

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Tim Whitehouse: twhitehouse@peer.org
Colleen Zimmerman: czimmerman@peer.org
Scientific Research and Monitoring Cut as Mega-Constellations Set to Takeoff
The U.S. is unprepared to handle the huge pollution footprint flowing from the imminent launch of tens of thousands of commercial communications satellites into low-Earth orbit, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Yet, when needed most, the scientific entities tracking these impacts are on the chopping block.
Led by corporations such as Elon Musk’s Starlink, the current 8,100 telecom satellites in orbit are about to proliferate at an estimated rate of 10,000 new satellites a year. By 2040, some 60,000 satellites are projected to be arrayed in mega-constellations across the stratosphere.
The environmental impact of the tens of thousands of satellite launches and reentries is not fully understood, but early indications are that they could be significant enough to alter stratospheric temperatures and ozone coverage. A big portion of that impact comes from the discharge of metals, such as aluminum, lithium, and copper, into the atmosphere due to –
“The sheer volume of atmospheric pollution from this satellite revolution is not on our national radar,” stated PEER Executive Director Tim Whitehouse, a former senior enforcement attorney with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, noting that control of atmospheric pollution is not even part of the licensing process. “The need for inter-agency and international cooperation in addressing these space impacts is becoming urgent, just as the U.S. has begun to retreat dramatically from climate science and global eco-coordination.”
Musk’s Starlink and SpaceX are poised to benefit most from this expansion, with Starlink owning roughly three-quarters of satellites now in orbit and roughly half of slated launches via SpaceX rockets in the coming decade. In response to concerns raised by scientists, PEER has been trying to trace Musk’s actions through his Department of Government Efficiency on the federal agencies dealing with commercial space operations, principally NASA, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation. All three agencies are now slated for major cutbacks.
“A huge and expanding chemistry experiment is taking place in our atmosphere while we fire the scientists needed to monitor it,” Whitehouse added. “Unfortunately, and unbelievably, the person best positioned to profit from lax satellite regulation has been put in charge of dismantling the oversight agencies and eliminating their scientific capacity.”
###
Review NOAA’s projections for future satellite debris
See intense Musk/DOGE involvement with space-related offices
Look at PEER’s request for records on cutbacks in stratospheric monitoring
NASA FOIA
NOAA FOIA
NSF FOIA
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
The United Nations Children's Fund warned that Israel's continued assault on Lebanon "poses a grave risk to the ceasefire and the efforts toward a lasting and comprehensive peace."
A United Nations agency said late Thursday that Israel's massive bombardment of Lebanon earlier this week killed or wounded more than 180 children, a statement issued as the Israeli military vowed to continue assailing the war-ravaged country—potentially derailing ceasefire efforts in Iran and across the region.
The UN Children's Fund, widely known as UNICEF, said the toll from Israel's assault on Wednesday brought the total number of children killed or wounded in Lebanon since March 2 to at least 600. The agency said it is "receiving reports of children being pulled from under the rubble, while others remain missing and separated from their families."
"Many are experiencing trauma, having lost loved ones, their homes, and any sense of safety," UNICEF said. "Across the country, more than one million people have been uprooted, including an estimated 390,000 children, many for the second, third, or even fourth time."
UNICEF went on to echo growing concerns in the region, and around the world, that Israel's continued bombing and invasion of Lebanon "poses a grave risk to the ceasefire and the efforts toward a lasting and comprehensive peace."
"The children in Lebanon cannot be left behind," the UN agency said.
UNICEF's statement came as the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces said Lebanon is the Israeli military's "primary combat" zone and that the IDF is "in a state of war, we are not in a ceasefire."
US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have both insisted that Lebanon was not included in the Iran ceasefire agreement announced late Tuesday—a claim that Iranian leaders and Pakistan's prime minister, who is mediating peace talks, have said is false.
On Thursday, Trump said Netanyahu agreed during a phone call to "low-key it" in Lebanon. But in a recorded statement addressed to residents of northern Israel on Thursday, Netanyahu declared: “There is no ceasefire in Lebanon. We continue to strike Hezbollah with force, and we will not stop until we restore your security.”
Netanyahu's decision to escalate Israel's attacks on Lebanon—killing hundreds of people and leveling entire neighborhoods—just hours after Trump announced the ceasefire deal with Iran fit with a longstanding pattern of the Israeli government undercutting diplomacy.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, wrote for The Intercept on Thursday that Israel "has worked ceaselessly to prevent any off-ramp from confrontation between the US and Iran," noting that "in 1995, when Iran and the US flirted with economic rapprochement by opening the Iran oil industry to American investment and development, Israel and AIPAC lobbied Congress and President Bill Clinton to block it."
"Netanyahu is widely thought to benefit from wars—from Gaza to Iran and now, most critically, in Lebanon—to shore up his political fortunes. He faces an election in October, and losing could lead to the revival of corruption charges that might land him in prison," Abdi noted. "The question now may unfortunately not be whether Iran and the US can find a compromise. Instead, the fate of the global economy and, not least, Iranians themselves, could rest between Netanyahu and Trump, who faces his own political challenges in midterm elections this year."
US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) wrote Thursday that "Netanyahu urged Trump to start this war, now Trump must demand he help end it."
"Who's calling the shots here?" Van Hollen asked.
"Ultimately, if this rule is finalized, human health will suffer, and taxpayers will be left with the cost of cleaning up their rivers and drinking water."
Amid mounting calls for the removal of US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, the EPA chief on Thursday announced proposed changes to coal ash rules, which critics blasted as another gift to polluters at the expense of public health.
Officially called coal combustion residuals (CCR), "coal ash—the toxic byproduct of burning coal—contains hazardous pollutants, including arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, lead, radium, and selenium, which are linked to serious health harms such as cancer, heart disease, and brain damage, among other lasting impacts," noted the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Specifically, as The Associated Press reported, the EPA "proposed easing standards for monitoring and protecting groundwater near some coal ash sites, rolling back rules forcing the cleanup of entire coal properties instead of just places where ash was dumped. The revisions would also make it easier to reuse coal ash for other purposes."
While Zeldin claimed the "commonsense changes to the CCR regulations reflect EPA's commitment to restoring American energy dominance, strengthening cooperative federalism, and accommodating unique circumstances at certain CCR facilities," Environmental Protection Network's Marc Boom responded that "letting companies avoid cleaning up waste sites that may be leaching toxic metals into groundwater and nearby waterways, while weakening protections and accountability, is not common sense."
"EPA's top priority should be protecting people's health, not sacrificing it for corporate expediency," argued Boom, senior director of public affairs at the group, which is made up of former agency staff. "EPA may call these safeguards 'impractical,' but anyone living downstream of coal ash sites holding thousands of tons of waste knows that requiring cleanup and monitoring is a necessary and basic standard."
NRDC senior attorney Becky Hammer called the pending rollback just "the latest in a long, long, line of Trump administration giveaways to fossil fuels industries," which have also included repealing EPA rules that targeted chemical pollution from coal-fired power plants, declaring a national energy emergency, and scrapping the 2009 "endangerment finding" that underpins all federal climate regulations.
Other advocacy organizations were similarly critical of Thursday's announcement. Daniel Estrin, Waterkeeper Alliance's general counsel and legal director, pointed out that "coal ash is contaminating water at nearly every active and retired coal plant in the US."
"By gutting these safeguards, EPA is abandoning its duty to protect impacted communities by allowing preventable contamination of our rivers, lakes, streams, and groundwater," he said. "The longer the coal industry is allowed to delay closing and cleaning up its toxic waste sites, the more difficult and costly it becomes to fix the damage. By failing to enforce the law, EPA is letting polluters continue harming people and wildlife without accountability."
Like Estrin and Hammer, Earthjustice senior counsel Lisa Evans framed that proposal as "yet another handout to the coal power industry at the expense of our health, water, and wallets," and warned of the dangers of delaying closure and cleanup. She said that "ultimately, if this rule is finalized, human health will suffer, and taxpayers will be left with the cost of cleaning up their rivers and drinking water."
Although "the Trump administration just took a sledgehammer to the health protections in place for toxic coal pollution," Evans added, "Earthjustice has successfully defended these safeguards in court and will do so again."
Nick Torrey, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, which has secured commitments to clean up over 270 million tons of coal ash in US communities, similarly said that "doing the bidding of industrial polluters instead of protecting ordinary families and clean water is shameful, but we are ready to keep fighting against coal ash pollution."
"Letting coal-burning utilities set the agenda has been a disaster for communities across the South, resulting in coal ash spills and hundreds of families forced to live on bottled water for years under the threat of coal ash pollution," Torrey highlighted. "The Trump administration and coal ash polluters want to take us back to the bad old days of arsenic, lead, and mercury from coal ash contaminating our water."
In addition to facing a flurry of lawsuits over policies prioritizing the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry—whose campaign cash helped President Donald Trump return to the White House last year—the administration has recently been hit with demands to remove Zeldin from more than 160 advocacy groups and nearly 300 health experts.
"This EPA's actions to put polluters first, at the expense of our health, are dangerous and will be deadly," states the health experts' open letter, organized and released Thursday by the Climate Action Campaign. "Administrator Zeldin has abandoned his sworn duty and must be held accountable for his agenda."
“America’s small businesses, workers, and families are really feeling pain at the pump—all thanks to Trump’s illegal war on Iran,” the Massachusetts Democrat said.
An analysis published Thursday by the office of US Sen. Ed Markey estimates that the average American motorist will pay nearly $1,100 extra for gasoline in 2026 due to President Donald Trump's war of choice on Iran.
"The data highlights a worsening affordability crisis, with the average American family facing an annual increase of $1,096 this year if gas prices remain at $4.14 per gallon—a shocking increase of $1.16 per gallon since Trump launched his war on Iran in February," Markey's (D-Mass.) office said.
"These numbers are likely an underestimate," the analysis notes. "Many analysts predict gasoline prices will rise higher without a permanent end to the war. Instead of investing in energy independence, Trump has done everything in his power to destroy American-made affordable clean energy... and double down on the fossil fuels that are now skyrocketing in price."
"As Americans pay more at the pump, fossil fuel industry executives profit," Markey's office said. "During Trump’s first year in office, the five largest oil companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP—made more than $75 billion dollars in profits."
Fossil fuel interests spent $445 million to help elect Trump and other Republicans in 2024. And while some Big Oil executives are reportedly upset that the ceasefire agreement with Iran apparently includes Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz and the power to charge tolls to tankers passing through the vital waterway, industry executives sold a reported $1.4 billion in shares before and during the war that they may subsequently buy back during market dips fueled by the volatility caused by Trump's actions.
“America’s small businesses, workers, and families are really feeling pain at the pump—all thanks to Trump’s illegal war on Iran," Markey, the ranking member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, said in a statement introducing the analysis. "Instead of delivering real relief to the American people, Trump is doubling down on his reckless economic policies, which are only driving up energy prices, enriching his oil and gas buddies, and worsening the affordability crisis for everyone else."
“In uncertain times like these, gas prices go up like a rocket but come down like a feather," he added. "This administration must get serious about alleviating the crisis he alone created, or risk further throttling families’ finances and putting even more pain on Main Street.”
A Pew Research Center survey published earlier this week revealed that gas prices are Americans' biggest concern about the Iran War, with 69% worried about higher fuel costs. By comparison, 61% said they were concerned about sending ground troops to invade Iran, 59% fretted over high casualties among US troops, and 56% said they fear a terror attack on the United States.
This isn't the first time that Markey has shined a spotlight on the economic harm to American families caused by the actions of a president who campaigned upon core promises of lower consumer prices—including gasoline—and no new wars. Last month, Markey asked the Bureau of Labor Statistics to “immediately undertake and publish a comprehensive analysis of the likely consumer price impacts” of the war over the next 6-12 months.
Our nation is at a moral crossroads.Trump asked Congress for over 1 trillion to fund the Department of Defense and his war of choice. To get it, MAGA Republicans want to defund childcare. Healthcare. Education. I won't stand for that.
[image or embed]
— Ed Markey (@edmarkey.bsky.social) April 9, 2026 at 3:31 PM
Markey's analysis came on the same day that the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies published a report estimating that the average American taxpayer gave $4,000 to the federal government last year “for militarism and its support systems."
That cost is likely to rise even further if Congress approves Trump's request for a record $1.5 trillion US military budget for the next fiscal year.