Tag: epa

EPA Threw Away BILLIONS Ahead of Trump Presidency

There is still outrage surrounding the elimination of the EPA. People do not realize just how much money this agency blew through on absolutely nothing. Biden admitted that the Inflation Reduction Act, the most expensive spending package in US history, was about CLIMATE CHANGE at its core and had nothing to do with inflation. Those at the EPA called the act “Biden’s climate law” and were eager to spend the proceeds. Efron told an undercover journalist that they were preparing to spend the money as quickly as possible right up until inauguration day.

The EPA was aware that Trump would likely eliminate their impractical agency. “We gave them [nonprofits] the money because… it was an insurance policy against Trump winning. Because they aren’t [a government agency], they’re safer from Republicans taking the money away,” he said. The EPA awarded nonprofits between $50 and $100 million EACH toward the end of Biden’s presidency.

The Biden Administration effectively permitted this agency to “throw gold bars” off the edge of the Titanic and needlessly spend public funds. All of these investigations lead to the same conclusion. The government provides nonprofits with a large sum and those agencies then funnel the money to smaller agencies, whether its related to climate change or funding terrorism. This is precisely why Trump attempted to freeze all federal funds upon taking office.

Keep reading

EPA head Lee Zeldin reveals no real oversight of shocking $20B that Biden admin funneled through Citibank: ‘Tip of the iceberg’

A $20 billion Biden administration green-energy slush fund was collecting interest at a private bank and is being distributed without proper oversight, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin reveals in an exclusive interview.

President Joe Biden’s EPA parked $20 billion at the financial institution, which The Post has learned is Citibank, as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. But the awardees weren’t announced until August 2024 and Citibank was not brought in until September — after Biden’s disastrous June debate performance led him to withdraw from his re-election effort in July, making for a very different race with Vice President Kamala Harris the Democratic nominee.

Zeldin’s team is looking into whether former EPA employees are working at any of the grantees, which include the Opportunity Finance Network (receiving $2.29 billion), where vice president Laura Silverman says she brings “economic, financial, and social justice to communities,” and the Native CDFI Network ($400 million), which has featured Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as a speaker. Power Forward Communities, a $2 billion recipient, has no list of employees on its website — but does have openings for government affairs VP, communications VP and special assistant.

The others: Climate United Fund (which got the biggest grant, nearly $7 billion), Coalition for Green Capital ($5 billion), Inclusiv ($1.87 billion), Justice Climate Fund ($940 million) and Appalachian Community Capital ($500 million).

Here Lee Zeldin tells The Post’s Kelly Jane Torrance why it was “a high priority for me and my great team to get to the bottom of these questions as quickly as possible.”

This was on our radar during the transition, when the video was posted online at the beginning of December of the Biden EPA political appointee admitting on camera they were “throwing gold bars off the Titanic.”

Keep reading

Lee Zeldin Just Discovered $20 Billion Laundered by the Biden Admin

In a video announcement shared to social media Wednesday evening, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin revealed that approximately $20 billion in taxpayer funds have been discovered laundered into external financial institutions during the Biden administration.

Zeldin underscored the urgency of accountability, declaring, “One of my very top priorities at EPA is to be an excellent steward of your hard-earned tax dollars. There will be zero tolerance of any waste and abuse.”

The controversy goes back two months when a video of a Biden EPA appointee referring to taxpayer funds as “gold bars” being “tossed off the Titanic” went viral.

“The gold bars were tax dollars, and tossing them off the Titanic meant the Biden administration knew they were wasting it,” he explained.

“Fortunately, my awesome team at EPA has found the gold bars,” he stated. “This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history and it was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rush job with reduced oversight even further. This pot of $20 billion was awarded to just eight entities that were then responsible for doling out your money to NGOs and others at their discretion, with far less transparency.”

Keep reading

Climate Hustle: EPA Advisor Admits Sending Billions to Climate Groups Before Trump Takes Office

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advisor has been caught on hidden camera admitting that the outgoing Biden administration is funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to climate organizations as a hedge against the incoming Trump administration.

Brent Efron who is a special advisor for implementation for the EPA, was recorded by Project Veritas bragging about sending tens of billions of dollars in grants to climate nonprofits as “an insurance policy” against Trump’s promises to rein in government spending.

Efron exhibits zero shame as he laughingly equates the frantic effort to get as much money as possible to climate-related allies as “throwing gold bars off the Titanic.”

When asked where that money is going, Efron responds, “Nonprofits, states, tribes,” explaining that the effort would continue, “until the Trump people come in and tell us we cannot give out money.”

Keep reading

PFAS Found in Sludge Used as Fertilizer Can Contaminate Milk, Eggs and Meat

U.S. regulators on Tuesday added to growing concerns about the long-standing practice of using sewage sludge to fertilize farmland, releasing a report warning that chemicals contaminating the sludge pose heightened human health risks for cancer and other illnesses.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said two types of hazardous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) widely found in sewage sludge, a byproduct of wastewater treatment, can contaminate the milk, eggs and meat that come from farm animals raised on agricultural land where the sludge has been applied.

Those “exposure pathways” are among multiple ways in which people can be at risk, the EPA said.

The agency focused on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), two well-studied types of PFAS chemicals linked to testicular and kidney cancer as well as liver problems.

The EPA last spring designated PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the so-called Superfund law and announced the first legally enforceable limits for the two chemicals and four other types of PFAS in drinking water.

The EPA said that though the majority of U.S. food crops are not grown with the use of sewage sludge as a soil conditioner or fertilizer, because of the “extreme persistence” of PFOA and PFOS in soils, land where sewage sludge was applied years ago may still be contaminated.

The agency’s draft risk assessment, which was made publicly available on Jan. 14, said that “under certain scenarios and conditions,” land-applying or disposing of sewage sludge containing 1 part per billion or more of PFOA or PFOS “could result in human health risks exceeding the agency’s acceptable thresholds for cancer and noncancer effects.”

The draft assessment models health risks for people who live on or near contaminated sites or who eat primarily food or drinking water from PFAS-contaminated areas.

The report will be available for public comment over a 60-day period and may help the agency determine regulatory actions it might take under the Clean Water Act, said the EPA.

Keep reading

Green energy law to crack down on HVAC units in new year

The new year will ring in new “green” requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency for heating and air conditioning units that threaten to hike prices and, for the first time, require flammable refrigerants in residential and commercial HVAC units.

The new rule has triggered special training requirements for technicians and fire departments as they grapple with suddenly dealing with the possibility of HVAC systems catching fire, although testing shows the risk under most circumstances is low.

“It’s certainly a unique challenge. We’re trying to balance environmental considerations with fire safety in this particular instance,” Robin Zevotek, an engineer at the National Fire Protection Association, said.

The NFPA offers a training course to help the fire service handle the “unique challenges presented by these new refrigerants,” which, under certain circumstances, could catch on fire more easily than the non-flammable refrigerants the EPA is phasing out.

Beginning Jan. 1, manufacturers can no longer build heating, ventilation and air conditioning units that use a non-flammable refrigerant known as R-410A, a hydrofluorocarbon that, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming if it leaks from equipment into the atmosphere.

Instead, manufacturers must build all new systems that can accommodate a hydrofluoroolefins refrigerant that is slightly flammable but considered less of a danger to the climate than hydrofluorocarbons, which the Biden administration has sought to largely ban by 2036.

Consumers purchasing equipment will face price hikes that HVAC companies say will come with the new EPA requirements.

Some companies anticipate price increases of up to 30% on HVAC systems due to the cost of new equipment, additional training and longer installation and servicing times. The cost of the refrigerant is also likely to be higher, companies warned.

Keep reading

‘Unconscionable’: EPA to Only Partially Ban Pesticide Known to Harm Developing Babies

The long and winding regulatory road for a pesticide known to be harmful to developing babies took another turn on Monday as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was planning to only partially ban the insecticide chlorpyrifos in farming.

Under pressure from powerful agricultural industry interests and ordered by a federal court to consider the factors raised by the farming groups in a legal petition, the EPA said it would continue to allow chlorpyrifos to be used by farmers growing 11 crops, including apples, asparagus, citrus, peaches, strawberries, wheat, soybeans and others, despite evidence that the pesticide is associated with “neurodevelopmental effects” that can impair the normal development of children.

Other uses in farming would be banned, the agency said.

In the most recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report, chlorpyrifos was the 11th most frequently found pesticide in human food samples out of 209 different pesticides detected by FDA testing.

“EPA continues to prioritize the health of children,” Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement.

“This proposed rule is a critical step forward as we work to reduce chlorpyrifos in or on food and to better protect people, including infants and children, from exposure to chemicals that are harmful to human health.”

Keep reading

Hysterical, power-hungry EPA will require all property owners to have “no detectable level of lead dust in the air” – an impossible feat

Lead exposure is a serious health concern, especially for children, whose developing brains are drastically affected by the heavy metal. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going a step too far in regulating the heavy metal on private property.

According to new rules released by Biden’s EPA — homes, apartment buildings and child care facilities must test completely negative for lead. Under most circumstances, this is completely implausible. Lead particulate matter is ubiquitous is air measurements across the world.

Instead of taking realistic steps to mitigate the risk of heavy metal exposures, this new rule gives the EPA unlimited power and uses hysterical measurements to seize control over private property.

All air and soil contain detectable levels of lead, but there’s no reason to panic

Under the new rules, any detectable level of lead dust in a building would be considered a “lead hazard” and property owners would be ordered by the EPA and the courts to clean up the building. If remediation efforts are not good enough (and they won’t be in most cases), then the building may be condemned or torn down.

This is what happens when hysteria takes over the regulatory agencies: they virtue signal about detecting irrelevant concentrations and then use their findings to justify abusing their power. In the study National Trends in Lead Concentration in 2010-2023, the ambient lead level in the atmosphere across the US is just over 0.025 ug/m³. This is based on measurement of 79 sites across the country. Similarly in Europe, soil levels of lead are routinely measured at 25-35 ng/m³, which is approximately the same level.

According to the study, the average concentration of lead hasn’t gone up in the last decade. A recent document from the EPA shows that the dust in the air, averaged across all monitoring sites, ranges from 0.015 to 0.045 µg/m³.These are detectable levels of lead across the Earth’s atmosphere and throughout the soil, but the existence of lead at these levels does not mean everyone’s lives are in danger and it must be remediated at all costs!

The EPA, on the other hand, disagrees now, and will be able to take any detectable level of lead and seize power over the situation, claiming a public health threat in a building, and ordering the expensive remediation and takedown of properties throughout the country. While there has been a natural 87% decrease in the national average of lead in the Earth’s atmosphere, the EPA could still find a meaningless, detectable level of lead somewhere and claim dominion over that property, demanding remediation.

Keep reading

EPA Knows These Commonly Used Pesticides Affect Brain Development

Rodent studies given to U.S. regulators by insecticide makers close to 20 years ago revealed the chemicals could be harmful to the animals’ brain development — data worrisome for humans exposed to the popular pesticides but not properly accounted for by regulators, according to a new research report published on Oct. 1.

The analysis examined five studies that exposed pregnant rats to various types of insecticides known as neonicotinoids (commonly called neonics). The studies found that the offspring born to the exposed rats suffered shrunken brains and other problems.

Statistically significant shrinkage of brain tissue was seen in the offspring of rats exposed to high doses of five types of neonics – acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam, the paper states.

The authors said the impacts on the brain appeared similar to the effects of nicotine, which they said is known to disrupt mammalian neurological development.

The animal studies also support the possibility of a link between neonic exposure and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the authors said.

In most cases, the companies submitting the studies did not submit data for all dosage levels, leading the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assume negative effects were only seen at the high dose, according to the study.

“We found numerous deficiencies in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s regulatory oversight and data analyses,” the authors state in the paper, published in the journal Frontiers in Toxicology.

The industry studies, which the EPA used to determine what neonic exposure levels are considered safe for humans, were not publicly available and were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“Consistently, effects were found at the high dose and EPA did not demand data for the lower doses, therefore leaving it unclear how little of a substance it takes to actually cause adverse effects such as reduced size of certain brain regions,” said Bill Freese, the science director for the environmental advocacy group Center for Food Safety and an author of the study.

The study found that the EPA consistently made determinations about what levels of neonic exposure were “safe” for humans without enough data to support its conclusions.

Keep reading

Environmental Protection Agency accused of retaliating against scientists who voiced concerns about toxic chemicals

A group of government scientists say they were pressured by management at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to present new chemicals they were investigating as being safer than they actually were.

When they failed to delete evidence of the serious dangers associated with the chemicals, their managers did it themselves.

The scientists claim that after pushing back, they were hit with negative performance reviews, while some lost their positions in the new chemical division and were reassigned to other parts in the agency.

Last week, the Inspector General of the EPA announced their finding that three of the scientists’ treatment can be considered retaliation, confirming that their negative reviews and reassignments were retaliatory. They also concluded that the scientists being denied a work-related incentive that can be used to take time off or traded for cash was retaliatory as well.

The report instructed the EPA to take “appropriate corrective action” as a result, including a potential three-day minimum suspension for supervisors who violated the Whistleblower Protection Act.

In response to the report, EPA assistant administrator Michael Freedhoff sent a letter to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention explaining that all managers would be undergoing “refresher training” on the Whistleblower Protection Act as well as scientific integrity in general and that their office would be reviewing the reports to see if additional action is needed.

Further reports are expected to be released about the scientific allegations made by the whistleblowers.

The three whistleblowers in question – Sarah Gallagher, William Irwin and Martin Phillips – maintained that the chemicals they were vetting for the agency could cause damages ranging from neurological problems and miscarriages to cancer.

The EPA appears to be trying to shift the blame for what happened to former President Donald Trump as the incident took place during his administration. They say that the agency was under pressure to push chemicals through the approval process more quickly.

“The events covered by these reports began during the previous administration when the political leadership placed intense pressure on both career managers and scientists in EPA’s new chemicals program to more quickly review and approve new chemicals,” the agency claimed.

Keep reading