January, 28 2015, 12:30pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Friends of the Earth: Kari Hamerschlag, (510) 978-4420, khamerschlag@foe.org
Environmental Integrity Project: Tom Pelton, (202) 888-2703, tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org
Humane Society of the United States: Anna West, (301) 258-1518, awest@humanesociety.org
Clean Wisconsin: Elizabeth Wheeler, (608) 347-7613, ewheeler@cleanwisconsin.org
Center for Food Safety: Abigail Seiler, (202) 547-9359, ASeiler@CenterforFoodSafety.org
Association of Irritated Residents: Tom Frantz, a California farmer, (661) 910-7734, tom.frantz49@gmail.com
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment: Marisa Alexander, (425) 275-3542, malexander@crpe-ej.org
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement: Tarah Heinzen, (202) 263-4441, theinzen@environmentalintegrity.org
The Sierra Club: Charles Winterwood, (563) 588-2783, cwinterwood@yahoo.com
Coalition Sues EPA for Failing to Address Factory Farm Air Pollution
Environmental, humane and community organizations seek action to protect public health, animals, and the environment
WASHINGTON
A coalition of environmental, humane and community organizations filed two lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency today for failing to address air pollution from factory farms. The pollution contributes to significant human health problems, including asthma and heart attacks; endangers animal health; intensifies the effects of climate change; and causes regional haze and "dead zones" in waterways.
Across the U.S., an estimated 20,000 factory farms confine billions of chickens, hogs and other animals and emit noxious air pollutants, including ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, methane and particulate matter.
The Environmental Integrity Project and the Humane Society of the United States filed the lawsuits in federal court on behalf of rural residents and family farmers whose health and quality of life is affected by noxious air pollutants from factory farms.
"When the emissions are at their worst, we have had to leave our home for days at a time," said Rosie Partridge, a family farmer whose home in Sac County, Iowa, is surrounded by more than 30,000 hogs within four miles. "The ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are so strong that my husband has trouble breathing."
The lawsuits seek to prompt the EPA to take action on two rulemaking petitions. Those petitions, filed years previously, asked EPA to use its authority under the federal Clean Air Act to control emissions of air pollution from factory farms.
"Factory farm air pollution harms public health, the environment and rural quality of life," said Tarah Heinzen, attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project. "Yet EPA is looking the other way while citizen pleas for action collect dust on the agency's shelf. EPA has acknowledged the harmful impacts of factory farm air pollution for over a decade, yet is still failing to act on the problem."
Jonathan Lovvorn, chief counsel for animal protection litigation for The Humane Society of the United States, said: "Animal factories subject millions of animals and farm workers to highly toxic levels of air pollution on the farm, and also release huge amounts of these toxins into the environment. EPA's failure to address these impacts should be alarming to anyone that cares about animal welfare, worker safety, human health, environmental protection or the preservation of rural communities."
"In California's San Joaquin Valley, we have suffered a huge increase in factory farm dairies over the past decade," said Tom Frantz, a farmer and president of the Association of Irritated Residents. "Ammonia emissions from factory farm dairies are causing the highest fine particulate matter levels in the United States, which seriously harms our health while EPA has done nothing."
Background:
The two organizations filed petitions with the EPA in 2009 and 2011 asking the agency to address factory farm pollution, but the agency failed to act. The legal basis for the lawsuits filed today is that EPA's delays of nearly six and four years in responding to the petitions is unreasonable under federal law.
The petition from HSUS requests the EPA to list factory farms as a category of sources of pollution under the Clean Air Act, and set performance standards for new and existing facilities. The Environmental Integrity Project's petition asks EPA to set health-based standards for ammonia.
The lawsuits ask the court to order EPA to make a final decision on the 2011 and 2009 petitions within 90 days. The plaintiffs are the Environmental Integrity Project, the Humane Society of the United States, Center for Food Safety, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Clean Wisconsin, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and the Association of Irritated Residents (represented by the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment).
Dr. Keeve Nachman, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Center for a Livable Future, said: "There is mounting evidence that air pollutants from large-scale animal operations can make nearby residents sick. It's important that EPA use its authority to protect those most vulnerable to the effects of these exposures."
Facts:
- U.S. factory farms produce more than 500 million tons of manure every year, more than three times the waste produced by humans, according to the EPA. Instead of treating the feces and urine, many factory farms store it in huge pits that release odors and air pollution and sometimes spill, contaminating rivers. Operators also spray manure onto fields, sending bacteria-laden droplets onto the homes of downwind residents.
- The federal Clean Air Act has been in effect for nearly 45 years, but the EPA has failed to use its authority to protect public health from factory farms that have proliferated across the U.S.
- Livestock are responsible for 34 percent of U.S. methane emissions (the nation's second most prevalent greenhouse gas), and methane has more than 20 times the climate change impact of carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.
- Animal agriculture is the nation's leading source of ammonia emissions, which can cause nasal, throat and eye irritation, coughs, dizziness and other health problems. Poultry operations in the top ten biggest chicken producing states release at least 700 million tons of ammonia every year.
- Large dairy and swine animal feeding operations emit 100,000 pounds of hydrogen sulfide annually, according to an EPA estimate. Hydrogen sulfide causes extreme odors and contributes to acid rain and regional haze.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
Report Offers Easy Path for States to Make Tax Code Fairer by Targeting the Rich
"For too long, our tax systems have favored wealth over work," said the report's co-author. "State wealth proceeds taxes would take a major step toward correcting that imbalance.”
