Transparency


EPA office building with agency flag

The EPA Should Not Restrict The Science They Use To Protect Us

, director, Center for Science & Democracy

On Tuesday morning, the Environmental Protection Agency is holding their only hearing on their proposed rule that would restrict the science that the agency is allowed to consider in developing health and safety protections. My colleagues and I have written extensively about this proposal. On Tuesday, I will have the opportunity to speak directly to the agency about this proposal. I will have five minutes. Here is what I intend to say. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Photo: Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0 (Flickr)

Pruitt’s Science Advisors Urge Him to Let Them Review His So-Called Transparency Initiative

, science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

One week after issuing its letters on EPA’s spring and fall regulatory agendas, the SAB posted a letter to Administrator Pruitt urging him to charge the SAB with reviewing the flawed restricted science rule before taking further action on the proposed rule due to the very important scientific considerations needed for transparency at the agency. This is a strong statement coming from the Administrator’s very own science advisors, 18 of whom were hand-selected by Pruitt himself. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

The EPA SAB Agreed to Tell Pruitt that EPA’s Restricted Science Rule is Problematic, But Where’s the Follow-up?

, science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

The EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) met earlier this month in DC to discuss a range of issues, but perhaps most prominently, to discuss whether any of Pruitt’s deregulatory actions from 2017 had scientific issues warranting SAB review. Also on the agenda was whether the SAB should have a chance to review the merits of the EPA’s restricted science proposal before it moved any farther in the rulemaking process. At the end of the meeting, the SAB members agreed (almost unanimously) that they would write to Pruitt and tell him that they did indeed want to review five spring and fall 2017 regulatory agenda items, including the glider truck rule and the Clean Power Plan, and the restricted science proposal. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Debriefing the EPA’s Science Advisory Board Meeting

, science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

I spent most of Thursday and Friday this week at the EPA’s Science Advisory Board meeting in Washington, DC, as the 44 members gathered to discuss EPA’s regulatory agenda and hear updates from EPA programs on lead, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). As I explained earlier this week, it was the first meeting for 18 of the members who had been appointed after Administrator Pruitt issued his directive barring EPA-funded scientists from serving on the committee. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Shareholders Not Playing Games at Big Oil Annual General Meetings

, climate accountability campaign manager

Major fossil fuel producers are holding their annual general meetings (AGMs) this month amid mounting pressure from investors, increasing risks of legal liability for climate damages, and heightened scrutiny of their lobbying and public policy advocacy. BP and Royal Dutch Shell host their AGMs this week; ExxonMobil and Chevron will follow next week.

If shareholder meetings were classic game shows, and investors were keeping score, fossil fuel companies would be coming up short. Read more >

©corlaffra/Shutterstock.com
Bookmark and Share