![]() ![]() ![]() But Trump’s political appointees at EPA have twisted the new law to put polluters ahead of public health, leading environmental groups to challenge Trump’s rules in court. Under the new law, asbestos is one of the first chemicals to be assessed for safety. In 2016, Congress finally overhauled federal toxic chemicals law and tried to remove obstacles to chemical regulation, including EPA consideration of the costs to industry. In the wake of that ruling, the EPA didn’t propose to ban any other toxic chemicals for decades. In 1989, the EPA tried to ban most uses of asbestos, but the proposed ban was blocked by judges who concluded it would be too costly for industry and that a ban was not the “least burdensome” way to address the risks. The arguments Kavanaugh has made against clean air, clean water and worker safety are the same arguments that have been used to keep asbestos legal. His record on worker safety is just as bad.Īs one expert recently noted, Kavanaugh is in favor of considering the costs of a regulation – but only when it helps polluters, not public health. No wonder the nation’s leading environmental groups oppose his nomination. He has frequently argued against giving the victims of pollution their day in court, including groups challenging carbon monoxide standards. Kavanaugh has also argued that it’s okay to rely on the chemical industry’s data, ruled in favor of dumping hazardous waste, and ruled that it’s okay for factory farms to foul the air of their neighbors. In 2017, Kavanaugh ruled that the EPA could not require companies to replace fluorinated chemicals known as HFCs with other substances – even though replacement chemicals are readily available. In 2016, Kavanaugh argued in favor of a company dumping coal mining waste into streams, citing the costs to polluters – even though the agency had no obligation to consider the costs. ![]() ![]() That rule could have prevented as many as 34,000 premature deaths. In 2015, Kavanaugh overturned a rule to limit the amount of air pollution that crosses state lines. In 2014, Kavanaugh argued against standards for toxins like mercury – which is linked to premature deaths, heart attacks and childhood asthma – by insisting that costs to polluters must always be considered. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh has consistently voted against safeguards designed to protect health by concluding that safety rules were too expensive for big corporations. If confirmed to the open swing seat, would Kavanaugh vote to protect workers and consumers from asbestos? Or would he vote to protect the companies lobbying EPA to keep asbestos legal?Īs a judge on the U.S. But President Trump’s political appointees to the EPA have cooked the books in ways that could keep asbestos legal, inviting legal challenges that could reach the Supreme Court. Recent research has found that asbestos-related diseases still kill as many as 40,000 Americans per year.Īfter sweeping changes to the law governing toxic substances, the Environmental Protection Agency had a historic opportunity to finally ban asbestos once and for all. Many Americans don’t realize it, but despite its well-known health hazards, most uses of asbestos are still legal. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |