Trump administration dismantles offshore drilling safety rules

The Trump administration dismantled safety rules for offshore drilling put in place by the Obama admin after the disastrous BP oil spill fouled the Gulf of Mexico nearly a decade ago https://t.co/kW5YtS5mOf
— POLITICO (@politico) May 2, 2019

BREAKING: Trump just rolled back common-sense offshore drilling regulations that were put in place after Deepwater Horizon spewed 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf.

"The Trump administration is putting industry cost savings ahead of safety."https://t.co/1ZaAu5rVJ6
— Friends of the Earth (@foe_us) May 2, 2019

Interior Dept. Loosens Offshore-Drilling Safety Rules Dating From Deepwater Horizon https://t.co/WYW0vrwhBo pic.twitter.com/uvYbdYlNbB
— UsaNewsNow3 (@UsaNewsNow3) May 2, 2019

Poll on environment vs. economic growth

With which do you most agree? Protect the environment, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
Environment 65%
Growth 30%
(Gallup Poll, 3/1-10/19)
full wording: https://t.co/CuNMYc00Hw
— PollingReport.com (@pollreport) April 21, 2019

Flint still does not have clean water

Flint 👏🏽 Still 👏🏽 Does 👏🏽 Not 👏🏽 Have 👏🏽 Clean 👏🏽 Water
— COMMON (@common) April 17, 2019

Flint getting $77.7 million loan to help with water improvements https://t.co/ndx8x7xZFp #KMOV pic.twitter.com/YvIPAHPKU8
— KMOV (@KMOV) April 17, 2019

Money promised in 2017

Whereas Flint doesn’t have clean drinking water, Puerto Rico hasn’t fully recovered, and 3 black churches burned to the ground without comment, Trump offers money to rebuild Notre Dame. That’s not America first. That’s white people first, even if they live in far away countries.
— Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) April 16, 2019

It’s been five years since the people of Flint, Michigan, have had clean water. https://t.co/KBvu6r1cjc
— ESSENCE (@Essence) August 25, 2019

Great tweet on Flint water

Do white people know that the dogs in Flint don’t have clean water either? Have we tried that approach?
— Madison Marie Gladys Jones (@Maddie_Jones515) April 2, 2019

She’s right – lots of dog pics on Facebook and Twitter (compared to Flint references)

Interior Nominee Intervened to Block Report on Endangered Species

Extraordinary moment in today's Senate confirmation hearing for Bernhardt as Secretary of Interior. Sen Wyden calls Bernhardt a liar. Then drills him re Bernhardt's role blocking release of Interior study re pesticide threat to 1,200 endangered species https://t.co/f9ZotaI0Z8
— Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) March 28, 2019

Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt played a key role in an effort to block the release of a study by Fish and Wildlife scientists that found that 2 widely used pesticides threaten the existence of more than 1,000 endangered species, emails show https://t.co/aRZ5rVdCsj
— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 26, 2019

Coal isn’t coming back

Was at meeting with 6 CEOs of major energy utilities. They have been & will continue to replace coal power plants. Why? Math. Not only is coal dirty, it's too expensive.

Coal is not coming back. We honor coal families by telling them the truth & investing in their communities.
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 12, 2019

Coal-burning is not only contributing to climate change, it’s also doing widespread damage to the country’s water, and the Trump administration is making the problem worse, a new report finds. https://t.co/UFWW6pWk1Z
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) March 11, 2019

Communities in my home state of Tennessee are being impacted in places like Kingston: https://t.co/yl1Ma1L8vt
— Al Gore (@algore) March 4, 2019

“The coal industry is back,” Trump declared last year. Alas, it was an illusion — or, as Trump might put it, a hoax. https://t.co/ZRz8X8Lcmq
— Dana Milbank (@Milbank) March 6, 2019

EPA update 2/27/19

Wheeler’s EPA Keeps Brain-Damaging Chlorpyrifos in Food https://t.co/PiaxaTPD7N
— Moze Jacobs (@MozeMJacobs) February 22, 2019

EPA scientists: The toxic chemicals our agency won't regulate are definitely in our drinking water https://t.co/yJEZUcKO7o
— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) February 26, 2019

The nation’s biggest coal-burning power companies paid a top lobbying firm millions of dollars to fight a wide range of Obama-era environmental rules — shortly before one of the firm’s partners became Trump’s top air pollution regulator https://t.co/DfLBEOJeQv
— POLITICO (@politico) February 24, 2019

“Scientists just became irrelevant at the agency,” said Elizabeth Southerland, who resigned in 2017 after 33 years at the EPA, “because we were not allowed in the room where the decisions were being made” https://t.co/lJ2JeXiU6C
— New York Magazine (@NYMag) February 21, 2019

this scientist Ed Calabrese, who's behind the "little bit of pollution is good for you" argument taking hold at the EPA, was the center of a big story I did in the fall, which was getting almost no attention at the time https://t.co/4KUudnRB2h
— Rebecca Leber (@rebleber) February 19, 2019

The fight is a preview of the kind of battles that the advocates of a Green New Deal will have as they take on entrenched incumbent industries who have been spending heavily, for years, to generate government favors they are loathe to see disappear. https://t.co/u8K1oQcak3
— The Intercept (@theintercept) February 19, 2019

EPA returns to bullying tactics against news orgs: https://t.co/ekIsXUDqAv
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) February 5, 2019

EPA has reduced inspections

Under Trump, EPA inspections fall to a 10-year low. w/@eilperin https://t.co/R18q5ONWjN
— Brady Dennis (@brady_dennis) February 8, 2019

Penalties for polluters are much lower under the Trump administration

The Polluter Pays principle is fundamental to environmental law. This lack of enforcement is alarming.

And now @EPA is shut down, but the polluters aren’t. @EPAAWheeler must answer for what this means for our air and water, and ultimately, our future.

— Tom Udall (@SenatorTomUdall) January 24, 2019

other bad EPA news:

EPA Says Limiting Mercury Pollution From Power Plants Is No Longer 'Appropriate and Necessary' https://t.co/j8YmI6O1rO

— Carlos A Gonzalez D (@cadenusa) January 24, 2019

And when @EPA fails to properly enforce environmental laws, states aren't able to pick up the slack – https://t.co/JuPGAHfF1x

— Policy Integrity (@PolicyIntegrity) January 24, 2019

Decisions made on toxic chemicals have lasting consequences for health – Must read op-ed from the former leader of EPA's chemical safety office. #TSCA https://t.co/teVQn5O7Hh pic.twitter.com/82IexxGUSv

— EDF Health (@EDFHealth) January 24, 2019

EPA’s Return to Bush-Era Clean Air Act Reforms Sacrifices Agency’s Duty to Protect Environment, Ignores the Law https://t.co/eHeG8HZwLs pic.twitter.com/uTNqk5dNDR

— Dan Farber (@dfarber) January 24, 2019

Thank you…we need EPA protections https://t.co/PcHIeJgK0J

— Marcella Ruble (@marcellaruble) January 24, 2019

Pesticides are tested in
– one exposition route at a time
– in isolation
More about the complete failure of the EPA to protect the population from the 60000 (2012 figure) authorised pesticides. Here.https://t.co/3HLIEc4W36

— Alain Pannetier (@AlainPannetier) January 24, 2019

Wow. Look at the expected increase in industrial emissions. That's without taking EPA's proposed changes to New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards into account. https://t.co/bjSo235HFn

— Gavin Bade (@GavinBade) January 24, 2019

Comprehensive New York Times package on Trump’s elimination of environmental protection rules

update:

Breaking News: The EPA proposed new rules for assessing pollution that would make it easier for power plants to release mercury and other toxic substances https://t.co/ybsn9HXlnG

— The New York Times (@nytimes) December 28, 2018

Updated for a yearend tally: a New York Times analysis counts nearly 80 environmental rules on the way out under President Trump https://t.co/G87IJsWTKs

— NYT Climate (@nytclimate) December 28, 2018

An investigation by The Times shows how Trump’s deregulatory policies are having a substantial impact on those who experience them close up — and often are economically dependent on the industries Trump is trying to help. Here are 5 takeaways. https://t.co/DzwrwzolKL

— The New York Times (@nytimes) December 27, 2018

First, let me apologize in a stand alone tweet for so many tweets on this story re how Trump era impact on air and water in the US. I realize some of you may think too many tweets by me. But I want this story to be widely read. And tweeting helps. Also lot to explain.

— Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) December 27, 2018

THE NEW YORK TIMES WILL PUBLISH A 12-PAGE SPECIAL SECTION ON THURSDAY DEVOTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE IN THE TRUMP ERA. Here is the web package. with @SteveEder @JohnBranchNYT Give it a read. Tremendous amt of work. here.https://t.co/dajAenzo0E

— Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) December 26, 2018