OMB


The White House Clearly Does Not Like the EPA’s “Secret Science” Plan

, Deputy director, Center for Science & Democracy

The EPA’s plan to limit the types of science that the  EPA can use to make decisions may run into an unusual roadblock: the White House itself. In a Senate hearing yesterday, New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan questioned White House official Neomi Rao about the EPA plan (watch here, beginning at 59:02), and the answers suggest that the EPA and the White House are not on the same page. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

The Trump Administration Word Ban Extends to Other Federal Agencies. Its Ongoing Assault on Science Is Much Worse.

, Deputy director, Center for Science & Democracy

A word ban extends beyond the CDC, the Washington Post reported last night, including at another, unnamed HHS agency that was told how to talk about the Affordable Care Act, presumably to discourage people from signing up for health care. The directive came from the White House Office of Management and Budget, which coordinates the president’s budget proposal and rule-making agenda.

Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Finally, a Silica Rule: A Story of Industry Interference and Regulatory Delay

, Research Director, Center for Science and Democracy

“The science is clear,” Representative Frederica Wilson asserted in a Congressional hearing on silica earlier today. Last month, the Department of Labor issued the long-awaited silica rule to protect workers from health effects of crystalline silica dust exposure. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Not Easy to Declare Independence from Sugar

, , sr. Washington rep., Center for Science & Democracy

Our Center for Science and Democracy has been busy studying sugar, its health impacts, and the ways that the sugar industry tries to undermine the science that shows that sugar is not a sweet deal for American families. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

The Social Cost of Carbon: Counting the Costs of Climate Change and the Benefits of Cutting Carbon Pollution

, , lead economist and climate policy manager

Last November the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) solicited comments on the administration’s social cost of carbon (SCC) calculations. Today, as the extended comment period closes, the Union of Concerned Scientists filed joint comments with Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Institute for Policy Integrity (Policy Integrity), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in support of the SCC. The current SCC value is an important start for measuring the benefits of cutting carbon pollution. At $37 per metric ton of CO2 in 2015 (2007 dollars, using a 3% discount rate), it is also almost certainly an underestimate of the costs of climate change and can be improved in the future. Read more >

Bookmark and Share