Senate spending bill would cut EPA program that assesses chemical risks

An appropriations bill released yesterday calls for elimination of the Integrated Risk Information System as part of an overall $150 million cut to EPA funding

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday released a spending bill that would kill a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency program that evaluates the potential health risks to people from chemicals found in the environment.


The bill, which lays out the Senate recommendations for the 2018 budgets of the Department of the Interior and multiple environmental agencies, would cut the EPA's budget by about $150 million and roll the chemical testing program—the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)—into the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The IRIS program has been around since 1985 and its science on the toxicity of chemicals is used at state and local health agencies as well as internationally.

In releasing the bill, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairperson of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, said it ensures the "health, well-being, and safety of the American people."

But Democratic members of the Senate voiced concern with the proposed cuts to the EPA, including the cut to IRIS, saying TSCA was "not designed to accommodate the breadth of the IRIS program's responsibilities."

U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, commended the budget for not taking the drastic cuts originally proposed by President Trump. However, in a statement he said he couldn't "look past the deep and damaging cuts to the EPA budget in this bill that put public health at risk."

"And I can't ignore that it takes aim at the laws that protect our environment and our communities," he added.

In addition to IRIS cuts, Democrats said the bill could spur more staffing cuts at the EPA, leaving the agency tasked with protecting environmental health with fewer scientists and public health experts, and pointed out it "endorses the President's request to eliminate nearly all of the agency's climate change programs."

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the bill "bowed to the anti-science know-nothingism of President Trump by slashing environmental programs and denying the reality of climate change."

Across all agencies, the Senate bill represents a $250 million cut to 2017 funding levels but still $4.83 billion more than President Trump's budget request.

The federal government is currently on a short-term budget that will expire next month. The proposed cuts to the EPA under the Senate bill were less than those proposed under a House plan, which sought to cut the agency's budget by $528 million. President Trump proposed cutting the EPA budget by $3.6 billion.

Under the Senate bill, other departments—such as the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Office of Surface Mining—would also take cuts.

newrepublic.com

The Socialist win in Bolivia and the new era of lithium extraction

An apparent victory for Evo Morales’s Movement Toward Socialism shows that tomorrow’s green energy won’t look much like the old oil empires.

Get our Good News newsletter

Get the best positive, solutions-oriented stories we've seen on the intersection of our health and environment, FREE every Tuesday in your inbox. Subscribe here today. Keep the change tomorrow.

www.newyorker.com

How should the media talk about climate change?

Genevieve Guenther, a former Renaissance scholar, studies how we discuss global warming—and how we don’t.
www.newyorker.com

The West Coast wildfires are apocalypse, again

In a year of lost normality, the fires’ outlandish size and reach signal that normal is gone for good. Yet these fires are not the end of the world.
www.dw.com

Celebrity endorsement of environmental causes: Does it work?

Famous people are often lauded for using their public image to raise awareness of environmental issues and causes. But do these campaigns make any difference?
thenarwhal.ca

B.C. election: where the NDP, Greens and Liberals stand on climate and environment issues

As Sonia Furstenau's Greens pledge to end oil and gas subsidies and Andrew Wilkinson's BC Liberals promise to expand LNG, John Horgan's NDP sticks to the middle road.

news.mongabay.com

Deforestation threatens to wipe out a primate melting pot in Indonesia

An evolutionary crucible in Indonesia that's given rise to a unique array of primate is at risk of disappearing due to rapid deforestation, a new study warns.

news.mongabay.com

Fire burns Pantanal’s upland heart and threatens nature’s fragile balance

2020’s record Brazilian fires, which devastated the Pantanal wetlands, also reached the Amolar Mountains in recent weeks, a refuge for jaguars and other wildlife, and home to traditional Indigenous villagers.