LIBBY, Mont. – The Regulatory Accountability Act in the U.S. Senate follows the lead of President Trump and the House in changing how federal agencies make regulations. But Montana critics of the bill are concerned it would set the bar too high for passing regulations and weaken agencies' abilities to enforce laws.

Gayla Bennefield lives in Libby, which has been devastated by asbestos, a toxic byproduct of vermiculite mining. Bennefield's parents and husband died of asbestos-related illnesses. She says the Environmental Protection Agency finally is working on rules to regulate asbestos - rules she and others have been fighting to get for nearly two decades.

"But now with the new regulatory act, everything that we've ever worked for and everything we stand for, I think, in Libby, is going to be wiped off the slate," she says.

The bill requires agencies to prioritize "cost-effective" solutions, which supporters say will save the government money. But opponents worry it will mean cutting corners on protections for people's health and the environment. They also worry about the bill giving more regulatory oversight to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

David Ditloff with the National Wildlife Federation in Montana says the bill flips an essential part of the rule-making script. Instead of the current benchmark that a rule not be "arbitrary and capricious," agencies would have to show "substantial evidence" of the need for a rule.

Ditloff says this could hamstring rules in court. In his view, the bill is presented as making the rule-making process more efficient - but would do just the opposite.

"The Regulatory Accountability Act would actually add 53 new requirements to the regulatory process," he explains. "It's solution to too much bureaucracy, and red tape is adding more red tape."

Ditloff says all of this tips the scales away from protections for Americans and toward special interests.


get more stories like this via email

Hoosiers could get their holiday trees from any of about 200 tree farms in the state, according to the Indiana Christmas Tree Growers Association. But some families choose artificial trees, and each choice comes with environmental consequences.

Delaney Barber, energy and climate manager for the Hoosier Environmental Council, said live trees help store carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but when they are disposed of, that process creates carbon.

"If it's just going into a landfill, it's probably the worst," Barber said. "It's going to degrade down over time because it is biodegradable, but it will release more emissions as it degrades."

One report on the website earth.org claims real Christmas trees have an average carbon footprint of almost eight pounds of carbon dioxide if destroyed in a wood chipper after use. In a landfill, the carbon footprint increases to 35 pounds.

Barber suggested that Hoosiers take their live trees to designated drop-off sites in most cities for recycling, to create mulch or compost.

Artificial trees require minimal maintenance and can last for years. However, Barber explained, they're made from petroleum-based plastics and take hundreds of years to break down in a landfill. Where the tree is made presents more questions.

"Are you getting the fake Christmas tree from a U.S. manufacturer," she said, "or is it coming from overseas? And then, there's more transportation emissions for that."

About 80% of artificial Christmas trees are manufactured in China, with a lifespan of up to 30 years. Some companies are making them out of recycled materials, which helps reduce their carbon footprint.


get more stories like this via email

Bloomington and Indianapolis are getting some international recognition for the work they're doing to help the environment. The two have been named "A List Cities" by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

Only 119 cities and counties worldwide got A List designation this year, for "bold leadership on environmental action" and transparency about their plans. The cities are on what's known as the Carbon Disclosure Project Track, making progress to curb carbon emissions.

Director of the Office of Sustainability for the City of Indianapolis, Morgan Mickelson, said one reason for the Indianapolis ranking is its efforts in tree planting.

"Trees are really important to help us lower surface temperature in our neighborhoods, also to help purify air," she explained. "We have a large effort with Keep Indianapolis Beautiful to plant trees, and we work really intentionally with KIB to ensure that we're planting trees in areas that historically have not seen as much investment in terms of tree planting."

Nonprofit Keep Indianapolis Beautiful runs programs that encourage teen and adult involvement, and partners with the city on multiple conservation projects.

Bloomington's Climate Action Plan features many carbon-cutting objectives, including boosting food markets to help grow that city's local food economy and reduce waste.

The Office of Sustainability also administers Thrive Indianapolis, the city's first sustainability and resiliency action plan.

Mickelson said since 2018, more than 31,000 trees have been planted in public spaces -- and that's just a start.

"I also want to caution everyone that the work is not done," she warned. "We're in the climate crisis. I would just encourage everyone to take the time to reflect on all the hard work that is being done, but to also not forget that we have a lot more work ahead."

This is the sixth time Indianapolis has received an 'A' rating.



get more stories like this via email

A Virginia group is working out ways to reforest former mines across Appalachia.

The state has several hundred thousand acres of mine land, which was being handled under the Virginia Department of Energy's Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program. But other groups feel reforesting mine lands can play a role in reducing global carbon levels.

Diana Dombrowski, carbon research fellow at Appalachian Voices, said this is the kind of project the carbon-offset market can invest in.

"They're interested in projects that not only are maybe more local, to where they're based, but also have an environmental justice perspective," Dombrowski explained. "When it comes to the work of reforesting mine land, we're aware of a need in central Appalachia."

The process begins with reclaiming the mine land, which could cost from $7.5 billion to almost $10 billion. But the carbon offset market made $277 billion last year, so it sounds possible. There also are other options available. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides almost $113 billion, appropriated for Virginia's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.

Reforesting former mining areas can help Virginia achieve its climate goals. The projects can add to resilience against storms for communities, and help keep air and soil healthy.

Dombrowski noted other challenges could come up, such as how to identify the best sites for reforesting projects.

"Designing a project that can plan for the most carbon sequestration," Dombrowski suggested. "Where you pick the best land versus a project where you are maybe running over an average, that maybe people will see in the public at large."

Since the work is in the earliest phases, other challenges could arise. Dombrowski pointed out one priority is to focus on environmental justice. She added if any projects turn a profit, the funds will be reinvested into the workforce or materials to keep the work going.