May, 18 2018, 12:00am EDT
Trump Administration Reveals Plan to Revoke Health & Safety Protections from Chemical Disasters for Millions of Americans
Today, Earthjustice released the following statement from staff attorney Emma Cheuse regarding the Trump Administration's Decision to rescind and weaken the Chemical Disaster Rule:
WASHINGTON
Today, Earthjustice released the following statement from staff attorney Emma Cheuse regarding the Trump Administration's Decision to rescind and weaken the Chemical Disaster Rule:
Today, Trump's EPA revealed a shocking plan to try to delete all accident prevention program provisions of the Jan. 2017 Chemical Disaster Rule that President Obama's EPA issued to save lives. The original rule is based on robust evidence of harm to workers, first-responders, and fenceline communities. Administrator Pruitt's newest move shows the Trump EPA is aiming to weaken safety measures instead of protecting the lives and health of the American people. EPA's plan to undo the Chemical Disaster Rule makes no sense as 177 million Americans face the constant threat of a chemical disaster, and is nothing more than a blatant attempt to put industry interests ahead of public health. The people whom EPA's plan will hurt the most are people living and working near oil refineries and chemical manufacturers, who face repeated toxic releases and fires like the dozens of serious incidents documented in recent months, and who are disproportionately people of color and low-income people.
Instead of taking away chemical disaster prevention measures at the request of the oil and chemical industry, EPA should be doing its job to protect workers and families from the fires, explosions, and toxic releases that keep happening like clockwork around the U.S., most often in communities whom Administrator Pruitt's plan chooses simply to ignore.
Background
The Chemical Disaster Rule includes much-needed improvements to the EPA's Clean Air Act Risk Management Program (RMP) and would have prevented and reduced the likelihood of chemical disasters, hazardous releases, and resulting chemical exposures, along with strengthening emergency preparedness and coordination with local first responders like firefighters and public health professionals. When developing the rule, the EPA determined that prior protections failed to prevent over 2,200 chemical accidents around the country during a 10-year period, including about 150 per year that caused reportable harm.
In June 2017, the EPA signed a rule to delay the Chemical Disaster Rule which would save lives from the effects of chemical disasters each year. From 2004 to 2013 alone, more than 2,200 chemical accidents were reported at hazardous facilities, over 1,500 of which caused reported harm. These accidents killed 59 people; caused more than more than 17,000 to be injured, hospitalized, or to seek medical care, and nearly half a million to evacuate or shelter in place to try to avoid chemical exposure and other harm; and caused more than $2 billion in property damage. No month passed during the decade EPA studied without at least 8 accidents at or near a chemical facility in the United States. And communities continue to live under the constant threat of a chemical catastrophe.
Earthjustice and a coalition of groups representing workers, scientists and community members near chemical facilities filed suit in the D.C. Circuit Court to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from delaying the rule, and the Court heard oral argument on March 16, 2018.
Earthjustice represents Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, Clean Air Council, Coalition For A Safe Environment, Community In-Power & Development Association, Del Amo Action Committee, Environmental Integrity Project, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Sierra Club, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. United Steelworkers is represented by Santarella & Eckert, LLC.
Eleven concerned states also challenged the rule.
Contacts:
National
Earthjustice, Emma Cheuse, (202) 745-5220 or echeuse@earthjustice.org
United Steelworkers, Anna Fendley, (202) 778-3306 or afendley@usw.org
Union of Concerned Scientists, Yogin Kothari, 202-331-5665, ykothari@ucsusa.org
Environmental Integrity Project, Tom Pelton, (443) 510-2574
Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter, Neil Carman, (512)288-5772
California
Coalition For A Safe Environment (Wilmington, CA), Jesse Marquez, (310) 704-1265
Del Amo Action Committee (Torrance, CA), Cynthia Babich, (310) 769-4813
California Communities Against Toxics, Jane Williams, (661) 256-2101
Louisiana
Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Anne Rolfes, (504) 484-3433
Texas
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Juan Parras, (281) 513-7799
Community In-Power & Development Association (Port Arthur, TX), Hilton Kelley, (409) 498-1088
Air Alliance Houston, (713) 528-3779, Dr. Bakeyah Nelson
Pennsylvania
Clean Air Council (Philadelphia, PA), Kathryn Urbanowicz, (215) 567-4004
Utah
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, (801) 502-5450, Denni Cawley
West Virginia
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition - Natalie Thompson or Pam Nixon (People Concerned About Chemical Safety): (304) 522-0246
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
'Trump Is Trying to Break Us,' Carney Warns as Liberals Win Canadian Election
"As I have been warning for months, America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. "That will never, ever happen."
Apr 29, 2025
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that his country's "old relationship with the United States... is over" after leading his Liberal Party to victory in Monday's federal election, a contest that came amid U.S. President Donald Trump's destructive trade war and threats to forcibly annex Canada.
"As I have been warning for months, America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. But these are not idle threats," Carney, a former central banker who succeeded Justin Trudeau as Canada's prime minister last month, said after he was projected the winner of Monday's election.
On the day of the contest, Trump reiterated his desire to make Canada "the cherished 51st. State of the United States of America."
"President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us," Carney said Monday. "That will never, ever happen."
Carney: President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us. That will never, ever happen pic.twitter.com/dUEI0YGSM2
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 29, 2025
It's not yet clear whether the Liberal Party will secure enough seats for a parliamentary majority, but its victory Monday was seen as a stunning comeback after the party appeared to be spiraling toward defeat under Trudeau's leadership.
Pierre Poilievre, the head of Canada's Conservative Party, looked for much of the past year to be "cruising to one of the largest majority governments in Canada's history," The Washington Postnoted.
But on Monday, Poilievre—who was embraced by Trump allies, including mega-billionaire Elon Musk—lost his parliamentary seat to his Liberal opponent, Bruce Fanjoy.
Vox's Zack Beauchamp wrote Tuesday that "Trump has single-handedly created the greatest surge of nationalist anti-Americanism in Canada's history as an independent country," pointing to a recent survey showing that "61% of Canadians are currently boycotting American-made goods."
"Trump's aggressive economic policy isn't, as he claimed, making America Great or respected again. Instead, it's having the opposite effect: turning longtime allies into places where campaigning against American leadership is a winning strategy," Beauchamp added. "If we are indeed witnessing the beginning of the end of the American-led world order, the history books will likely record April 28, 2025, as a notable date—one where even America's closest ally started eying the geopolitical exits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Led 'Unprecedented' Surge in Global Military Spending in 2024
"As governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come," said one expert.
Apr 28, 2025
Military spending worldwide soared to $2.718 trillion last year, meaning it "has increased every year for a full decade, going up by 37% between 2015 and 2024," according to an annual report released Monday.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has tracked conflict, disarmament, and weapons for nearly six decades. Its 2024 spending report states that "for the second year in a row, military expenditure increased in all five of the world's geographical regions, reflecting heightened geopolitical tensions across the globe."
In a Monday statement, Xiao Liang, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, highlighted that "over 100 countries around the world raised their military spending in 2024."
"It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War."
"This was really unprecedented... It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War," Liang told Agence France-Press, while acknowledging that there may have been larger jumps during the Cold War but Soviet Union data is not available.
Liang warned that "as governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come."
The United States—whose Republican lawmakers are currently cooking up a plan to give even more money to a Pentagon that's never passed an audit—led all countries, with $997 billion in military spending. The report points out that the U.S. not only allocated "3.2 times more than the second-largest spender," but also "accounted for 37% of global military expenditure in 2024 and 66% of spending by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members."
In the second spot was China, with an estimated $314 billion in spending. Nan Tian, director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, raised the alarm about spending in Asia.
"Major military spenders in the Asia-Pacific region are investing increasing resources into advanced military capabilities," said Tian. "With several unresolved disputes and mounting tensions, these investments risk sending the region into a dangerous arms-race spiral."
In third place was Russia, with an estimated $149 billion in spending. Russia remains at war after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rounding out the top five were Germany ($88.5 billion) and India ($86.1 billion).
They were followed by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Poland, Italy, and Australia. The report says that "together, the top 15 spenders in 2024 accounted for 80% of global military spending ($2,185 billion) and for 79% of the total increase in spending over the year. All 15 increased their military spending in 2024."
"The two largest year-on-year percentage increases among this group were in Israel (+65%) and Russia (+38%), highlighting the effect of major conflicts on spending trends in 2024," the publication continues. Israel has been engaged in a U.S.-backed military assault on the Gaza Strip—globally condemned as genocide—since October 2023.
"Russia once again significantly increased its military spending, widening the spending gap with Ukraine," noted SIPRI researcher Diego Lopes da Silva. "Ukraine currently allocates all of its tax revenues to its military. In such a tight fiscal space, it will be challenging for Ukraine to keep increasing its military spending."
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday announced an upcoming three-day truce to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for an immediate monthlong cease-fire.
All NATO members boosted military spending last year, which SIPRI researcher Jade Guiberteau Ricard said was "driven mainly by the ongoing Russian threat and concerns about possible U.S. disengagement within the alliance."
"It is worth saying that boosting spending alone will not necessarily translate into significantly greater military capability or independence from the USA," the expert added. "Those are far more complex tasks."
Another SIPRI researcher, Lorenzo Scarazzato, highlighted that "for the first time since reunification Germany became the biggest military spender in Western Europe, which was due to the €100 billion special defense fund announced in 2022."
"The latest policies adopted in Germany and many other European countries suggest that Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future," Scarazzato said.
As for the Middle East, SIPRI researcher Zubaida Kari said that "despite widespread expectations that many Middle Eastern countries would increase their military spending in 2024, major rises were limited to Israel and Lebanon."
In addition to slaughtering at least tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza over the past nearly 19 months, Israel has killed thousands of people in Lebanon while allegedly targeting the political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Kari said that elsewhere in the region, "countries either did not significantly increase spending in response to the war in Gaza or were prevented from doing so by economic constraints."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Not Just for the Battlefield: Rights Group Warns of Dystopian World Where Killer Robots Reign
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," according to the author of the report.
Apr 28, 2025
In a report published Monday, a leading human rights group calls for international political action to prohibit and regulate so-called "killer robots"—autonomous weapons systems that select targets based on inputs from sensors rather than from humans—and examines them in the context of six core principles in international human rights law.
In some cases, the report argues, an autonomous weapons system may simply be incompatible with a given human rights principle or obligation.
The report, co-published by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, comes just ahead of the first United Nations General Assembly meeting on autonomous weapons systems next month. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the U.N. to ban the development and use of killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," said the author behind the report, Bonnie Docherty, a senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch and a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, in a statement on Monday.
According to the report, which includes recommendations on a potential international treaty, the call for negotiations to adopt "a legally binding instrument to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapons systems" is supported by at least 129 countries.
Drones relying on an autonomous targeting system have been used by Ukraine to hit Russian targets during the war between the two countries, The New York Timesreported last year.
In 2023, the Pentagon announced a program, known as the Replicator initiative, which involves a push to build thousands of autonomous drones. The program is part of the U.S. Defense Department's plan to counter China. In November, the watchdog group Public Citizen alleged that Pentagon officials have not been clear about whether the drones in the Replicator project would be used to kill.
A senior Navy admiral recently toldBloomberg that the program is "alive and well" under the Department of Defense's new leadership following U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Docherty warned that the impact of killer robots will stretch beyond the traditional battlefield. "The use of autonomous weapons systems will not be limited to war, but will extend to law enforcement operations, border control, and other circumstances, raising serious concerns under international human rights law," she said in the statement
When it comes to the right to peaceful assembly under human rights law, which is important in the context of law enforcement exercising use force, "autonomous weapons systems would be incompatible with this right," according to the report.
Killer robots pose a threat to peaceful assembly because they "would lack human judgment and could not be pre-programmed or trained to address every situation," meaning they "would find it challenging to draw the line between peaceful and violent protesters."
Also, "the use or threat of use of autonomous weapons systems, especially in the hands of abusive governments, could strike fear among protesters and thus cause a chilling effect on free expression and peaceful assembly," per the report.
Killer robots would also contravene the principle of human dignity, according to the report, which establishes that all humans have inherent worth that is "universal and inviolable."
"The dignity critique is not focused on the systems generating the wrong outcomes," the report states. "Even if autonomous weapons systems could feasibly make no errors in outcomes—something that is extremely unlikely—the human dignity concerns remain, necessitating prohibitions and regulations of such systems."
"Autonomous weapon systems cannot be programmed to give value to human life, do not possess emotions like compassion that can generate restraint to violence, and would rely on processes that dehumanize individuals by making life-and-death decisions based on software and data points," Docherty added.
In total, the report considers the right to life; the right to peaceful assembly; the principle of human dignity; the principle of nondiscrimination; the right to privacy; and the right to remedy.
The report also lists cases where it's more ambiguous whether autonomous weapons systems would violate a certain right.
The right to privacy, for example, protects individuals from "arbitrary or unlawful" interferences in their personal life. According to the report, "The development and use of autonomous weapons systems could violate the right because, if they or any of their component systems are based on AI technology, their development, testing, training, and use would likely require mass surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular