chemical regulation
Newsletter
Credit: Vivek Doshi/Unsplash
Podcast: Should we change our planet’s climate…on purpose?
This week on Entanglements, Harvard chemist Frank Keutsch and Oxford physicist Raymond Pierrehumbert debate whether small outdoor tests of solar radiation modification are a prudent step or a dangerous slippery slope.
Photo by Margaret Riseley on Unsplash
Birds don’t always match their chromosomes, study finds
New research shows that sex reversal — where a bird’s physical traits don’t match its genetic sex — occurs more often in wild Australian birds than scientists expected.
In short:
- Researchers examined nearly 500 birds from five common Australian species and found 3% to 6% had mismatched sex traits, including a genetically male kookaburra that had laid an egg.
- Sex reversal can result from complex gene expression or environmental factors, suggesting that DNA tests alone may misidentify a bird’s sex.
- Understanding baseline rates of sex reversal could reveal when human-made chemicals or other stressors disrupt normal development, with potential consequences for conservation efforts.
Key quote:
“Now that we know discordance occurs, the next big question will be, what is driving this discordance in birds? Is it chemicals, is it environmental stress, or some other factor that can alter developmental trajectories?”
— Clare Holleley, environmental biologist, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
Why this matters:
Sex reversal could affect population counts, breeding potential, and survival rates, making accurate sex identification crucial for conservation. More than a quirky biological footnote, it’s a window into how genes and environment interact to shape life. Sometimes it’s the genes themselves, sometimes temperature, stress, or chemicals in the environment that tip the scales. If human-driven factors like pollution are nudging birds’ development off course, a basic DNA test might miss the larger story. Tracking these baseline rates is a way to spot early warning signs that ecosystems are under stress.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Vlad Tchompalov/Unsplash
U.S. science policy drifts, recalling Soviet era
Political scientists warn that the Trump administration’s handling of climate science and environmental policy recalls the Soviet dismissal of scientific integrity and comes amid a rapid erosion of democratic norms.
In short:
- The administration has repeatedly weakened environmental regulations, from the Clean Water Act to the Endangered Species Act, while claiming emergencies that fast-track fossil fuel projects.
- Politically connected companies, especially in oil and gas, benefit from tax breaks, regulatory rollbacks, and legal leverage, amplifying corporate influence over public policy.
- The article links Stalin-era Soviet agriculture under Trofim Lysenko to the Trump administration’s climate and environmental policies, showing how both regimes subordinated science to ideology and political loyalty.
Key quote:
“The lack of constraints on the executive allow politically connected companies to either get around existing laws or to write laws in such a way that they’re toothless.”
— Timothy Frye, professor of post-Soviet politics, Columbia University
Why this matters:
Under the Trump administration, environmental rules designed to protect water, wildlife, and communities are being routinely rewritten or ignored, sometimes under the guise of an “emergency” that conveniently speeds up oil and gas projects. Federal agencies are challenging long-settled science on climate change and other environmental issues, with profound implications for human health. At the same time, companies with deep political ties are thriving, scoring tax breaks, looser regulations, and enjoying a legal playing field tilted in their favor. Frye notes that autocratic leaders often build their economies around natural resources because they are easier to control than other industries. Whether the U.S. will be able to recover its institutions, environmental protections, and its standing as a global scientific leader remains to be seen.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Photo credit: Paul campbell for Unsplash+
U.S. pressures countries to drop global plastics cap at treaty talks
The U.S. quietly lobbied nations to reject plastic production limits in a global treaty, aligning itself with petrochemical interests and putting it at odds with much of the world.
Olivia Le Poidevin and Valerie Volcovici report for Reuters.
In short:
- The U.S. sent memos urging countries to oppose key elements of a United Nations plastics treaty, including caps on plastic production and bans on toxic additives.
- Over 100 countries support a treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, but the U.S. stands with oil-producing nations seeking to avoid upstream regulation.
- Observers say the American position mirrors industry demands and undermines global cooperation on an issue tied to ocean pollution, human health, and climate change.
Key quote:
"Refusing to include plastic production in this treaty is not a negotiation stance. It is economic self-sabotage."
— Juan Carlos Monterrey-Gomez, head of delegation for Panama
Why this matters:
The U.S. push to block upstream limits weakens a global effort to safeguard both the planet and public health.The research is clear: Plastic isn’t just a waste problem — it’s a fossil fuel problem, a chemical exposure problem, and most certainly a human health problem. From endocrine disruptors in baby bottles to microplastics in placentas, we now know plastic is in our blood and in our air, soil, and water. Yet the U.S., while publicly touting its commitment to environmental leadership, is doing industry’s bidding behind the scenes, watering down treaty language that could actually protect people and the planet.