Oct 31, 2025
Taxing the passive proceeds of extreme wealth—including capital gains and stock dividends—is an easy way for states to generate billions of dollars in revenue, reduce inequality, and boost fairness in tax systems, according to a report published Thursday.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) report shows how state-level wealth proceeds taxes of just 4% on profits generated by means including capital gains, dividends, and passive business income could raise more than $45 billion a year in revenue nationwide, while an enhanced version of such a levy would generate $57 billion annually.
According to the report, approximately three-quarters of such revenue would come from households with annual incomes exceeding $1 million—and only 4.4% of US taxpayers would owe anything at all.
Wealth inequality gets worse when working households pay more in taxes than wealthy owners.States have a simple way to address this problem and raise much-needed revenue.It's well past time for a Wealth Proceeds Tax.
[image or embed]
— ITEP (@itep.org) October 30, 2025 at 10:44 AM
Other key findings of the report include:
- A state wealth proceeds tax would help correct an imbalance in which most of the income generated by passive wealth currently faces effective federal tax rates roughly 40% lower than wages and salaries;
- A wealth proceeds tax is easy to implement—states can piggyback on federal filings, minimizing administrative costs for both taxpayers and state revenue agencies; and
- For a successful example of a wealth proceeds tax, look to Minnesota.
In 2023, Minnesota became the first state to enact a law piggybacking a wealth proceeds tax on the federal net investment income tax (NIIT), a levy on certain earnings from high-income individuals, estates, and trusts. Minnesota's 1% tax only applies to such wealth exceeding $1 million and is expected to raise more than $60 million in revenue in 2026.
Other states, while not having a wealth proceeds tax, apply higher levies on certain types of proceeds. Massachusetts, for example, imposes a short-term capital gains that is 3.5% higher than the ordinary state income tax rate, while Maryland enacted a 2% levy on short- and long-term capital gains for households earning more than $350,000 annually.
“States have an untapped opportunity to tax extremely wealthy families," ITEP senior analyst and report co-author Sarah Austin said in a statement. “The federal government already defines what counts as wealth-derived income, so states can easily adapt that framework to make their tax codes fairer and more robust.”
The report's other author, ITEP research director Carl Davis, said: "For too long, our tax systems have favored wealth over work. State wealth proceeds taxes would take a major step toward correcting that imbalance.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Food Aid Suspended for Millions of Families, Trump Brags of 'Statuary Marble' Bathroom Makeover
"He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself," one critic said of Trump.
Oct 31, 2025
As millions of families across the US are about to lose their access to food aid over the weekend, President Donald Trump on Friday decided to show off photos of a White House bathroom that he boasted had been refurbished in "highly polished, statuary marble."
Trump posted photos of the bathroom on his Truth Social platform, and he explained that he decided to remodel it because he was dissatisfied with the "art deco green tile style" that had been implemented during a previous renovation, which he described as "totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era."
"I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble," Trump continued. "This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!"
Trump's critics were quick to pan the remodeled bathroom, especially since it came at a time when Americans are suffering from numerous policies the president and the Republican Party are enacting, including tariffs that are raising the cost of food and clothing; expiring subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act exchanges; and cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) programs in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
"Sure, you might not be able to eat or go to the doctor, but check out how nice Trump's new marble shitter is," remarked independent journalist Aaron Rupar on Bluesky.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who has become a critic of Trump, ripped the president for displaying such tone deafness in the middle of a federal government shutdown.
"Government still shutdown, Americans not getting paid, food assistance for low-income families and children about to be cut off, and this is what he cares about," he wrote on X. "He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself."
Don Moynihan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, expressed extreme skepticism that the White House bathroom during Abraham Lincoln's tenure was decked out in marble and gold.
"Fact check based on no research but with a high degree of confidence: This is not the marble that was originally in the Lincoln Bedroom," he wrote. "It is more likely to the be retrieved from a Trump casino before it was demolished."
Fashion critic Derek Guy, meanwhile, mostly left politics out of his criticisms of the remodeled bathroom, instead simply observing that "White House renovations are currently being spearheaded by someone with famously bad interior design taste."
Earlier this month, Trump sparked outrage when he demolished the entire East Wing of the White House to make way for a massive White House ballroom financed by donations from some of America’s wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Warns Any Trump Attack on Venezuela Would Be 'Blatantly Unconstitutional'
"Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war," said Democratic US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Oct 31, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert "another endless, regime-change war" amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.
Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be "blatantly unconstitutional."
"The United States Congress must speak up and stop this," Khanna said in a video posted to social media. "No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress' approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars."
Watch:
Trump is getting ready to launch strikes inside Venezuela per the @WSJ & @MiamiHerald.
This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war. @RepThomasMassie @RandPaul. pic.twitter.com/LrnPPUVZaU
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) October 31, 2025
Khanna's remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.
The Herald reported early Friday that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment." The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration "has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs," but adding that "the president hasn't made a final decision on ordering land strikes."
Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that "the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down."
Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.
Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are "going to be next" following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.
Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period."
A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration's accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.
Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump's belligerence toward Venezuela.
"Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea," Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. "The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump's militarism."
Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that "most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela's leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading."
"Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump's unauthorized use of military force," Williams added. "The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators' offices at 202-224-3121."
A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that "Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise," said Neguse. "Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives' powers under Article I of our Constitution."
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period," Neguse added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


