SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
One environmental attorney said that the EPA proposal "prioritizes chemical industry profits and utility companies' bottom line over the health of children and families across the country."
Public health and environment defenders on Friday condemned the Trump administration's announcement that it will no longer uphold Environmental Protection Agency rules that protect people from unsafe levels of so-called "forever chemicals" in the nation's drinking water.
In addition to no longer defending rules meant to protect people from dangerous quantities of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—called forever chemicals because they do not biodegrade and accumulate in the human body—the EPA is asking a federal court to toss out current limits that protect drinking water from four types of PFAS: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX, and PFBS.
The EPA first announced its intent to roll back limits on the four chemicals in May, while vowing to retain maximum limits for two other types of PFAS. The agency said the move is meant to “provide regulatory flexibility and holistically address these contaminants in drinking water.”
However, critics accuse the EPA and Administrator Lee Zeldin—a former Republican congressman from New York with an abysmal 14% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters—of trying to circumvent the Safe Drinking Water Act's robust anti-backsliding provision, which bars the EPA from rolling back any established drinking water standard.
"In essence, EPA is asking the court to do what EPA itself is not allowed to do," Earthjustice said in a statement.
"Administrator Zeldin promised to protect the American people from PFAS-contaminated drinking water, but he’s doing the opposite,” Earthjustice attorney Katherine O'Brien alleged. “Zeldin’s plan to delay and roll back the first national limits on these forever chemicals prioritizes chemical industry profits and utility companies’ bottom line over the health of children and families across the country."
Jared Thompson, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said that "the EPA’s request to jettison rules intended to keep drinking water safe from toxic PFAS forever chemicals is an attempted end run around the protections that Congress placed in the Safe Drinking Water Act."
"It is also alarming, given what we know about the health harms caused by exposure to these chemicals," Thompson added. "No one wants to drink PFAS. We will continue to defend these commonsense, lawfully enacted standards in court."
PFAS have myriad uses, from nonstick cookware to waterproof clothing to firefighting foam. Increasing use of forever chemicals has resulted in the detection of PFAS in the blood of nearly every person in the United States and around the world.
Approximately half of the U.S. population is drinking PFAS-contaminated water, “including as many as 105 million whose water violates the new standards,” according to the NRDC, which added that “the EPA has known for decades that PFAS endangers human health, including kidney and testicular cancer, liver damage, and harm to the nervous and reproductive systems.”
Betsy Southerland, a former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the EPA's Office of Water, said in a statement Friday:
The impact of these chemicals is clear. We know that this is significant for pregnant women who are drinking water contaminated with PFAS, because it can cause low birth weight in children. We know children have developmental effects from being exposed to it. We know there’s an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer with these chemicals.
Two of the four chemicals targeted in this motion are the ones that we expect to be the most prevalent, and only increasing contamination in the future. With this rollback, those standards would be gone.
Responding to Thursday's developments, Environmental Advocates NY director of clean water Rob Hayes said that "the EPA’s announcement is a big win for corporate polluters and an enormous loss for New York families."
"Administrator Zeldin wants to strip clean water protections away from millions of New Yorkers, leaving them at risk of exposure to toxic PFAS chemicals every time they turn on the tap," he added. "New Yorkers will pay the price of this disastrous plan through medical bills—and deaths—tied to kidney cancer, thyroid disease, and other harmful illnesses linked to PFAS."
While Trump administration officials including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have claimed they want to "make America healthy again" by ending PFAS use, the EPA is apparently moving in the opposite direction. Between April and June of this year, the agency sought approval of four new pesticides considered PFAS under a definition backed by experts.
“What we’re seeing right now is the new generation of pesticides, and it’s genuinely frightening,” Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Civil Eats earlier this week. “At a time when most industries are transitioning away from PFAS, the pesticide industry is doubling down. They’re firmly in the business of selling PFAS.”
"With just days remaining, the dynamic must change," said Break Free From Plastic. "Countries must keep their commitment to end plastic pollution."
As the final negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty reached the halfway point on Saturday, delegates entering the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland for the day's talks were met by more than 200 campaigners representing civil society groups who stood in silence along the path leading to the United Nations building—but nonetheless sent a clear message.
The civil society observers displayed signs in multiple languages, urging negotiators at the second plenary of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to "fix the process" and keep their promises to drastically reduce plastic waste and toxic chemicals in plastic products.
Achieving goals like banning single-use plastics, capping plastic production, and imposing regulations on harmful additives within the treaty will be impossible, campaigners have warned, if the biggest plastic-producing countries like the United States are permitted to lobby for a weaker treaty and if fossil fuel industry lobbyists continue to overpower anti-pollution advocates at the talks.
"People worldwide have made it clear: They support decisive action to cut plastic production, consumption, and pollution," said the Break Free From Plastic movement in a statement Friday. "A majority of governments have endorsed these demands, yet negotiations are stalling with a small group of petro- and plastic-producing states deploying delay tactics, with no sign that they intend to raise ambition."
"With just days remaining, the dynamic must change," said the group. "Countries must keep their commitment to end plastic pollution. They must use every tool available to deliver a strong treaty—one that includes legally binding rules on production and chemicals, uplifts real solutions, safeguards human rights, and protects frontline communities."
The talks began earlier this week, with negotiators tasked with forging a legally binding treaty to restrict plastic pollution, following a 2022 agreement that was reached as the result of a proposal from Rwandan and Peruvian officials. The first round of talks, which were supposed to end with a treaty, stalled last December after plastic-producing countries refused to cap production. More than 100 countries at the negotiations agreed to a plastic production limit.
As with fossil fuel emissions, many countries in the Global South are not major producers of plastic waste—but the U.S. exports more than 1 billion pounds of plastic waste to low-income countries each year.
The climate action group Greenpeace has warned that fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumber experts on the impact of pollution 4-to-1 at the negotiations in Geneva, and are joining oil- and plastic-producing countries in continuing to push for a treaty that focuses on downstream measures they claim will address pollution, such as improving recycling systems.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, the Trump administration has called on countries participating in the talks to reject "impractical" terms within the treaty, such as plastic production caps, bans, or restrictions on certain additives to plastic products.
Scientists believe that less than 10% of plastic products ever get recycled, despite the efforts of individuals to recycle their products.
Katie Drews, national director of the U.S.-based Alliance for Mission-Based Recycling (AMBR), said Friday that "recycling is essential, but it cannot solve the plastics crisis," which must be stopped "at its source."
"Without binding caps on plastic production, bans on toxic chemicals, and global mandates to design packaging for safety, reuse, and real recyclability, downstream solutions will continue to be overwhelmed and communities will continue to pay the price," said Drews. "AMBR stands with scientists, health professionals, youth, frontline and fenceline communities, Indigenous peoples, waste pickers, and mission-driven allies worldwide in urging governments to act. We need a treaty that truly protects human and environmental health, one that goes beyond words to bold, enforceable action."
Advocates' concerns are backed up by a study published in The Lancet this week, which said that without far-reaching efforts to stop more plastic from being produced, "production is on track to nearly triple by 2060."
As campaigners and scientists have worked towards a Global Plastics Treaty since 2022, companies like Dow, Shell, and ExxonMobil have only been ramping up their production of plastic, expanding their capacity by 1.4 million tons. Just seven petrochemical giants have sent a combined 70 lobbyists to the talks, which are scheduled to wrap up on August 14.
"The more we produce, the more we pollute," said Jules Vagner, president of the French group Objectif Zéro Plastique. "Opposing binding targets to reduce plastic production is, in practice, choosing to let pollution continue and worse, accelerate. We do not want another treaty that manages waste. We want one that ends pollution at the source."
"If some countries are unwilling to rise to this historic moment, they should step aside," said Vagner. "Not block global progress. We want a world free from plastic pollution, not one that adapts to it."
"The days of shackling America's oil, gas, and coal companies are over," said spokesperson Melinda McFossilShill.
A renaming ceremony for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was held at its Washington, D.C. headquarters on Thursday to give the EPA a name that reflects its priorities under Administrator Lee Zeldin and Republican President Donald Trump.
On the heels of Zeldin's visit to New England that spotlighted a push for the Constitution gas pipeline, a small group gathered outside the EPA building on Thursday to reintroduce it as the Environmental Pollution Agency and unveil its new logo.
"The days of shackling America's oil, gas, and coal companies are over," said Environmental Pollution Agency spokesperson Melinda McFossilShill. "The Trump administration stands for freedom, and that includes the freedom to pollute."
McFossilShill is not a real representative of the agency, but rather a critic of what it's become. Thursday's "Make Pollution Great Again!" event was a protest, led by groups including Shut Down D.C. and the local arm of Extinction Rebellion.
In addition to McFossilShill, protesters took on the personas of fossil fuel executives and backers, including Joe Gasfracker, vice president for corporate capture of government (a false name and position) at the (real) American Petroleum Institute.
"I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Administrator Zeldin and President Trump for finally ending the charade of so-called 'environmental protection' and making government work for our patriotic fossil fuel corporations again," he said.
"There are hundreds of people dying in floods, thousands dying in hurricanes, and millions being sickened by particulate matter pollution, wildfire smoke, and extreme heat, but we must balance that against the billions of dollars in profit that our members make," Gasfracker continued. "Billions are more than millions, so obviously our profits must take precedence."
Another protester—dubbed Pete Pollution, executive director of Energy Villains for Increased Leakage (EVIL)—declared that "the American Dream has always been about the freedom to pour toxic chemicals into every community."
"If we don't pollute America's environment, who will?" added Pollution. Other participants held signs that called for making rivers burn, causing more asthma, and destroying human health.
Protesters renamed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the Environmental Pollution Agency at its Washington, D.C. headquarters on August 7, 2025. (Photo: Extinction Rebellion D.C.)
During Trump's second term, the EPA has faced intense criticism for a range of actions. Over the past month, the agency has put 144 employees on leave after they signed a letter criticizing the administration's "harmful" policies, eliminated its scientific research arm in the "ultimate Friday night purge," proposed reregistering a pesticide twice banned by federal courts, and moved to cancel $7 billion in solar grants for low- and middle-income households.
Perhaps most notably, the agency also unveiled a rule to rescind the 2009 "endangerment finding" that has enabled federal regulations aimed at the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency over the past 15 years.
Further, Trump last month signed a series of proclamations to provide what he called "regulatory relief" to over 100 coal, chemical manufacturing, iron ore processing, and sterile medical equipment facilities, with the White House claiming that rules imposed on them under former Democratic President Joe Biden's EPA were "burdensome."
At the time, John Walke, clean air director for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, accused Trump of signing a "literal free pass for polluters," and warned that "if your family lives downwind of these plants, this is going to mean more toxic chemicals in the air you breathe."
Elected Democrats—who have minorities in both chambers of Congress—have joined climate, environmental, and public health advocates in calling out Trump and Zeldin for various moves.
Jay Inslee: Trump and Zeldin have turned EPA into ‘Environmental Pollution Agency’ by revoking essential climate rule www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/w...
[image or embed]
— Ali Velshi (@velshi.com) August 4, 2025 at 11:51 AM
On Thursday, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) led a letter to Zeldin about his proposal to gut power plant pollution standards.
"Climate change and toxic air pollution are serious issues," dozens of Senate Democrats wrote to the EPA administrator. "We represent millions of constituents who risk poisoning from mercury and air toxics and who are facing the rising costs of the climate crisis."
"Congress established the Clean Air Act to protect our constituents from these dangers. We urge EPA to follow its directive," they added, urging Zeldin to withdraw two proposals on fossil fuel plant emissions.
In a Thursday statement, Schumer said that "the Trump administration is saying to hell with five decades worth of protection against deadly pollution and neurotoxins that has saved thousands of lives, made communities safer, and our economy stronger. Why? To appease Big Oil and fossil fuel billionaires."
"The Trump administration's obsession with gutting clean air protections and allowing more poison into the air is reckless, dangerous, and a clear reminder: Republicans care about their donors, not you," he charged. "The EPA needs to stop ignoring the science and the facts and immediately reverse course and put the health and safety of Americans first."