For a limited time, readers can enjoy unlimited access to high-quality Financial Times journalism across all devices for just $1 over four weeks. This introductory offer then transitions to a standard monthly subscription of $75. Subscribers can cancel at any point during the trial period. The subscription provides complete digital access to the FT’s content.
An analysis by Food & Water Watch reveals Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources inadequately penalizes factory farms for illegally discharging manure into waterways, resulting in over one million fish deaths from 179 recorded incidents between 2013 and 2023. These spills, totaling up to one million gallons, carry harmful contaminants linked to serious health issues, yet violators paid less than $750,000 in fines. The report highlights a state-wide problem, with a concentration in northwest Iowa, and connects this pollution to elevated cancer rates. This insufficient enforcement, coupled with a lack of monitoring at many large farms, contributes to millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded water cleanup costs annually.
The offer, seemingly tailored for Elon Musk and similar figures, promises lucrative opportunities to private entities. The plan’s specifics remain undefined, but it may facilitate the expansion of fossil fuel production under Trump’s “Drill, Baby, Drill!” initiative. This could lead to significant profits for those involved while potentially undermining environmental regulations. Musk’s enthusiastic response highlights the potential for significant private sector gains at the expense of essential governmental functions.
President-elect Trump proposed a plan to expedite approvals and permits for any individual or company investing $1 billion or more in the U.S., including environmental approvals. This proposal, widely criticized as illegal by environmental groups and legal experts, would allow wealthy investors to circumvent existing regulations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. Critics argue this plan prioritizes the interests of large corporations and fossil fuel donors over public health and environmental protection. The plan’s legality is questionable, and its implementation faces significant regulatory hurdles. The incoming administration’s choice for EPA head, Lee Zeldin, has minimal environmental policy experience but supports Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ban on trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (perc) marks a significant step in protecting public health. These chemicals, known carcinogens, have been used for decades in various consumer and industrial products, silently contributing to cancer rates.
The ban on TCE, a common ingredient in degreasing agents, furniture care products, and auto repair supplies, is comprehensive. Its widespread presence in everyday items underscores the pervasive nature of this carcinogenic risk. The fact that these chemicals were so readily available for so long raises concerns about the effectiveness of previous regulations and oversight.
Similarly, the ban extends to most commercial and all consumer uses of perc, a prevalent industrial solvent historically employed in dry cleaning and auto repair.… Continue reading
Despite short-term political fluctuations, the urgency of addressing global emissions remains, and any delay only exacerbates the challenge. I strongly advise against implementing carbon border tariffs, as they introduce unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy without guaranteeing effectiveness. A more efficient approach lies in a regulatory framework based on carbon intensity, allowing for a clearer and more manageable path towards emissions reduction.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to put the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Good Neighbor plan” on hold is yet another blow to environmental protections in our country. It seems that every time we turn around, there’s another regulation being dismantled, and it leaves me wondering why these decisions are happening so rapidly. Is it because big money corporations are pulling the strings, prioritizing profits over people and the planet?
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s reasoning for granting the challengers’ request to put the EPA’s plan on hold is flawed. The EPA had a valid explanation for their actions, aiming to reduce pollution from power plants and industrial sources in upwind states that were not meeting the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act.… Continue reading
I can’t help but feel a sense of frustration and anger as I read about the recent incident where Texas farmers claim a company sold them PFAS-contaminated sludge that ultimately led to the death of their livestock. The fact that PFAS compounds, known as “forever chemicals,” were present in the sludge is alarming, considering the severe health issues they are linked to, such as cancer, liver disease, and birth defects. The idea that this contaminated sludge was being sold as a cheap alternative to fertilizer is deeply troubling.
The Environmental Protection Agency allowing this contaminated sludge to be spread on cropland as “biosolid” fertilizer due to its high nutrient content is mind-boggling.… Continue reading
Supreme Court’s Conservatives Poised To Take Down Decades-Old Precedent
As I sit here and absorb the comments and sentiments surrounding the headline, “Supreme Court’s Conservatives Poised To Take Down Decades-Old Precedent,” I can’t help but feel a sense of frustration and sadness. It seems that once again, our country is on the brink of taking a step back in terms of progress and protecting the rights and well-being of its citizens.
The concerns raised by those who oppose the conservative push to dismantle these longstanding precedents are certainly valid. The potential consequences of such a decision are far-reaching and alarming. We are talking about the potential loss of essential protections for our environment, our health, and our safety.… Continue reading
We are currently witnessing what many are calling the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, and it is a cause for concern for anyone who values democracy and the balance of power. The issue at the heart of this power struggle is the Chevron deference, a precedent established in 1984 that requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law. However, this long-standing doctrine is now being challenged, and the ramifications of its potential downfall could be far-reaching.
The conservative shift in recent years has seen a change in attitude towards Chevron deference. Conservatives, who once championed the doctrine as a way to ensure that power remains in the hands of elected officials, have now started to view the unelected courts as a more effective means of controlling policymaking than the executive branch and its agencies.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood