Environment | ***Dave Does the Blog

Trump’s weird obsession about wind power

Why is he so paranoid about it?

The abiding question behind almost everything Donald Trump does is figuring out why he’s doing it. Is it a grift? Is it an ego-boost? Is it political skulduggery? Is it vengeance? Or is it a weird misfiring set of synapses?

That pertains to his long-held bizarro-world views of wind power — something that produces power vitally needed by the ever-growing grid in the US.

Sure, it could be a matter of Trump rewarding fossil fuel billionaires for their donations, tied to his steadfast climate denialism. It could be a grift, concern over “unsightly” wind farms damaging the views from places like his golf courses.

Energy developers head to court as Trump says the US ‘will not approve any windmills’

Trump said his goal is to prevent any new wind farms, calling them “losers.”

www.denverpost.com/2026/01/12/trump-vs-offshore-wind/

But the way he approaches it strikes me as odd, and something beyond that. Every now and again, Trump will repeat his baseless claim that wind turbines cause cancer. Never mind the occupational danger and environmental health issues around fossil fuels — something has lodged in his brain that paints wind power as some sort of existential danger.

And, perhaps in an effort to turn “green” folk against them, he constantly brings up mass bird kills (even though wind turbines kill fewer birds, in various ways, than fossil fuels do).

Do wind turbines kill birds?

Yes—but only a fraction as many as are killed by house cats, buildings, or even the fossil fuel operations that wind farms replace.

climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds

He also is convinced that wind farms are “losers” economically — even though is Department of Energy still has a page on how they are anything but.

Advantages and Challenges of Wind Energy

Wind energy advantages explain why wind power is one of the fast-growing renewable energy sources in all the world.

www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy

At least for the moment, that page touts the positive benefits of jobs, renewable energy production, community benefits from taxes, and, ultimately, that “and-based, utility-scale wind turbines provide one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today.”

Not that Donald would ever let something like “facts” get in the way of something he’s decided is true. Admitting you were wrong is (from his point of view) for pussies.

Now, it’s easy to say, “Well, at worst, Trump is just delaying some of these projects by a few years.” But that assumes, first, that whoever comes behind him isn’t just as rabid on the topic as he is. Second, business demands stability in economics before they invest lots of money. The projects Donald is mid-stream canceling will cost many, many zeroes of lost money based on already-made investments. That sort of unstable business climate (“Can we afford to risk money in the US when in four years policy may swivel about 180 degrees”) means his actions will impact economic and clean energy production for a decade or more.

In short, he’s not only burning down these projects, he’s salting the earth so as to keep them from happening again, even after he’s gone.

Which, of course, can only hurt the US (and the world), but Donald doesn’t let that keep him up at night, as long as enough statues are erected to him in his lifetime.

National Security? Or Financial Security?

It sure sounds like Greenland is in the crosshairs because there’s a lot of money to be made there.

So we keep hearing from the Trump Regime about how the US must take over Greenland because it’s vital for National Security.

For example …

Trump’s Greenland threats put transatlantic alliance on death watch

“The Greenland issue does make everything even more complicated,” a senior European diplomat said.

www.axios.com/2026/01/07/greenland-trump-threat-nato-alliance

… we get statements like this:

“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the U.S., and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal,” Leavitt said.
[…] Trump has repeated his position that the U.S. “needs” Greenland, and his claim that the Arctic island is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships (the Danish official said that contradicts the intelligence assessments of both the U.S. and Denmark).

They make it sound like China (!) is about to launch a military invasion of Greenland. Not that this sounds at all likely (China’s navy, let alone air force, have no way of projecting power in the North Atlantic, and if Russian ships are swarming around Greenland, that’s a direct threat to the US in and of itself that I would think we would be taking action on).

That the US already has bases in Greenland makes another country invading there even less likely. Especially since pre-existing agreements let the US pretty much do what it wants in building more such bases. We can already make it into a fortress against hypothetical intrusion.

Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.

Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.

www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/world/europe/trump-greenland-denmark-us-defense-pact.html

The problem is, as soon as any of the Trump officials finish saying anything about the Chinese/Russian menace, they keep talking, with a focus about how climate change and the reduction of polar ice (which, apparently, is okay to talk about when it comes to taking over Greenland, but not when it comes to fossil fuel policy) will make Northwest Passage-style shipping across the top of the Americas more likely.

Analysis: Why Trump wants to take Greenland | CNN Politics

America’s next conquest might become Trumpland.

www.cnn.com/2026/01/07/politics/trump-greenland-takeover-empire-venezuela-analysis

Trump says the US ‘needs’ Greenland. Here are five reasons why

The island’s strategic location above the Arctic Circle makes it a focal point in global security and trade debates

www.the-independent.com/news/world/europe/why-does-trump-want-greenland-denmark-b2895347.html

For Greenland’s Minerals, the Harsh Reality Behind the Glittering Promise

There is excitement about the potentially lucrative resources scattered around the island, especially the rare earths. But extreme weather, fired-up environmentalists and other factors have tempered hopes of a bonanza.

www.nytimes.com/2025/03/03/world/europe/greenland-minerals-trump.html

Which makes it sound like they really expect (or want us to think they expect) to be having to fight a naval war, within air base reach of the US, which is a bit bonkers.

More importantly, they go on about the vast mineral wealth of Greenland under the tundra — again, becoming more exposed by climate change (which we still don’t talk about, got it? except when we do …).

And at some point the discussion shifts from “We have to intervene to stop the Commies Russians & Chinese from taking over a valuable military location” to “Boy, is there a lot of money to be made in Greenland, we should go take it.”

Which makes it less about “national security” and more about “conquest” and “piracy” and “stealing.” The same tune playing loudly in the background as the Trump folk talk about, yeah, Maduro was an awful guy and a narco-criminal and Hey, isn’t it cool how much oil we can now take from Venezuela? Oil that belongs to the people there, except, no, it really belongs to us, because we’re running things.

Sure, sure, access to some of those minerals is of “strategic” economic importance. Wouldn’t want China to cut off our supplies of rare earths, etc. And that would be a lot more believable if we were talking about protecting Greenland for Greenlanders and simply putting in bases to make sure that the Chinese didn’t invade, and making investments in the country’s infrastructure under a profit-sharing arrangement that ostensibly benefits everyone, including the locals.

But when we say, “Cool! Mineral wealth for the US!” the whole thing sort of loses any moral high ground. Indeed, if the Chinese and Russians are, in fact, looking to take over the country and exploit it, it doesn’t sound that much different than what we’re going to do, except for the colors on the flag.

Of course, there are plenty of folk in the Trump Regime who think that’s just fine — that the only moral justification comes at the end of a metaphorical bayonet, and the moral high ground is a good place to bulldoze and build a refinery on.

“We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time,” [Stephen] Miller told host Jake Tapper on CNN’s “The Lead” earlier this week.

Might Makes Right. How very … imperial.

The 2020 Colorado ballot proposition results

I’m mostly happy about the results.

Since I talked about my Colorado ballot proposition choices before the election, it’s only fair I report on how the People voted. Colors will indicate whether I won or lost.

Amendment B: Doing away with the Gallagher Amendment on Property Taxes

I voted YES. Result was YES (57-43). Colorado’s tax laws remain a mess, but this has yanked a few wires out of the tangle.

Amendment C: Easier / more profitable to run bingo-raffle games.

I voted NO. Result was YES (52/48), but fails by not reaching the required 55%. Changes in the ballot proposition system a few elections back means that some proposals require a 55% win. This one didn’t meet it, which I’m just as happy about, as the whole thing sounded like a scam.

Amendment 76: Edit a voting requirement to “must be a United States citizen”

I voted NO. Result was YES (63-37). A solution searching for a problem, and a sop for nativists.

Amendment 77: Allow limited gaming towns to go hog-wild with games and stakes.

I voted NO. Result was YES (60-40). Some towns and community colleges will get a little richer. Some gambling companies will get a lot richer. A bunch of Coloradans will get a lot poorer.

Proposition EE: Nicotine tax on vaping products and smoking tobacco products.

I voted YES. Result was YES (68-32). Everyone loves a sin tax.

Proposition 113: Join the National Popular Vote compact?

I voted YES. Result was YES (52-48). The Electoral College sucks. Enough Coloradans feel that way, too.

Proposition 114: Reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado?

I voted YES. Result was YES (50.3-49.7). This one barely eked its way to victory. Oh, btw, the Trump Administration just announced gray wolves were off the Endangered Species List.

Proposition 115: Ban abortion at 22 weeks?

I voted NO. Result was NO (41-59). I wish the margin had been higher. But, then, I wish folk would stop putting this on the ballot every election.

Proposition 116: Cut state income tax from 4.63% to 4.55%

I voted NO. Result was YES (57-43). Most people won’t notice the difference, but state programs will.

Proposition 117: Require voter approval of state enterprises that charge un-TABORed fees?

I voted NO. Result was YES (52-48). This state remains compulsively anti-tax.

Proposition 118: Create a paid family and medical leave program?

I voted YES. Result was YES (57-43). But we’re also kind of progressive on what we want government to do. Yes, that’s quite a contradiction. But I’ll take it on this one (though it will be up for referendum in two years based on the win of Prop 117).

Overall, I’m pretty pleased, going 7–4 on how I wanted the vote to go — and not losing on the ones I felt most strongly about. So … I’ll take my victories where I can.

Heading toward the last Roundup?

Monsanto’s weed-killer is, ironically, bringing down its new corporate owner.

Monsanto (now owned by German pharma giant Bayer) took a huge hit in court last week, with a jury finding that its star product, Roundup, is a carcinogen.

On Wednesday afternoon, German chemical giant Bayer sustained another costly legal defeat related to Monsanto, the US seed and pesticide giant it subsumed last year. A US District Court jury in San Francisco awarded plaintiff Edward Hardeman $80.3 million—including $75 million in damages—after ruling that Monsanto’s blockbuster glyphosate-based Roundup herbicides had caused his case of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
[…] On Thursday, yet another glyphosate trial opened in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. The plaintiffs, a married couple named Alva and Alberta Pilliod, claim long-term exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them both to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Theirs is the first of more than 250 Roundup cancer cases consolidated before Superior Court of California Judge Winifred Smith.

Roundup is highly valuable to Monsanto, not just as a remarkably effective weed-killer, but by letting it sell Roundup-resistant seed, which makes weed-free farming terrifically easy (plant your seeds, spray it all with Roundup, and just the stuff you want grows). Monsanto has earned oodles of money that way — which is why Bayer’s stock has taken such a hit.

The company’s share price has plunged nearly 25 percent since the phase-one verdict on March 18, and by more than 40 percent since mid-August 2018, when a California Superior Court jury awarded school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson $289 million in damages after ruling that Roundup exposure had caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. (The award was later reduced to $78 million—roughly equal to the damages decided in the Hardeman case.)

As a home gardner, I love Roundup as much as anyone. But increasing evidence that its got some nasty effects led me to stop using it at home. Which doesn’t mean that the replacement weed killer I’m using won’t cause me to grow a second head, but that’s a story for another lawsuit.

Do you want to know more? The Latest $80 Million Cancer Judgment Is Just the Beginning of Roundup’s Woes – Mother Jones

It’s like sometimes they don’t even bother to pretend they aren’t comic book villains

With gleeful commentary about what a fine distraction the President is

It's like sometimes they don't even bother to pretend they aren't comic book villains. https://t.co/wskAKRvxRe
— Dave Hill (@Three_Star_Dave) March 14, 2019

A top US official told a group of fossil fuel industry leaders that the Trump administration will soon issue a proposal making large portions of the Atlantic available for oil and gas development, and said that it is easier to work on such priorities because Donald Trump is skilled at sowing “absolutely thrilling” distractions, according to records of a meeting obtained by the Guardian.
Joe Balash, the assistant secretary for land and minerals management, was speaking to companies in the oil exploration business at a meeting of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, or IAGC, last month.

Why, yes, let’s absolutely “drill, baby, drill” all along the Atlantic seaboard (except Florida, through special concession to its politically sensitive barely-tilting-GOP population). What could possibly go wrong?

oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-from-deepwater-horizon — A reminder of what could go wrong, courtesy of the Deepwater Horizon disaster

Just as interesting was this bit, which I guess was the sort of thing one says behind not-quite-closed doors:

“One of the things that I have found absolutely thrilling in working for this administration,” said Balash,“is the president has a knack for keeping the attention of the media and the public focused somewhere else while we do all the work that needs to be done on behalf of the American people.”

Which raises the question of whether Trump does outrageous stuff and folk who want to operate without the “attention of the public” take advantage of it to scurry out under his cover? Or is Trump intentionally playing the media and public to allow these folk to do their own thing without that “attention.”?

In either case, it’s clear the Trump Administration focus is on cranking up American oil production as much as possible, which should make some large oil firms quite happy indeed.

Do you want to know more? US official reveals Atlantic drilling plan while hailing Trump’s ability to distract public | Environment | The Guardian

Animal Crackers no longer behind bars

PETA is a problematic organization, but kudos to Nabisco for updating their animal cracker box design, at PETA’s lobbying, to something other than animals being transported around behind bars.

Do you want to know more? Animal Crackers Unveil New ‘Cage Free’ Design After PETA Protest | Rare

Protecting the Administrator, not the Environment

Meanwhile, back in Scott Pruitt Land, we're building a private army, complete with "tactical polos," holsters, and bullet-proof vehicles and breaching kits. The security spending is approaching $5M.

I thought the Environmental Protection Agency was set up to, you know, protect the environment, not the business-friendly administrator.

Scott Pruitt Has Spent a Total of $4.6 Million on Security, New Disclosures Show — Including $1,500 on “Tactical Pants”
A Freedom of Information Act document shows the EPA administrator’s expenses jumped $1.1 million from the last disclosure a month ago.

Original Post

Regulation and Price Fixing and Socialism Are Bad!

Except, of course, when they’re apparently not.

(The assertion, by the by, that nuclear and coal-fired plants are immune to natural disasters and can just keep on chugging out energy in case of one, appears to be dubious, e.g. ,, https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/factsheets/naturaldisaster&nuclearpower.pdf .)

Originally shared by +Stan Pedzick:

I love how so called “free market” conservatives will do the complete opposite at the drop of a hat. Also, this should provide much entertainment as the entire power industry sues the DOE so that they do not have to raise rates to buy expensive power.
Of course, the easiest solution, the one that conservatives will not do, would be to buy and operate the aging expensive facilities themselves if they were so concerned about it. The USBR already operates almost every major hydro facility in the US, so it would be easy for them to drop a billion dollars to buy these plants and maintain and run them in case of an emergency.

Trump Prepares Lifeline for Money-Losing Coal Power Plants
Trump administration officials are making plans to order grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear plants in an effort to extend their life, a move that could represent an unprecedented intervention into U.S. energy markets.

Original Post

Trump meeting with automakers about how to consume more gasoline

Because of course he is.

Though to be fair, it seems that Trump’s plans actually go further than even the automobile manufacturers want. They kind of seem to like being able to show increasing fuel efficiency and value for consumers. They just want more time to implement them than the Obama Administration had given them.

Trump, apparently, wants to freeze the standards (not just delay them), and keep states (California and others who follow their lead) from requiring higher standards. The automakers like that last bit in concept (because a single standard is easier to work with), but are concerned that too hard a push will trigger court cases that will keep them uncertain about the future for an excessive period of time.

We’ve always been told that businesses don’t like uncertainty. The Trump administration seems determined to give it to them, in the guise of “helping” them.

Trump to meet with automakers on push to relax efficiency rules
Automaker do not want the administration to freeze the standards, with no future increases.

View on Google+

Ford is turning into a Truck and SUV manufacturer

It’s dropping pretty much all of its car line-up.

This is clearly a market-driven decision. Americans, famously, like SUVs and trucks. But I have to wonder how much of it is a gamble on gasoline prices remaining fairly low, coupled with being a result of That Man in the White House deciding to roll back fuel economy standards. Which may also turn out to be a gamble for Ford.

Say goodbye to nearly all of Ford’s car lineup: Sales end by 2020
It’s killing the Focus, Fiesta, Fusion, and Taurus, will focus on SUVs and trucks.

View on Google+

A greener way of making bluejeans

Synthetic indigo has been around for a very long time, to support the never-ending demand for the proper dye for bluejeans. But synthetic indigo is based on benzene, which is awful stuff to work with, let alone the environmental impact.

Now industrial scientists have figured out a way to make bacteria produce the dye, which will have a much lower environmental impact once they get it set up commercially. And since demand for bluejeans doesn’t seem to be decreasing any time soon, that’s a Good Thing.

A greener shade of blue
Because who doesn’t want sustainable jeans?

View on Google+

Everyone gets offshore oil drilling … except, it seems, Florida

After Trump’s Interior Secretary Zinke announced that pretty much everywhere would now be open to offshore oil drilling (and it was also announced that a bunch of regulations put in place around offshore drilling in the aftermath of the BP oil disaster a few years back), there was a lot of outrage from (among others) lots of different states that happen to have coastlines that they would rather not seen covered with spilled out (or coastal views they would just as soon have filled with offshore derricks [1]).

Well, worry not, because it’s easy to get out of offshore oil development: just ask!

Zinke announced today that, no, there won’t be any exploration off the coast of Florida. All Gov. Rick Scott had to do was ask.

Oh, and be a loyal Trump supporter.

Oh, and be running for the US Senate and wanting to avoid having Floridans, including even maybe some Republicans, being pissed off about offshore drilling.

Of course, the excuse looks to be “Florida is unique and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver.” Because I’m sure no other coastal states are “unique,” or that their coasts are reliant on tourism, or fisheries, or other things that big oil spills might damage.

California? Virginia? Maine? Washington? Alaska? Ugly coastlines, no tourists, drill, baby, drill.

It’s good to be a political ally of the the majority party, whether it’s getting access to all that precious oil and gas for your bottom line, or sealing it off so that you get votes for a Senate run.

——
[1] Insert ironic comment here about how Donald Trump pitched a hissy-fit over wind farms offshore from his Scottish golf course.

The Trump Administration Will Not Allow Drilling Off the Florida Coast
Florida’s GOP Governor opposed the idea

View on Google+

The Rise and Fall of Turtle as Food

Interesting quick culinary history about how turtles went from expensive delicacy to standard to … completely off the menu. And the reasons for the latter aren’t just about endangered species.

(I have no particular interest in eating turtle, but its still kind of curious how things changed over the course of a few centuries.)

Why have Americans stopped eating turtle?
America has a food diversity problem. Chicken, pork, and beef account for many of the animal proteins found on our dinner table—the product of decades of agricultural industrialization—and this has left us with cheaper but more limited options at the butcher’s counter. Once a year we all sit down to eat turkey, but when was the last time you had snipe, mutton, or rabbit?

View on Google+

Bye-bye, Pikas

The Pika population around Lake Tahoe, California, has vanished, following similar die-offs in Utah and Nevada over the past decade.

But, no, of course it’s not climate change, no matter what all those scientists say. I mean, what do they know? They probably just want more grant money. No, it’s almost certainly a conspiracy — maybe those Chinese, sneaking into national parks and stealing all our pikas, then making up stories about “climate change”. Crafty bastards. Maybe Trump will talk to them about that on his Asia tour, and show them who’s boss.

Sigh.

Climate Change Spells Extinction for Pikas of Lake Tahoe
Researchers say the American pika has disappeared from a large area of the Sierra Nevada mountains.

View on Google+

“Experts? We don’ need no stinking experts!”

EPA-hating EPA Director Scott Pruitt has declared that scientists that receive any federal funding from the EPA cannot also serve on the major science advisory boards regarding research and regulatory priorities for the EPA.

That has a facile sensibility to it, of course, until you realize that means the scientists doing top research in those science areas will no longer be there to give “advice.” Instead, those roles will be filled by scientists funded privately by large corporations — the very entities the EPA tends to regulate and whose research often embarrasses.

Pruitt citing a biblical reference in announcing the decision is, of course, icing on the cake.

Pruitt used a story from the Book of Joshua to help explain the new policy. “On the journey to the promised land, “Joshua says to the people of Israel: choose this day whom you are going to serve,” Pruitt said. “This is sort of like the Joshua principle — that as it relates to grants from this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or chose the grant. But you can’t do both. That’s the fair and great thing to do.”

Which again sounds plausible, until you realize who it means that the EPA has chosen to serve.

Citing The Bible, The EPA Just Blew Up Its Science Advisory Boards
Referencing the Book of Joshua, EPA head Scott Pruitt announced sweeping changes to the agency’s science advisory boards, opening the door to more input from the business world.

View on Google+

Donald Trump doesn’t care out about the environment

That’s the best case scenario — the worst is that he’s actively hostile to the environment and would be completely thrilled to see the nation paved over under a blackened sky. Except for his golf courses, of course, which will remain beautiful, green, and private.

But, honestly, I think he doesn’t much care. As long as he can profit from his businesses for the next twenty years, and get plenty of outside funding for a re-election in three years.

It’s just the rest of us that will suffer. For decades.

Trump Picks Coal Lobbyist to Serve As EPA’s No. 2

View on Google+

The environmental contamination cost of Hurricane Harvey

Testing indicates massive amounts of dioxins — linked to birth defects and cancer — from Superfund sites have been found downstream of the flooding. Pity that Trump has proposed cutting the Superfund budget by a third.

Oh, well, it’s Texas. I’m sure they all appreciate the liberty that comes from a deregulated society.

EPA says dioxins might have washed downriver during Harvey
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Environmental Protection Agency says an unknown amount of a dangerous chemical linked to birth defects and cancer may have washed downriver from a Houston-area Superfund site during the flooding from Hurricane Harvey.
EPA said Thursday night it has ordered the companies responsible for the San Jacinto River Waste Pits site to immediately address damage to a protective cap of fabric and rock intended to keep sediments highly …

View on Google+

Johnny Appledrone

Using drones for reforesting efforts? Planting a billion trees a year? That … has a lot of possibilities, globally.

How Drones Could Be Able to Plant a Billion Trees Per Year
They’ll be shooting seeds into the ground starting this September.

View on Google+

The Finns are moving forward with permanent nuclear waste storage

It’s the radioactive elephant in the room about nuclear energy — nuclear plants generate waste, and that waste is dangerous for tens of thousands of years, and what the hell do you do with it?

The answer to date from countries using nuclear plants is to stick it in metal drums in ponds (to cool it) and hope someone figures out a long-term solution before the drums rust through.

Finland is tired of waiting. It thinks it has a decent solution now that will serve for the extremely long period that the waste needs to be stored, and are proceeding with same. It’s not clear that the combination of geography, geology,, Finnish government, and community approval is transferable to other nations (these remain, in the US at least, an intractable problem), but I have to applaud them for taking action that sounds reasonable and makes as much sense as anything else proposed.

The World’s First Permanent Nuclear-Waste Repository
Buried deep under an island in the Baltic, the project is nearing completion. If all goes according to plan, future generations may not know it’s there.

View on Google+

The EPA seems to consider journalists more dangerous than flooded waste sites

After an AP story about the numerous Houston-area Superfund sites that have been flooded but have apparently not been inspected yet by the EPA to see what contamination may be occurring, or what toxins may be flowing offsite, the EPA refuted the story by noting that inspections had occurred, water toxicity tested, and that teams were onsite addressing all problems.

Ha! No, of course they didn’t. Instead they offered up a lengthy press release basically saying, “Hey, we flew over most of them, and called up some people, so that counts” and then …

… spent three-quarters of the release attacking the AP and the article’s author as being mean to the EPA Director Scott Pruitt in the past, linking to a Breitbart (!) story about how mean the journalist has been before, and extensively quoting an Oklahoma newspaper that criticized the journalist for questioning why Pruitt — previously EPA-suing Attorney General of Oklahoma — was so buddy-buddy with oil and gas industry.

Yeah, this is today’s Environmental Protection Agency, vigorously protecting … their director’s reputation.

Donald Trump’s EPA Is Now Attacking Journalists [Updated]
On Saturday, Associated Press journalists Jason Dearen and Michael Biesecker reported at least five toxic, Houston-area Superfund sites in the path of Hurricane Harvey had been deluged with floodwater, potentially distributing the assorted nasty things contained within across a much larger geographical area. The AP report noted while its reporters were able to access the sites via boat, the Environmental Protection Agency was not on scene, and di…

View on Google+