Read more: “Plastic will overwhelm us:” Scientists say health should be the core of global plastic treaty
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Karolina Grabowska/Unsplash+
EPA plan to dismantle research office raises alarm about politicizing science
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun dismantling its 1,500-person research arm, alarming scientists who warn the move will hobble studies on pollution and public health.
In short:
- Administrator Lee Zeldin says dissolving the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and replacing it with the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions will save $750 million and “align” science with agency priorities.
- Hundreds of ORD scientists have already been reassigned; Senate appropriators called the shake-up “appalling” and ordered an immediate halt, but union leaders say layoffs and transfers continue.
- Industry advocate Steve Milloy welcomed the closure of EPA’s human inhalation lab, while former officials warn the loss of independent research on heat, PFAS, and particulate matter endangers public health.
Key quote:
“It’s really putting American lives at risk.”
— Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA Office of Research and Development official
Why this matters:
EPA science underpins standards for the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the chemicals that course through consumer products. When core research is steered by political appointees — or simply defunded — regulators lose the data needed to judge whether refinery emissions drive asthma spikes, whether “forever chemicals” slip from tap water into bloodstreams, or how rising heat magnifies the harms of smog. Without that evidence, rules can stall or skew, leaving clinicians guessing at causes of illness and communities absorbing unseen costs. The stakes are especially high for children, older adults, and low-income neighborhoods already burdened by traffic exhaust and industrial waste. An EPA with fewer independent scientists means the country lacks expertise to navigate and respond to a warmer, more chemically complex world.
Read more: America’s scientific dominance is crumbling from within
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
US EPA announces intention to rescind landmark "endangerment finding" underpinning regulation of climate change
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving to eliminate a foundational legal finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health, unraveling the backbone of federal climate protections.
Jake Spring and Anusha Mathur report for The Washington Post.
In short:
- The EPA proposed scrapping the 2009 “endangerment finding,” a cornerstone of U.S. climate regulation that empowered the agency to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
- If finalized, the rule would gut emissions rules for vehicles and power plants and tie the hands of future administrations from reimposing them — setting up a likely Supreme Court showdown.
- Industry groups cheered the move, while scientists and former officials slammed it as politically motivated and dismissive of overwhelming evidence that climate change harms health and well-being.
Key quote:
“The National Climate Assessment provides over 2,000 pages of detailed evidence that climate change harms our health and welfare, but you can also ask the millions of Americans who have lost their homes and livelihoods to extreme fires, floods and storms that are only getting worse.”
— Zealan Hoover, former senior adviser to the EPA administrator under President Joe Biden
Why this matters:
Without the endangerment finding, federal efforts to curb carbon pollution could collapse, leaving people more vulnerable to climate-fueled disasters — from asthma and heart disease to extreme weather. It removes the very foundation of climate regulation in the U.S., designed not just to clear the way for polluters now, but to prevent future administrations from taking action to protect the public.
Read more: What’s happening to EPA-funded community projects under Trump?
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
White House plan to scrap chemical safety watchdog could leave communities dangerously exposed
A push by the Trump administration to eliminate the Chemical Safety Board threatens to strip away a key safety net for communities living near hazardous petrochemical facilities.
In short:
- The Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is an independent federal agency that investigates industrial chemical disasters and provides safety recommendations without issuing fines.
- The Trump administration proposes to eliminate the CSB’s $14 million budget by 2026, arguing it duplicates the work of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration — even as both of those agencies also face major budget cuts.
- Experts warn that defunding the CSB would shift the burden of investigating chemical disasters onto local governments already overwhelmed, especially in petrochemical-heavy regions like Houston.
Key quote:
“We’re still having incidents. We’re still having people get killed, we’re still having people get injured. We’re still having plants blow up.”
— Katherine Culbert, senior process safety engineer
Why this matters:
Gutting the CSB risks silencing investigations that protect workers, prevent deadly accidents, and uncover systemic failures in an increasingly climate-stressed world. Without the CSB, we’re looking at a future where communities, often low-income and majority Black or Latino, are left to piece together the causes of disasters themselves. Local governments already stretched thin won’t have the forensic tools, the technical expertise, or the authority to hold anyone accountable. When smoke rises from a ruptured tank or kids get sick from mysterious fumes, who’s going to connect the dots?
Read more:
- Toxic air lingers in Texas Latino community, revealing failures in state’s air monitoring system
- EPA announces stricter rules to prevent chemicals incidents
- Levels of cancer-causing benzene reached new heights in beleaguered Channelview, Texas. Regulators never told residents.
- Pennsylvania health advocates say Trump’s first 100 days in office have caused “100 harms” to local communities
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
