Project 2025 Undermines Water Justice and Threatens Public Health

Splash of a drop of clean water with text that reads:
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

        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.

        Kids born near fracking sites 2-3 times more likely to develop leukemia: Study

        Photo by Brad Weaver on Unsplash
        Photo by Brad Weaver on Unsplash

        Exposure to fracking and its effects is “a major public health concern,” said a study co-author.

        By Kenny Stancil, Common Dreams (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

        Adding further evidence of the negative public health impacts associated with planet-heating fossil fuel pollution, new research published Wednesday found that children living in close proximity to fracking and other so-called “unconventional” drilling operations at birth face significantly higher chances of developing childhood leukemia than those not residing near such activity.

        Existing setback distances, which may be as little as 150 feet, are insufficiently protective of children’s health.

        —Cassandra Clark, Postdoctoral Associate, Yale Cancer Center

        The peer-reviewed study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, examined the relationship between residential proximity to unconventional oil and gas development (UOGD) and risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the most common form of childhood leukemia.

        Researchers compared 405 children ages 2 to 7 who were diagnosed with ALL in Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2017 to a control group of 2,080 children without leukemia matched on birth year. They measured the connection between in utero exposure to unconventional oil and gas activity and childhood leukemia diagnoses in two exposure windows: a “primary window” of three months pre-conception to one year prior to diagnosis and a “perinatal window” of pre-conception to birth.

        Children with at least one fracking well within 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) of their birth residence during the primary window had 1.98 times the odds of developing ALL compared with those whose neighborhoods were free from such fossil fuel infrastructure, they found. Children who lived within 2 kilometers of at least one fracking well during the perinatal window were 2.8 times more likely to develop ALL compared with their unexposed counterparts.

        Accounting for maternal race and socio-economic status reduced the strength of these relationships, but only slightly, with the adjusted odds of developing childhood leukemia 1.74 and 2.35 times higher for those exposed to UOGD during the primary and perinatal windows, respectively.

        “Unconventional oil and gas development can both use and release chemicals that have been linked to cancer,” study co-author Nicole Deziel, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said in a statement.

        Last summer, Physicians for Social Responsibility uncovered internal records revealing that since 2012, fossil fuel corporations have injected potentially carcinogenic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or chemicals that can degrade into PFAS, into the ground while fracking for oil and gas—after former President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency approved their use despite agency scientists’ concerns about toxicity.

        The possibility that children living in close proximity to such sites are “exposed to these chemical carcinogens is a major public health concern,” said Deziel.

        Roughly 17.3 million people in the United States, including nearly four million children, live within a half-mile radius of active oil and gas production, according to the Oil & Gas Threat Map, a geospatial analysis released in May.

        Not only do those people have a greater risk of suffering severe health problems from toxic air pollution, but as the research published Wednesday notes, fracking also contaminates drinking water—creating another pathway of exposure to cancer-linked chemicals.

        The new study adds to a growing body of literature documenting the deleterious health and environmental consequences of fracking and other forms of fossil fuel extraction.

        Research published earlier this year found that residential proximity to UOGD is correlated with a higher risk of dying early. More broadly, the World Health Organization warned last year that burning coal, oil, and gas is “causing millions of premature deaths every year through air pollutants, costing the global economy billions of dollars annually, and fueling the climate crisis.”

        Other recent studies have estimated that slashing energy-related air pollution would prevent more than 50,000 premature deaths and save $608 billion per year in the U.S. alone, while eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would save 74 million lives around the globe this century—demonstrating that the “mortality cost of carbon” is astronomical.

        “Fracking threatens every person on the planet, directly or indirectly. It should be banned entirely.

        —Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch

        Despite this obvious case for rapid decarbonization, President Joe Biden has yet to use his executive authority to cancel nearly two dozen fracked gas export projects that are set to unleash pollution equivalent to roughly 400 new coal-fired power plants.

        The researchers behind the paper published Wednesday hope that their findings will be used to improve public policy, including better regulation of “setback distances”—the required minimum distance between a private residence or other sensitive location and fracking wells.

        Setback distances are currently being debated across the U.S., with some communities calling for setback distances to be lengthened to more than 305 meters (1,000 feet) or as far as 1,000 meters (3,281 feet), the authors wrote.

        In Pennsylvania, where the study was based, the current setback distance is 152 meters (499 feet), up from 61 meters (200 feet) in 2012. Researchers, meanwhile, observed elevated risks of childhood leukemia from fracking activity within a 2,000 meter (6,562 feet) radius.

        “Existing setback distances, which may be as little as 150 feet, are insufficiently protective of children’s health,” lead author Cassandra Clark, a postdoctoral associate at the Yale Cancer Center, said in a statement. “We hope that studies like ours are taken into account in the ongoing policy discussion around UOG setback distances.”

        Other critics of fracking have demanded far more extensive federal action, including prohibiting the practice entirely.

        As “hundreds of scientific studies and thousands of pages of data have already shown over the last decade,” Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said last year, “fracking is inherently hazardous to the health and safety of people and communities in proximity to it.”

        “This says nothing of the dreadful impact fossil fuel extraction and burning is having on our runaway climate crisis,” she added. “Fracking threatens every person on the planet, directly or indirectly. It should be banned entirely.”