Project 2025 Undermines Water Justice and Threatens Public Health

July 21, 2024 / activist360

Splash of a drop of clean water with text that reads: “Protect our water. Protect our environment. Vote #Harris. Vote Blue.

Project 2025 envisages a conservative restructuring of the EPA that prioritizes industrial and business interests over the need for clean water and air, putting communities at risk, especially those near industrial zones. Project 2025 undermines the agency’s ability to protect diverse communities and uphold the human right to clean water. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Decentralization and Reduced Federal Oversight

Earlier this year, on April 10, 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration finalized the first-ever national drinking water standard to protect against PFAS, alongside announcing nearly $1 billion from the “Investing in America” agenda to combat these contaminants in public systems and private wells. This landmark initiative, benefiting around 100 million people, aims to significantly reduce illnesses and deaths associated with PFAS exposure, which have been linked to severe health problems including cancers and liver damage.

Project 2025 undermines these advances and instead create a patchwork of environmental standards. States with fewer resources or less governance resolve will fail to adequately protect water quality, which disproportionately affects vulnerable communities that rely on strong federal standards to safeguard their environment. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Cutting Back on Regulatory Authority

Project 2025 foretells a reduction in the breadth of the EPA’s authority to regulate, allowing polluters to operate with less scrutiny. This will lead to increased water contamination incidents, similar to the Flint water crisis, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities.

By focusing on reducing the EPA’s regulatory reach and emphasizing cost-effective solutions over comprehensive environmental protections, essential safeguards are weakened, especially those that prevent industries from polluting water sources. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Redefinition of Scientific and Risk Assessment Standards

The push for open-source science and revising scientific advisory roles dilutes scientific rigor in decision-making if it is driven by political considerations rather than unbiased scientific inquiry. This results in standards that fail to adequately protect against contaminants known to harm human health. The move toward risk-based regulation overlooks long-term and cumulative impacts of exposure to pollutants. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Limiting Legal Recourse

Project 2025 reduces the EPA’s enforcement and compliance capabilities, restricting individuals and communities’ ability to hold polluters accountable through legal action. By delegating more authority to state and local levels, it weakens the uniformity and strength of enforcement across regions and diminishes the legal empowerment of affected communities to sue for enforcement and compliance. This shift erodes a key check on corporate and governmental accountability in environmental protection. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Human Right to Clean Water

Clean water is a fundamental human right recognized by the United Nations. Any weakening of water quality standards or reduction in enforcement capability jeopardizes this right, particularly for the most vulnerable populations. Effective protection of water sources is essential not just for health but for the dignity and well-being of all individuals.

Communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income populations often face the brunt of environmental degradation and are the most affected by policies that do not prioritize robust environmental protections. Ensuring their right to clean water requires strong federal oversight and stringent, uniformly applied environmental regulations. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Summing Up

Project 2025 proposes a conservative restructuring of the EPA that places industrial and business interests ahead of the imperative for clean water and air, potentially endangering communities. Project 2025 undermines the EPA’s capacity to safeguard diverse communities and the human right to clean water by favoring economic considerations over environmental and public health protections, exacerbating existing inequalities and environmental justice issues, necessitating the maintenance of robust federal oversight and stringent environmental standards. Reject Trump. Vote Blue.

Reject Regression: Advocate for Bold Climate Action Against Project 2025’s Harmful Proposals

July 7, 2024 / activist360

Warning: Project 2025 accelerates climate change! Vote Biden. Vote Blue.

Warning: Project 2025 accelerates climate change! Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025. Vote Biden. Vote Blue.

As the world grapples with the escalating impacts of climate change, urgent and decisive action is needed. However, Project 2025 proposes reforms that significantly undermine critical environmental protections and sustainable development efforts. These reforms threaten to derail progress on combating climate change, protecting public health, and ensuring environmental sustainability. These policies are regressive and dangerous. Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025. Vote Biden. Vote Blue.

Energy Policy: Prioritizing Renewable Energy for a Sustainable Future

The proposed energy policy in Project 2025 advocates for an “all of the above” approach, emphasizing the continued use of fossil fuels while criticizing renewable energy initiatives. This perspective overlooks the urgent need to transition to cleaner energy sources to combat climate change. Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025.

Renewable energy and sustainability are imperative for ensuring long-term energy security. Prioritizing clean energy technologies like wind, solar, and advanced nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and enhance energy independence. Policies should support renewable energy subsidies and climate initiatives that drive innovation and reduce our carbon footprint.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), renewable energy could, and should, account for 90% of the power sector’s decarbonization by 2050, creating millions of jobs and enhancing energy independence. Policies should support renewable energy subsidies, research and development in clean technologies, and the implementation of carbon pricing mechanisms to incentivize reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental Protection: Strengthening the EPA’s Role

Project 2025 aims to eliminate climate change initiatives within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), criticizing them as economically burdensome. This perspective ignores the critical role that climate policies play in safeguarding public health and the environment. Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025.

