chemical regulation
Credit: Kaz Tanaka/BigStock Photo ID: 2398044
How a government feud threatens decades of scientific progress
The Trump administration’s move to cut off $2.6 billion in federal research funding to Harvard has upended a vital engine of American science, with ripple effects that reach far beyond a single university.
Emily Badger, Aatish Bhatia, and Ethan Singer report for The New York Times.
In short:
- Nearly 900 grants supporting projects in neuroscience, opioid treatment, environmental health, and more were halted after the administration accused Harvard of failing to meet federal conditions tied to civil rights and research integrity.
- The funding freeze impacts long-term, high-risk science — including regenerative medicine, sleep studies, and cancer research — that typically isn’t pursued by industry due to cost or lack of near-term profit.
- These grants also train the next generation of scientists, sustain critical partnerships across institutions, and support research that underpins national policy, from trans fat bans to telehealth effectiveness.
Key quote:
“What we are losing is a future.”
— Glorian Sorensen, professor and co-director of a worker health and safety center at Harvard
Why this matters:
Shutting down nearly 900 research grants puts real-world public health, environmental policy, and future breakthroughs at risk. The consequences might not be seen today, but years from now, the impacts will be felt — in the therapies the world doesn't have, the gaps in climate data, the lives that could have been saved but weren't.Read more: An open letter from EPA staff to the American public
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: mshch/BigStock Photo ID: 59310266
Opinion: Trump’s “gold standard science” order gives politics control over public health and climate policy
A new executive order from former President Trump puts political appointees in charge of defining scientific standards in federal agencies, threatening to erode protections meant to shield science from partisan manipulation.
In short:
- Trump’s executive order lets political appointees override agency scientists, effectively eliminating the safeguards put in place by the Biden administration to protect scientific integrity.
- The order demands a retrospective review of Biden-era scientific work, with the power to rewrite regulations based on vague definitions of “gold standard science” untethered from accepted scientific norms.
- Under this policy, federal scientists face the threat of discipline or dismissal for dissenting from political directives, and recent actions suggest this framework could gut agencies’ scientific capacity.
Key quote:
“By formalizing political control over agency science, the EO institutionalizes a ‘doubt science’ approach to shaping policy.”
— David Michaels, epidemiologist and professor at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, and Wendy Wagner, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law
Why this matters:
If scientific standards are dictated by political operatives rather than trained professionals, decisions about vaccines, pollution limits, chemical safety, and climate risks could be based on ideology rather than evidence — harming public trust, health, and the environment.
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: xprtshot/Big Stock Photo
New York Assembly ends session without voting on plastic packaging waste bill
New York lawmakers ended their legislative session without voting on a widely watched bill that would have made large companies financially responsible for packaging waste.
In short:
- The Packaging Reduction & Recycling Infrastructure Act passed the state Senate but stalled in the Assembly for the second year in a row, this time without a clear last-minute disruption.
- The bill would have required large corporations to pay fees based on the waste their packaging generates and reduce packaging volume by 30% over 12 years.
- Business groups opposed the bill, saying it would be expensive and burdensome; advocates criticized Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie for failing to prioritize it.
Why this matters:
Plastic waste is a growing environmental and public health threat, especially in states like New York that serve as major distribution hubs. Most single-use packaging ends up in landfills or as litter, where it breaks down into microplastics that contaminate water, soil, and the air we breathe. These particles have been found in human blood and lungs, raising concerns about long-term health effects. Meanwhile, the fossil fuels used to produce plastic continue to drive climate change. Extended producer responsibility laws shift the financial burden of managing waste away from taxpayers and onto the corporations that create it. Without such measures, states struggle to fund recycling infrastructure or curb the flood of plastic into communities, waterways, and ecosystems.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Wolfgang Weiser/Pixabay
How agribusiness lobbying boosts corporate control over food and climate policy
Industrial agriculture companies spent hundreds of millions lobbying Congress ahead of the stalled farm bill debate, further distancing everyday Americans from decisions shaping the nation’s food systems and climate future.
In short:
- A 2024 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that agribusiness lobbying — closely tied to the fossil fuel industry — has surged, contributing to policies that sideline small farms and intensify climate impacts.
- Lobbying by groups like the Farm Bureau, which spent nearly $16 million on farm bill advocacy since 2019, helps maintain a system where corporate profits override environmental and public health needs.
- Industrial farming’s dependence on energy-intensive chemical inputs fuels biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and greenhouse gas emissions, disproportionately burdening underserved and marginalized communities.
Key quote:
“[Our food] system doesn’t give us a choice on what food we eat, how it’s grown, or what we buy at the grocery store. The system is set up for big agribusiness to keep profiteering.”
— Omanjana Goswami, Food and Environment Program Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists
Why this matters:
The close relationship between agribusiness and fossil fuel companies means that American food policy doesn’t just affect what people eat — it also deepens the climate crisis. Industrial agriculture contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, while squeezing out smaller, more diverse farms that tend to use more sustainable methods. This consolidation of power makes it harder for new or disadvantaged farmers to enter the field and exacerbates environmental injustice. Communities of color and low-income neighborhoods often bear the brunt of air and water pollution linked to both agriculture and energy production.
Related:
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Geoff Livingston/Flickr/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Trump’s anti-science crusade threatens America’s climate readiness
President Trump is gutting climate science programs across the government, crippling our ability to track — let alone respond to — the unfolding climate crisis.
In short:
- Hundreds of federal climate scientists have been fired or sidelined, and programs essential for tracking global warming — from NASA satellites to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency climate monitoring — are being dismantled.
- The administration justifies the cuts as cost-saving, but many of the targeted programs are inexpensive and critical for everything from hurricane forecasting to public health.
- New rules would give political appointees the power to decide what science the government can use, echoing Trump’s pandemic-era strategy of suppressing data that contradicts his message.
Key quote:
“They hate science because it leads to regulation, so they want to do everything they can to stop science from being used to regulate.”
— Andrew Dessler, climate scientist at Texas A&M University
Why this matters:
Back when COVID-19 was tearing across the country, President Trump had a go-to move: deny the science, then silence the scientists. His administration has been running the same playbook on climate change — and now the damage is emerging. Stripped of data, expertise, and, often, the ability to communicate openly with the public, public health officials, emergency responders, and frontline communities are left trying to navigate the climate crisis without a complete map.
Read more: Nearly one million US deaths from COVID-19—the grim consequences of sidelining science
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Kristina Blokhin/BigStock Photo ID: 196171783
EPA repeal of limits on power plant emissions threatens key climate and health protections
It's official: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving to scrap pollution limits on greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals from power plants, reversing hard-won Biden-era rules that sought to protect public health and mitigate climate change.
In short:
- The EPA plans to repeal 2024 rules that limited greenhouse gas emissions and toxic pollutants like mercury, arsenic, and benzene from power plants — rules that were designed to cut health risks like cancer, birth defects, and premature death.
- The rollback comes as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pushes for sweeping deregulation, which includes targeting the 2009 “endangerment finding” that allows the federal government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
- Critics argue the changes give fossil fuel power plants a pass to pollute, while proponents say the move will save money and keep the power grid stable.
Key quote:
“Pollutants like mercury and greenhouse gases are harmful, a settled scientific fact for decades, and the evidence has only gotten stronger.”
— Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island
Why this matters:
The EPA just lit a match under one of the few major climate safeguards left standing. The administration’s argument — grid reliability and economic savings — echoes common pro-fossil fuel talking points. Meanwhile, the health of communities living in the shadow of smokestacks hangs in the balance. And as the Trump administration eliminates rules meant to curb the worst effects of climate change, it is also doubling down on efforts to sideline renewable energy.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: David Ballew/Unsplash
Trump’s policies cast uncertainty over U.S. battery recycling expansion
The Biden-era battery recycling boom faces major uncertainty as President Trump rolls back clean energy policies and shakes up trade rules, leaving recyclers navigating a volatile political and economic landscape.
In short:
- Ascend Elements is launching the first U.S. facility to produce lithium carbonate from recycled materials, with plans to generate 3,000 metric tons annually, joining only one other domestic source in Nevada.
- Despite Trump’s aggressive reversals of clean energy policies, some battery recyclers say key Department of Energy grants from the Biden era remain active and are helping expand domestic recycling capacity.
- Recyclers are nervous about repeals of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and new tariffs, especially those that could disrupt exports to partners like South Korea, a critical market for black mass.
Key quote:
“Critical minerals are central to creating a resilient energy economy in the U.S., and resource recovery and recycling companies will continue to play an important role in providing another domestic source of these materials.”
— Ajay Kochhar, CEO of the battery recycling firm Li-Cycle
Why this matters:
Lithium-ion battery recycling offers a vital alternative to mining, a process that scars landscapes, pollutes waterways, and often exploits labor. With electric vehicles and renewable energy storage demanding ever more lithium, cobalt, and nickel, recycling old batteries into new ones reduces dependence on geopolitically fraught and environmentally harmful extraction. China has already cornered the battery recycling market with government support, while the U.S. is only just beginning to scale. But the industry’s success hinges on stable policy and trade relationships. If federal support wanes or tariffs disrupt exports, recyclers may not find enough financial ground to stand on. That threatens the broader clean energy supply chain and undermines efforts to transition from fossil fuels.
Read more: Recycling old batteries could ease pressure on mining for clean energy minerals
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
