HARRISBURG, Pa. - Environmental groups are condemning new rules that threaten to roll back protections from toxic power plant emissions.

The Environmental Protection Agency is changing the way it calculates the impact of mercury emissions. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, put in place in 2012, justified the cleanup costs to industry by including the health benefits of reducing other pollutants - like sulfur dioxide and particulates - that come with reducing mercury.

The new rules consider only the impact of mercury itself. Mandy Warner, director of Climate and Clean Air Policy at the Environmental Defense Fund, says that undermines the purpose of the standards.

"These standards reduce 80 toxic air pollutants, deadly soot," says Warner. "That is the real-world impact of these standards, and that is what EPA should be considering."

Trump administration officials have characterized the 2012 rule as a dishonest mechanism used to justify regulatory action regardless of cost.

The Obama administration estimated the mercury rule would prevent 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks and 11,000 premature deaths each year. And Warner points out it isn't the only clean air regulation under attack.

"It's coming after a series of other actions that either can directly increase the amount of pollution or undermine some of our foundational clean-air standards," says Warner.

She adds the clean air rules are being weakened even as the nation battles a pandemic that causes deadly respiratory problems.

While the new standard doesn't eliminate restrictions on mercury emissions, critics say it opens the door to legal challenges, to those regulations and many other environmental rules.

"It will invite certain interests to seek legal review of the mercury standards that we think is a really direct threat to public health," says Warner.

Environmental groups are planning to sue the EPA to prevent the changes to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards from taking effect.

Latino Conservation Week is in full swing, with 330 events across the U.S. and 90 in California alone.

The 11th annual event runs through Sunday. The program is designed to draw people outside to enjoy public lands and work to protect the nation's air, land, water and wildlife.

Jessica Godinez, Latino Conservation Week manager for the Hispanic Access Foundation, explained the goal of the week.

"It was established to break down different barriers of access that the Latino community faces when it comes to accessing public lands," Godinez outlined. "And inspire the next generation of environmental stewards."

Godinez pointed out her group is encouraging authorities to improve access to public lands by making them less expensive, easier to reach via public transportation, more wheelchair-friendly and more culturally relevant.

Godinez added the events also promote a variety of environmental causes.

"Here at Hispanic Access Foundation, we focus our conservation work on climate change, ocean conservation, waterways and rivers and public lands," Godinez noted. "We try to amplify and elevate the voices of our community."

Latino Conservation Week was moved from July to September this year because of a record-breaking heat wave that gripped the state over the summer. The programming includes group hikes and other outdoor recreational opportunities, community film screenings and more.

A new report contends fossil fuel funding has biased Columbia University's climate research.

The report, by two Columbia students, shows the university has taken in close to $48 million in donations from the fossil fuel industry since 2005. Around $16 million went to fund Columbia's Center on Global Energy Policy.

Leel Dias, an environmental science major and report co-author, is convinced this funding has slanted the center's research. He cited a 2014 paper about the impacts of the U.S. ending its then-ban on exporting crude oil.

"A CEO of a natural gas company is listed as a contributor on this report. His name is Charif Souki; no disclaimers, no disclosures. All these reports by CGEP, I think the vast majority of them are not peer-reviewed, so there's no check. They're just published on the CGEP website," Dias said.

He added this study was a key factor when Congress ended the country's crude oil export ban in 2015. But Columbia isn't alone in this. Fossil fuel companies sponsor climate research at other schools, from Princeton and Stanford to George Washington University.

Other findings show some advisory board members for Columbia research centers are also on the boards of fossil fuel companies. Columbia University officials couldn't be reached for comment.

The research includes memos from fossil fuel companies suggesting Columbia University has been complicit in 'greenwashing' them.

Anika Kathuria, a computer science major and report co-author, said another conclusion is that Jason Bordoff, the Center for Global Energy Policy's founding director, might be swaying the center's research agenda.

"He has basically been talked about by numerous companies as this kind of 'corporate counselor' figure, where they will go to him to decide - to make decisions, decide what research paths they're going to go on. And it doesn't really make sense why the head of a center of research would be counseling corporate interests," Kathuria said.

The authors added that one goal of the report is to aid the newly formed student and faculty committee in examining fossil fuel research funding. The committee is slated to release a final report next fall, with guidelines for the university about this type of research funding.


get more stories like this via email

In Virginia's waters, the decline of a small but critically important fish is causing growing concern among conservation groups and fishermen alike.

Menhaden, often referred to as the "most important fish in the sea," are vital to the diets of predatory species like striped bass and osprey. Now, experts warn the decreasing menhaden population in the Chesapeake Bay could disrupt the ecosystem and threaten the sportfishing industry.

Steve Atkinson, chairman of the Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association, explained the ripple effect of the menhaden shortage on other species.

"The decline of menhaden in the bay is impacting the most important fishery that we have, which is striped bass," Atkinson pointed out. "That fishery has been in decline for over a decade now. Striped bass are overfished but we also believe they are underfed, because they rely heavily on menhaden."

The Chesapeake Bay is a primary spawning ground for menhaden and decades of overfishing have taken a toll on the species. The shortage is not only affecting sportfish. Research at the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William & Mary shows ospreys, which rely on menhaden to feed their chicks, have seen a dramatic reduction in nesting success.

Conservation groups said the problem stems from the current management of menhaden fishing. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has implemented catch limits but some experts believe they do not fully address the localized effects on ecosystems.

Jaclyn Higgins, forage fish program manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said more needs to be done.

"A huge amount of menhaden that are being taken out of arguably the most important estuary in the United States, by the third-largest fishery in the United States, and we have no idea what those impacts are to the greater ecosystem," Higgins emphasized.

Higgins noted about 75% of the Atlantic coastwide quota for menhaden is allocated to Virginia. She believes the management framework is robust but needs to be more region-specific.

Last month, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission voted to establish a workgroup to consider additional protections from industrial fishing of menhaden in the bay. These could include seasonal closures, to protect important fish and bird species.