Climate change initiatives are vital for long-term environmental sustainability. The EPA’s focus on renewable energy and stringent air quality standards ensures cleaner air, reduces health risks, and mitigates the impacts of climate change. Rather than eliminating these initiatives, we should strengthen the EPA’s capacity to enforce science-based regulations that protect both the environment and public health.

Health and Climate Change: Integrating Environmental Considerations

Project 2025 suggested for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) largely ignore the connections between public health and climate change. This oversight will result in dangerously inadequate preparation and response to health crises worsened by climate conditions. Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025.

Public health policies need to incorporate the impacts of climate change, which include increased heat-related illnesses, respiratory issues from air pollution, and the spread of climate-sensitive diseases. A robust public health system that addresses these challenges is crucial for building resilient communities. Policies should promote environmental health and prepare for the health impacts of a changing climate.

Agriculture and Water: Sustainable Practices for Long-Term Resilience

Project 2025 will downplay agricultural and water policies, focusing on deregulation and short-term economic gains. This approach leads to accelerated environmental degradation and resource depletion. Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025.

Sustainable agriculture and water management practices are essential for long-term resilience and our health! Policies should support conservation programs, promote water-efficient technologies, and encourage sustainable farming practices. Investing in sustainable agriculture ensures food security, protects natural resources, and mitigates the impacts of climate change on our ecosystems.

Housing and Urban Development: Building Green Communities

Project 2025 reverses climate change initiatives within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) threatening to halt progress on sustainable urban development. Ignoring climate considerations in housing policies leads to higher energy costs and increased emissions. Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025.

Climate change initiatives in housing are crucial for promoting energy-efficient buildings and sustainable urban planning. Policies should incentivize green construction, support renewable energy integration, and ensure that urban development is resilient to climate impacts. Sustainable housing reduces energy costs, lowers emissions, and improves the quality of life in communities.

Summing Up

Project 2025 presents a regressive approach to climate policy, favoring short-term economic gains for a few over long-term sustainability. This perspective is not only shortsighted but also dangerous, as it undermines efforts to combat climate change and protect public health and the environment. Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025.

We must advocate for policies that prioritize renewable energy, strengthen environmental protections, integrate climate considerations into public health, promote sustainable agriculture, and build green communities. By embracing a comprehensive approach to climate action, we can ensure a sustainable and resilient future for generations to come.

Our planet is at a critical juncture. We must reject proposals that roll back environmental progress and instead champion policies that foster innovation, equity, and sustainability. The climate crisis demands bold and immediate action. By committing to protecting our environment and securing a healthy, prosperous future for all, we can rise to the challenge and create a legacy of resilience and sustainability.

Vote Biden. Vote Blue.

Vote Biden. Vote Blue. They champion comprehensive and forward-thinking climate policies which are crucial for our future, health, and sustainability of our children and future generations. Reject Trump, Reject Project 2025.

Does Supreme Court decision doom power plant rulemakings?

July 3, 2022 / activist360

*Greta Thunberg (weißes T-Shirt und Megaphon mitte-rechts) und Luisa Neubauer (daneben in Grün) im Demonstrationszug von Fridays For Future, Berlin, 24.09.21*

‘Seismic decision’ in landmark climate ruling, CNN says in reporting on decision written by Chief Justice Roberts

By Bud Ward, Yale Climate Connections (CC BY-NC-ND 2.5)

Devastating.” “Hamstrings …” “… a major blow …” “destructive …” a cataclysm …”

And more.

Those are a few of the early terms used by proponents of greenhouse gas emission regulation to describe the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in the most significant environmental case of its session … and perhaps since the Court’s ruling in 2007 finding carbon dioxide a public health pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

In its final decision of this consequential term, the court’s now-familiar six-to-three conservative majority ruled EPA had gone beyond its legal authority by attempting to regulate greenhouse gases through the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three progressive justices dissenting.

But the decision did leave the door slightly ajar to Congress’s outright authorization of such regulations somewhere down the highly uncertain road ahead. Critics of the court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA found that option highly unlikely politically and, in any event, nothing to celebrate.

Private sector, market forces, big business left to take climate leadership roles? (to be determined)

“Devastating” is the term the Biden White House used in its initial take on the decision.

Carol Browner, EPA Administrator during the Clinton administration, not surprisingly, used the same term in an interview with CNN, which labeled the ruling a “big blow” to Biden administration climate change ambitions. The decision is expected by many to have implications extending far beyond EPA and climate, affecting rule making by diverse Executive branch agencies (the “administrative state”) on a wide swath of issues.

Upcoming posts coming soon at this site will provide detailed coverage on the court’s ruling; on reactions to the ruling from legal and policy experts; and on what options the federal government, and perhaps some states, might next consider in attempting to reduce greenhouse gas pollutant emissions and atmospheric concentrations.

Forecast ahead: Lots of uncertainty, lots more case-by-case litigation, further doubts over U.S. global role, let alone “leadership,” on climate change.