’t understand us,” Eskridge told me. “If we disagree or we have a different way of thinking, that’s no reason to hate somebody or wish him dead.”
I do know Ooker Eskridge. I’ve been interviewing him for years. Along with my then-8-year-old daughter, I spent the better part of three days with him in 2014 to gather information for a couple of stories, and I’ve been back since, too. I know he can tell you as much about birds as any ornithologist. I know he has a pet osprey that returns every year to a platform he built near his shanty. I know he’s a devout Christian with a Star of David tattooed on his arm. I know he and his wife adopted a girl from India, Sreedevi, then adopted three more and helped others on the island do the same. He named his boat Sreedevi, in keeping with the tradition of a Chesapeake waterman naming his first boat after his daughter. She’s probably the only Sreedevi in a bay full of boats named Barbara and Anne. (And one Wicked Witch, and one Crazy Bitch, but that’s another story, and more likely to be about ex-wives than daughters.)
Some journalists would call Eskridge a climate denier, shoving him into a familiar place in a familiar debate between scientists and industry-backed “climate skeptics.” Maybe it’s easy to dismiss Eskridge as a man who ignores what’s plain to see. And maybe, for people who’ve gotten to be deeply intolerant of other points of view, it’s not much of a leap to say that he and his island deserve what they get.
But Eskridge doesn’t actually deny that the waters around his island are rising. He’s just convinced that the bigger problem is erosion. For decades he has pleaded with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build him a seawall, like the one that already protects the island’s airport and does a great job at it. He even found a guy willing to sink barges off the coast to shore up the island. The federal government nixed the idea.
He’s not the only one in a slowly sinking boat. Denise Drewer, the mayor of tiny Saxis, Va. — another Eastern Shore island, this one connected to the mainland by road — has been begging the Corps for help. On Taylor’s Island, Bruce Colson is hoping the Corps will add dredge material to nearby James Island to protect his campground from encroaching water. In southern Dorchester County, council members want to protect schoolchildren who can’t get to the bus because of high water.
In all those places I’ve have reported on, people blame the problem on “erosion” and “tides.” No one’s talking about Arctic ice melt. On the Eastern Shore, the oceanographer Bill Boicourt once told me, opinions on climate change range from an “open skepticism to a closed skepticism.” But whatever they believe is causing the problem, the solutions are the same: Fortify with breakwaters and seawalls or plan an orderly retreat and settle elsewhere.
Eskridge — and Colson and Drewer and their neighbors — are not the political opportunists who deny climate change and then quietly ask oceanographers how much time their North Carolina beach house has. They’re farmers, fishermen, real estate agents, businesspeople and ministers. They are real people with real doubts and concerns. They are perspectives we can’t afford to ignore.
I can see why environmentalists would be dismissive of the idea that Donald Trump is going to solve such places’ problems. He wants to cut the Corps’ budget, which means that Tangier’s seawall is far less likely. He wants to cut NOAA, which will mean less planning for adaptation in coastal communities. The U.S. Geological Survey conducts key monitoring at tide gauges, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rebuilds habitat for birds, which can also protect populated islands; he wants to cut their budgets too. And of course, he wants big cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency, which is supposed to ensure the waters are clean enough for Tangiermen to keep crabbing for as long as they are able to stay.
Yet 87 percent of the Tangiermen voted for Trump. They backed him because, like millions of other Americans, they felt they had nothing left to lose. Maybe a billionaire, outside of the political system, would shake up Washington, pay attention to the rural areas, and give them the thing that could save them, whether it’s a bowling alley in South Carolina or a new factory in Ohio or some rock for a wall on Tangier. After years of false promises, Eskridge was elated that someone seemed to be listening. Whatever comes of Trump’s call, that’s something not to ignore, either.
© 2017 Rona Kobell. All rights reserved.
The opinions expressed above at those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Revelator, the Center for Biological Diversity, or their employees.
Previously in The Revelator:
“Biological Annihilation”
Extinction starts to have an effect on ecosystems long before a species fully disappears. A new paper calls this “biological annihilation” — the effect that localized extinction has on a region when certain species, such as lions, become extirpated from their former habitats. The paper argues we should pay more attention to species even if they are considered “of low concern,” because many of them are actually in decline. Although these species are not currently considered threatened with extinction, their “population decay” causes cascading effects on the abundance of other local species — which, the paper warns, will eventually result in yet more extinctions.
4 Thoughts on World Population Day
We need to solve runaway human population growth if we hope to fix any other environmental problems.
Today, as on every July 11th, the United Nations celebrates World Population Day, an occasion designated to “focus attention on the urgency and importance of population issues.”
Let’s take a look at some of those issues.
1. We’re not making much, if any, progress.
The first World Population Day was held in 1990, when the world population was about 5.3 billion.
That number has now soared to more than 7.5 billion.
And if you think things are crowded now, just wait a few years. A recent United Nations study calculates the world human population will hit 8 billion in 2023 and balloon to 9.8 billion by 2050.
Now, that increase is not universal. Some countries will actually see declines — all European nations, for example — but the UN found that half of the population growth will take place in just nine countries: India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, the United Republic of Tanzania, the United States of America, Uganda and Indonesia. India will eclipse China as the world’s most populous country by about 2024, while Nigeria will pass the U.S. as the country with the third-biggest population by 2050.
2. It’s not about just the number of people, but also what they consume.
We have more people now, but our average impact is also growing. One recent study found that more than 10 percent of the world population classifies as medically obese. That’s obviously just one marker for overconsumption, but it serves as a pretty potent illustration of how much the human population drives the environmental impact of our food system alone. Add in carbon emissions, deforestation, species habitat loss and extinction and we’ve got a real mess on our hands.
3. It’s also about inequality.
Much of the population explosion boils down to gender inequality. Women around the world lack access to education, social status, jobs, family planning and medical care — which drives population growth. Solving these problems would not only help make society more equal; as Paul Hawken notes in his book “Drawdown,” it could also give us some of the tools we need to help tackle global warming.
And this is also about wealth inequality. The world’s five richest men now control more wealth than half of the world’s population. With extreme poverty affecting populations around the world, this top-heavy concentration of assets leaves little opportunity for anything to get better.
4. Population needs to be a priority.
I know this is a tough issue to talk about. No one wants to say “you should have fewer kids,” but really, the world needs to have fewer kids and we need to do more for the people we already have. Every other topic we cover here on The Revelator — climate change, pollution, clean water, overdevelopment and the extinction crisis — stems at least in part from the impact of the ever-increasing human population and the systemic inequality with which we all live.
This is unsustainable. We need to take population issues seriously, both for the billions of people already on this planet and for the billions of other species that share our home.
Does Scott Pruitt Have a Case for Repealing the Clean Water Rule?
Or do his arguments not hold water?
On June 27, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule rescinding the Obama administration’s “Clean Water Rule.” This regulation is designed to clarify which streams, lakes, wetlands and other water bodies fall under the protection of the Clean Water Act.
EPA developed the Clean Water Rule in an attempt to resolve uncertainty created by a fractured 2006 Supreme Court decision, Rapanos v. United States. The Rapanos ruling caused widespread confusion about which waters were covered, creating uncertainty for farmers, developers and conservation groups. Efforts to clarify it through informal guidance or congressional action had failed, and EPA acted under mounting pressure from various quarters, including some members of the court.
As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt unsuccessfully sued to kill the rule, which he has called “the greatest blow to private property rights the modern era has seen.” Now he is seeking to accomplish by administrative fiat what he failed to achieve in court. However, he faces a stiff challenge from supporters of the rule, and the courts may not buy his arguments for wiping a rule off the books.
Making the case for change
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal agencies must follow specific steps when they seek to establish or repeal a regulation. These procedures are meant to establish efficiency, consistency and accountability. To promote fairness and transparency, the law requires that the public must have meaningful opportunity to comment on proposed rules before they take effect.
The Clean Water Rule emerged from an extensive rule-making process that featured over 400 meetings with state, tribal and local officials and numerous stakeholders representing business, environmental and public health organizations. It generated over one million comments, the bulk of which supported the rule.
This process was preceded by a comprehensive peer-reviewed scientific assessment that synthesized over a thousand studies documenting the importance of small streams and wetlands to the health of large rivers, lakes and estuaries. According to a 2015 fact sheet, which has been scrubbed from EPA’s website but is archived here, the rule protects streams that roughly one in three Americans depend upon for their drinking water.
To undo the Clean Water Rule, EPA will have to go through the same notice-and-comment process. Pruitt’s proposal to rescind the rule will be published in the Federal Register sometime in the near future. From that date, the public will have just 30 days to file written comments electronically. (Normally public comment periods last for 60 days, and the Clean Water Rule was open for comment for 120 days.)
USEPA/Flickr
EPA must then review and respond to the comments, make any changes it deems necessary and publish a final rule. Parties with standing can then challenge the final rule, although there is a question as to which court will have jurisdiction to hear them. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue in the fall. In weighing challenges, the key question the court must address is whether EPA’s action is “arbitrary and capricious,” meaning that the agency has failed to consider important aspects of the problem or explain its reasoning.
In a seminal 1983 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that an agency must supply a “reasoned analysis” when it rescinds a rule adopted by a previous administration. The court acknowledged that agencies have some discretion to change direction in response to changing circumstances. However, it noted that “the forces of change do not always or necessarily point in the direction of deregulation.” Further, the court said that a decision to rescind a rule would be arbitrary and capricious if it offers an explanation “that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.”
Pruitt asserts that his repeal “need not be based upon a change of facts or circumstances,” citing a 2009 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia. But in my view, Pruitt reads too much into that decision, which simply held that an agency did not face “heightened scrutiny” – that is, an extra-high bar – when changing policy, but must still “show that there are good reasons for the new policy.” As Justice Breyer observed, dissenting in the same case, “Where does, and why would, the Administrative Procedure Act grant agencies the freedom to change major policies on the basis of nothing more than political considerations or even personal whim?”
Does Pruitt have good reasons? Let’s consider them.
Repair or replace?
In his draft proposal, Pruitt argues for repealing the Clean Water Rule because it fails to pay enough homage to federalism principles embodied in section 101(b) of the Clean Water Act, in which Congress expresses a policy to “recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution.” Yet at another point he states that “This action does not have federalism implications” and, further, that it will not affect “the relationship between the national government and the States.”
Which is it? Either the repeal is necessary to rebalance power relationships or it isn’t. Moreover, wouldn’t it make more sense to first identify how the current rule encroaches on states’ authority and propose specific changes for public comment? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Pruitt also contends that if states want to protect waters more strictly than the federal standard, they can choose to do so. But according to a detailed 50-state survey by the Environmental Law Institute, 36 states “have laws that could restrict the authority of state agencies or localities to regulate waters left unprotected by the federal Clean Water Act.”
According to a report by the Association of State Wetland Managers, only 23 states have laws that directly regulate activities that impact wetlands. The rest depend upon authority provided by section 401 of the Clean Water Act to provide protection for important wetlands. As the act shrinks, so do those authorities.
Gage Skidmore/Flickr, CC BY-SA
After rescinding the Clean Water Rule, Pruitt proposes to carry out a new and potentially lengthy rule-making process in which EPA and other agencies will reevaluate which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act. President Trump has directed Pruitt to consider a revised rule modeled on a highly restrictive definition that Justice Scalia proposed in the Rapanos case. As I have explained elsewhere, the Scalia test is not the controlling standard that the courts have adopted following Rapanos, and it would drastically reduce the coverage of the act from its historic reach.
Pruitt says it is necessary to repeal the Clean Water Rule while EPA reviews which waters should be covered by the Clean Water Act. Otherwise, he contends, the Supreme Court may lift a stay imposed on the rule by a federal appeals court, opening a floodgate of litigation across the country. But that is exactly what his proposed repeal would do. The court would likely grant EPA’s request to extend the stay for a reasonable period of time to allow EPA to initiate a full rule-making on a proposed revision of the rule.
Verdict: Arbitrary and capricious
Scott Pruitt has been on a slash-and-burn crusade through his predecessors’ regulatory initiatives. But the courts are beginning to scrutinize these moves more closely. Notably, the D.C. Circuit just ruled that Pruitt cannot suspend an Obama-era rule to restrict methane emissions from new oil and gas wells.
Elections do matter. But so does the rule of law. Pruitt has not offered any compelling reason to justify killing the Clean Water Rule outright. There is plenty of time for a more “reasoned analysis” of ways to protect the nation’s water quality.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
France Bans Gas-Powered Autos
In a move to help the country meet its Paris Accord climate goals, France announced this week that it will ban the sale of gas- and diesel-powered automobiles by 2040. That will be a big shift, as only 1.1 percent of new cars sold in France are currently pure electric vehicles. Even with the pending ban it will still take a long time to get older cars off the road: French consumers currently keep their gas-powered cars running for an average of 8.5 years, well below the 11.6 years in the United States.