# data[].attributes.headline
The Senate just voted to overturn another environmental rule — sending it to Trump’s desk

# data[].attributes.subject
The Senate just voted to overturn another environmental rule — sending it to Trump’s desk

# data[].attributes.body
Obama's rule in the management of public lands is close to being taken away by Trump's administration. Critics believed that it gave too much influence to the oil and gas industry. This means that it takes away from local communities.
The rule was intended by the Bureau of Land Management, to shorten the process associated with federal land use planning. As a result this would make it more accessible for greater public input. BLM officials want to make it faster for decisions and concerns of the communities are met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Obama-era rule aimed at modernizing the management of public lands is one step closer to being repealed. The Senate voted Tuesday to overturn an Interior Department regulation known as the Planning 2.0 rule in a move that critics say hands too much influence to the oil and gas industry and takes away input from local communities. From here, the resolution will go to President Trump, who has previously indicated his intent to sign it.

Planning 2.0, which was finalized late last year by the Bureau of Land Management, was intended to shorten and streamline the process associated with federal land use planning, while making it more transparent and accessible by allowing for earlier and greater public input on proposed management plans. It was touted by BLM officials as a way to make faster decisions that best reflect the concerns and priorities of the communities they affect.

Now, some groups are arguing that the rule's repeal could plunge federal land management, particularly in the Western states, back into an outdated system that fails to adequately take public concerns into account.

"Republican members of Congress want to silence the public voice on the management of public lands," said Phil Hanceford , assistant director of the Wilderness Society's BLM Action Group, in an interview with The Washington Post. "It's a simple rule that allows for more transparency and more public opportunity for participation in the management of our public lands, period. And because of special interests getting involved, the Congress essentially wants to roll that back."

If President Trump signs the resolution, the Planning 2.0 rule would become the second major Obama-era environmental regulation to meet its demise under the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows Congress a finite period of time to overturn federal rules after they have been finalized. Last month, he signed a resolution overturning a regulation that would have blocked coal mining companies from engaging in any activities that could permanently pollute streams and other drinking water sources.

Proposed rollbacks of several more environmental rules remain in the pipeline, including a controversial regulation aimed at curbing fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas operations on public lands, which is expected to go to a vote in the Senate as early as this week. Dozens of other regulations across a variety of federal agencies have the potential to come to the chopping block. According to , maintained by a former staff member at the Congressional Research Service, at least 49 resolutions for repeal have already been introduced, and three have been passed into law, including the stream protection rule. Overall, the White House has expressed explicit support for the repeal of at least 10 regulations.

In a statement, the Wilderness Society's president, Jamie Williams, added that the Planning 2.0 rule's repeal may make it easier to implement management plans that allow for increased drilling on public lands, which many environmental groups have opposed. "Congress is bent on using its power to permanently impede public input on where and how often we drill on our public lands," he said.

Other Western-focused groups have been divided about the rule's potential effects - in fact, they seem to have a fundamental disagreement about whether it would have increased or decreased the weight of input from local communities.

, executive director of the Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a trade group for cattle ranchers and beef producers, supported the rule's repeal, suggesting that it would have actually made it more difficult for stakeholders to make their opinions heard. Although the Planning 2.0 rule was designed to allow greater and earlier public comments - an effort Lane said he believed was made with "the best of intentions of BLM to streamline the planning process" - the shortened turnaround time on rule-making could have the opposite effect, he said.

"By the time you get your first bite of the apple, it has been picked over by experts and by biologists and planners, and a million dollars have been spent and months of time and effort have gone into several hundred pages of documentation, and you're give 30 days as a layman landowner to come up with a substantive response of your primary concerns," Lane said. "It's incredibly daunting."

Lane also suggested that the rule could have caused a shift to a stricter, more preservation-focused land management philosophy. He pointed to some recent comments made by newly confirmed Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, who remarked last Friday that some public lands are better managed under the philosophy of naturalist John Muir, in which humans strive to keep their footprint to a minimum, and others are better managed under the philosophy of forester and politician Gifford Pinchot, in which resources are used and renewed by humans.

" I think that's exactly right," Lane said. "Our concern is that, in this case, Planning 2.0 was running the risk of moving BLM back towards the Muir model."

In fact, this is the kind of approach that many environmental groups have called for in the West, pushing back against proposals for increased energy development or agricultural expansion on public lands. Hanceford, of the Wilderness Society, suggested that the Senate's vote speaks to a disproportionate amount of power given to industry stakeholders.

And other Western landowners argue that the rule would have given them a greater voice in federal decision-making.

" Under the former rule ... there's really not been much transparency or opportunity for landowners to be involved early on in the planning process," said Lesli Allison , executive director of the Western Landowners Alliance. "We didn't know where those decisions came from, who was forming them, and certainly landowners didn't have an opportunity to be part of an early planning process."

Allison added that there's a great diversity of opinion among Western landowners about how their environments should be managed, including on issues such as energy development, and that improving the system for public input "absolutely should transcend partisan boundaries ."

"What our landowners have experienced is that whether it's energy development or any other kind of natural resource use, building relationships and creating opportunities for collaboration early in the planning process has been very helpful in resolving many of the conflicts," she said. "These really are multiple-use landscapes, and their use really has to be thought through carefully from beginning to end."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Senate just voted to overturn another environmental rule - sending it to Trump's desk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Obama-era rule aimed at modernizing the management of public lands is one step closer to being repealed. The Senate voted Tuesday to overturn an Interior Department regulation known as the Planning 2.0 rule in a move that critics say hands too much influence to the oil and gas industry and takes away input from local communities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shelling around Ukrainian industrial facilities may trigger serious environmental consequences, report says

# data[].attributes.subject
Shelling around Ukrainian industrial facilities may trigger serious environmental consequences, report says

# data[].attributes.body
The increase of shelling across eastern Ukraine is threatening numerous industrial facilities. This could cause environmental problems if damaged.
There have been reports that this may cause catastrophic chemical disaster. Since battles are being fought in cities close to industrial centers, there is a risk that they will be hit. The U.N. stated that shells had impacted a building with more than 15 thousand pounds of chlorine gas. If one of the containers were hit, which luckily none of them were, then anyone within 600 feet would have been killed. The health of more than 20 thousand residents is in danger.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A steady uptick in shelling along front lines in eastern Ukraine is threatening numerous industrial facilities that, if damaged, could trigger severe environmental and humanitarian consequences, according to a new report by an environmental nonprofit organization.

The report, published by the Geneva-based Zoi Environment Network and the Toxic Remnants of War Project, comes just days after the United Nations warned against the potential for a "catastrophic chemical disaster" in Ukraine's restive east.

"Battles are now being fought in cities, close to industrial centers, with factories increasingly becoming at risk of being hit: the consequences for anyone living close-by would be severe," Baskut Tuncak, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes, said in a release.

The U.N. report, released Friday, indicated that on Feb. 24 errant shells had impacted a building that housed more than 15,000 pounds of chlorine gas. No containers were hit, the report said; however, if one container had been ruptured, anyone within 600 feet would have been killed.

The U.N. report did not say what facility had been targeted by the shelling, but another bulletin put out by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said that on Feb. 24 the Donetsk Filter Station's Chlorine gas depot had suffered a near miss. If the facility was significantly damage, the health of 20,000 nearby residents would be endangered, according to the Zoi report.

While water filtration plants pose a unique environmental risk, the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine has a 200-year legacy of heavy industry and coal mining, making it an area replete with environmental hazards.

Last month, Stephen O'Brien, the U.N.'s under-secretary-general and emergency relief coordinator, warned that sulfuric acid and formaldehyde could soon leak from a damaged Phenol plant near the village of Novgorodske into nearby fields and the Seversky Donets River.

The contamination of the river "would have disastrous humanitarian consequences in a highly industrialized part of Europe," O'Brien said.

Aside from shelling, damage to industrial facilities in eastern Ukraine has also been attributed to two other factors, according to the Zoi report. Trade blockades limit the supply of goods between the east territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists and the government-held region, and frequent electricity outages have hindered industrial output in key areas. In February, heavy shelling around the town of Avdiivka's coke-coal plant nearly shut down the facility which would have cut off heat to many of the town's residents. In 2015, shelling nearly stalled Mariupol's metallurgy plants, the Zoi repot said.

"The reduction in industrial output may have positive short-term effects on air quality but severe impacts on the regions economy," the Zoi report said.

After nearly three years of conflict, environmental hazards in eastern Ukraine aren't just relegated to "pollution from industrial sources," the report said. Waste ponds from farms that are located in contested territory have fallen into disrepair and are leaking into water supplies while deforestation for heat and fortifications has left areas predisposed for soil erosion and caused native wildlife to flee. Agricultural zones, like many other areas along the front lines, have also been heavily mined.

"The focus on the ongoing threat of environmental emergencies triggered by damage to the Donbas region's numerous industrial facilities, and the disruption to water and other essential services have helped frame the conflict's environmental narrative to date," the Zoi report said. "However these problems represent just a fraction of a large and complex suite of environmental issues that will threaten sustainable recovery and development for years to come."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shelling around Ukrainian industrial facilities may trigger serious environmental consequences, report says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A steady uptick in shelling along front lines in eastern Ukraine is threatening numerous industrial facilities that, if damaged, could trigger severe environmental and humanitarian consequences, according to a new report by an environmental nonprofit organization.

# data[].attributes.headline
Environmental groups file lawsuit over Trump climate actions

# data[].attributes.subject
Environmental groups file lawsuit over Trump climate actions

# data[].attributes.body
Environmental groups do not agree with Trump's plans to destroy the work that we have done thus far in protecting the planet against global warming. Trump want to reevaluate former President Barack Obama's policies on the environment, specifically the plan to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired power plants. By doing this, Trump would ensure coal to be sold for lower unfairly low prices.
This could, and probably will, worsen climate change.
Environmental groups will fight Trump's administration by hiring more lawyers and raising money in order to file a law suit. They will also try to create public opposition to the executive order.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CHICAGO - Environmental groups that vowed to fight President Donald Trump's efforts to roll back his predecessor's plans to curb global warming made good on their promise Wednesday, teaming up with an American Indian tribe to ask a federal court to block an order that lifts restrictions on coal sales from federal lands.

The Interior Department last year placed a moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands to review the climate change impacts of burning the fuel and whether taxpayers were getting a fair return. But Trump on Tuesday signed a sweeping executive order that included lifting the moratorium, and also initiated a review of former President Barack Obama's signature plan to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Environmentalists say lifting the moratorium will worsen climate change and allow coal to be sold for unfairly low prices.

"It's really just a hail Mary to a dying industry," said Jenny Harbine, an Earthjustice attorney who filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Montana on behalf of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity.

The White House did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the lawsuit. The Department of Justice declined comment.

Environmental groups have been preparing for months to fight the Trump administration's environmental rollbacks, including by hiring more lawyers and raising money. Trump, who has called global warming a "hoax" invented by the Chinese, said during his campaign that he would kill Obama's climate plans and bring back coal jobs.

Advocates said they also will work to mobilize public opposition to the executive order, saying they expect a backlash from Americans who worry about climate change.

"This is not what most people elected Trump to do," said David Goldston, director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Poll after poll shows that the public supports climate action."

A poll released in September found 71 percent of Americans want the U.S. government to do something about global warming, including 6 percent who think the government should act even though they are not sure that climate change is happening. That poll, which also found most Americans are willing to pay a little more each month to fight global warming, was conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

While Republicans have blamed Obama-era environmental regulations for the loss of coal jobs, federal data show that U.S. mines have been losing jobs for decades because of automation and competition from natural gas; solar panels and wind turbines now can produce emissions-free electricity cheaper than burning coal.

But many people in coal country are counting on the jobs that Trump has promised, and industry advocates praised his orders.

"These executive actions are a welcome departure from the previous administration's strategy of making energy more expensive through costly, job-killing regulations that choked our economy," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue.

Trump's order also will initiate a review of efforts to reduce methane emissions in oil and natural gas production, and will rescind Obama-era actions that addressed climate change and national security and efforts to prepare the country for the impacts of climate change. The administration still is deciding whether to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

And on Wednesday, the administration asked a federal appeals court to postpone a ruling on lawsuits over the Clean Power Plan, the Obama initiative to limit carbon from power plants, saying it could be changed or rescinded.

A coalition of 16 states and the District of Columbia said they will oppose any effort to withdraw the plan or seek dismissal of a pending legal case, while environmental advocates said they're also ready to step in to defend environmental laws if the U.S. government does not.

"The president doesn't get to simply rewrite safeguards; they have to ... prove the changes are in line with the law and science," said the NRDC's Goldston. "I think that's going to be a high hurdle for them."

Environmentalists say Trump's actions will put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to other countries that are embracing clean energy, which they say could create thousands of new jobs.

Even so, they believe efforts to revive coal ultimately will fail because many states and industries already have been switching to renewable energy or natural gas.

"Those decisions are being made at the state level and plant by plant," said Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen, who said his group is "continuing to work aggressively to retire dirty coal plants."

"Coal is not coming back," Van Noppen added. "While the president is taking big splashy action, he is actually doomed to fail."

___

Brown reported from Billings, Montana. Associated Press writers Michael Biesecker and Sam Hananel in Washington also contributed to this story.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental groups file lawsuit over Trump climate actions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmental groups that vowed to fight President Donald Trump's efforts to roll back his predecessor's plans to curb global warming made good on their promise Wednesday, teaming up with an American Indian tribe to ask a federal court to block an order that lifts restrictions on coal sales from federal lands.

# data[].attributes.headline
E.P.A. Chief Doubts Consensus View of Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
E.P.A. Chief Doubts Consensus View of Climate Change

# data[].attributes.body
Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA stated that he did not believe Carbon Dioxide was a primary contributor to global warming. He believed that "human activity on climate is something very challenging to do and there's a tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact" so he there for stated he did not believe it is a primary contributor to global warming.
His belief contradicts numerous years of research by highly qualified environmental scientists.
Trumps administration wants to "roll back" on Obama's climate change policies . In 2013, a group of 2,000 international scientists found it to be likely that human emissions of Carbon Dioxide resulted in more than half of the global warming that occurred from 1951-2010.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
His statements appear to signal that the Trump administration intends not only to roll back President Barack Obama's climate change policies, but also to wage a vigorous attack on their underlying legal and scientific basis.

A report in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of about 2,000 international scientists that reviews and summarizes climate science, found it to be "extremely likely" that more than half the global warming that occurred from 1951 to 2010 was a consequence of human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

A January report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded, "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere."

Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Energy Department's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said, "Mr. Pruitt has claimed that carbon dioxide caused by human activity is not 'the primary contributor to the global warming that we see.' Mr. Pruitt is wrong."

"The scientific community has studied this issue for decades," Dr. Santer added. "The consensus message from many national and international assessments of the science is pretty simple: Natural factors can't explain the size or patterns of observed warming. A large human influence on global climate is the best explanation for the warming we've measured and monitored."

The basic science showing that carbon dioxide traps heat at the Earth's surface dates to the 19th century, and has been confirmed in many thousands of experiments and observations since.

Mr. Pruitt has faced frequent criticism for his close ties to fossil fuel companies. In his previous job as the attorney general of Oklahoma, he sought to use legal tools to fight environmental regulations on the oil and gas companies that are a major part of the state's economy. A 2014 investigation by The New York Times found that energy lobbyists had drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send, on state stationery, to the E.P.A., the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget and even Mr. Obama, outlining the economic hardship caused by the environmental rules.

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change

But in a sign of how far outside mainstream views Mr. Pruitt's remarks on Thursday have placed him, even executives of some of the nation's largest fossil fuel producers said they were surprised by his comments. Interviewed at CERAweek, an annual conference of major energy producers this week in Houston, Wael Sawan, an executive vice president at Shell Energy Resources, said he was "absolutely convinced CO2 can cause serious damage to not only this generation but future generations."

Mr. Pruitt spoke at the Houston energy conference on Thursday afternoon in a session moderated by Daniel Yergin, a prominent energy economist and a member of a White House advisory panel. Mr. Yergin did not ask Mr. Pruitt any questions about his remarks from Thursday morning, saying later that he had been unaware of the comments when interviewing him.

Mr. Pruitt did not clarify his comments or respond to reporters who sought to question him.

He said at the energy conference that the Obama administration had gone too far with some environmental rules and that he intended to work more closely with industry and individual states to address pollution issues.

"The future ain't what it used to be at the E.P.A.," he said.

Mr. Pruitt's remarks come as the Trump administration prepares to roll back Mr. Obama's two signature policies to address global warming: a pair of sweeping regulations intended to curb carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles and power plant smokestacks.

At the same time, the White House is considering a 17 percent cut to the budget of NOAA, one of the nation's premier agencies of climate science research, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post.

Mr. Pruitt's remarks on Thursday were consistent with his past public statements questioning the established science of human-caused climate change, but in denying the role played by carbon dioxide, they go a step further.

In addition to putting him at odds with the consensus of climate scientists, Mr. Pruitt's remarks also raise the possibility that, as the Trump administration moves forward with unwinding Mr. Obama's climate change regulations, it could put the administration in violation of federal law.

In 2009, the E.P.A. released a legal opinion known as an endangerment finding concluding that, because of its contribution to global warming, carbon dioxide in large amounts met the Clean Air Act 's definition of a pollutant that harms human health. Under the terms of the Clean Air Act, one of the nation's most powerful environmental laws, all such pollutants must be regulated by the E.P.A. A federal court upheld the finding, and the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to it.

Thus the E.P.A. remains obligated to regulate carbon dioxide.

In his Senate hearing, Mr. Pruitt said that as administrator of the E.P.A. he would not revisit that 2009 legal finding. "It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected," Mr. Pruitt said. But energy lobbyists close to the Trump administration have since urged the new administration to consider building a legal case against the endangerment finding.

Advisers to Mr. Trump's transition team said they read Mr. Pruitt's remarks as a signal that he intends to do just that.

"President Trump's campaign commitment was to undo President Obama's entire climate edifice," said Myron Ebell, who worked on Mr. Trump's E.P.A. transition team but has no role in policy making. "They're thinking through the whole thing, and based on what Scott Pruitt said this morning, I do think they are looking at reopening the endangerment finding."

Mr. Trump is expected to announce an executive order next week directing Mr. Pruitt to begin the legal process of unwinding the climate change regulations on emissions from power plants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[].name
intergovernmental panel on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
E.P.A. Chief Doubts Consensus View of Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
His statements appear to signal that the Trump administration intends not only to roll back President Barack Obama's climate change policies, but also to wage a vigorous attack on their underlying legal and scientific basis.

# data[].attributes.body
Trump administration is trying to take away a rule that increases mileage for cars, saves money for people buying the cars, while also cutting oil and reduces pollution.
Fortunately, in order to repeal the rule, it would take years and a lot of Trumps time. Also, Trump would have to come up with a better reason to change the normal course that the efficiency of cars are going at. People are willing to fight for this rule to stay in place and hopefully technology will continue to make cars more efficient.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To the Editor:
Re " Trump to Begin Undoing Vehicle Pollution Restrictions " (news article, March 4):

The Trump administration appears poised to take a wrecking ball to a rule that increases the mileage for cars, trucks and S.U.V.s, saves consumers money (on average $1,500 a vehicle), cuts oil use and reduces harmful pollution.

The automakers were key architects of these standards when they came out in 2012, but now some are trying to back out of their commitment, even though they are experiencing record sales, and new technologies are coming on line to make it faster and cheaper than expected to meet these standards.

It is a travesty that the Trump administration would let the car companies renege on such an important agreement. But it will be a long hard fight. It will take years to repeal the rule, and at the end of the day, the Trump administration will have to persuade a skeptical court that there is new information that justifies changing course.

Supporters of this rule are ready for that fight.

KEN KIMMELL, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
The writer is president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. To the Editor:
Re " Chief of E.P.A. Bucks Studies About Climate " (front page, March 10): The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, says of carbon dioxide: "I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don't know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

In the meantime, he will err on the side of recklessness and gut programs already in place or planned that aim to better understand and curb emissions.

TOM GOODMAN, PHILADELPHIA
To the Editor:
Re " A Lesson the E.P.A. Should Heed," by William D. Ruckelshaus (Op-Ed, March 7):

As a Republican appointee, I had the pleasure of working for hard-working, thoughtful Bill Ruckelshaus at the start of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. The E.P.A. was established by a conservative president, Richard Nixon, and supported by every Republican and Democratic president since, including our most conservative president, Ronald Reagan. As "Ruck" points out, this support came because it was demanded by the American people, by their representatives in Congress and by the economy of the United States.

While every large-scale entity, especially government entities, needs periodic review and change, it is the basis of conservatism to conserve the good as we evolve as a society. A clean, healthy environment is essential for America, and we should be setting the standard for the global economies.

It is also essential to reinvigorate our federalist system, but that does not mean erasing the federal component and leaving the entire job to the states. After all, air and water do not know anything about political borders.

The new, learning Trump-Pence administration will, I hope, take the time to examine the complexities of environmental regulation and proceed wisely, and sometimes slowly. It is the conservative way.

HOWARD A. COHEN
BALA CYNWYD, PA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To the Editor: Re " Trump to Begin Undoing Vehicle Pollution Restrictions " (news article, March 4): The Trump administration appears poised to take a wrecking ball to a rule that increases the mileage for cars, trucks and S.U.V.s, saves consumers money (on average $1,500 a vehicle), cuts oil use and reduces harmful pollution.

# data[].attributes.headline
E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

# data[].attributes.subject
E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency’s Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

# data[].attributes.body
Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA rejected the ban of one of the mostly widely used insecticides in farms. The chemical was banned in household items in 200, but it still used today in farms. It is used at about 40,000 farms and 50 types of crops in the U.S.
The chemical has significant health problems like learning issues. The farmers and children exposed to it have experienced these issues. EPA scientists have concluded that the chemical should be banned, yet it is still in use.
The United States Department of Agriculture supported Pruitt's decision. Pruitt's defense is that the pest management tool will help create a lot of food that is affordable for America. In this matter Pruitt is ignoring the proven factual evidence and science that states that the insecticide is toxic and harmful for human health.
This issue is not likely to be revisited again until 2022, which is why many environmental groups did not agree with his decision at all. They believe that Trump's administration is valuing corporate demands over human health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency's own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation's most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers.

The ruling by Mr. Pruitt, in one of his first formal actions as the nation's top environmental official, rejected a petition filed a decade ago by two environmental groups that had asked that the agency ban all uses of chlorpyrifos. The chemical was banned in 2000 for use in most household settings, but still today is used at about 40,000 farms on about 50 different types of crops, ranging from almonds to apples.

Late last year, and based in part on research conducted at Columbia University, E.P.A. scientists concluded that exposure to the chemical that has been in use since 1965 was potentially causing significant health consequences. They included learning and memory declines, particularly among farm workers and young children who may be exposed through drinking water and other sources.

But Dow Chemical, which makes the product, along with farm groups that use it, had argued that the science demonstrating that chlorpyrifos caused such harm is inconclusive - especially when properly used to kill crop-spoiling insects.

An E.P.A. scientific review panel made up of academic experts last July also had raised questions about some of the conclusions the chemical safety staff had reached. That led the staff to revise the way it had justified its findings of harm, although the agency employees as of late last year still concluded that the chemical should be banned.

Mr. Pruitt, in an announcement issued Wednesday night, said the agency needed to study the science more.

"We need to provide regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos, while still protecting human health and the environment," Mr. Pruitt said in his statement. "By reversing the previous administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making - rather than predetermined results."

The United States Department of Agriculture, which works close with the nation's farmers, supported Mr. Pruitt's action.

"It means that this important pest management tool will remain available to growers, helping to ensure an abundant and affordable food supply for this nation," Sheryl Kunickis, director of the U.S.D.A. Office of Pest Management Policy, said in a statement Wednesday.

Dow Agrosciences, the division that sells the product, also praised the ruling, calling it in a statement "the right decision for farmers who, in about 100 countries, rely on the effectiveness of chlorpyrifos to protect more than 50 crops."

But Jim Jones, who ran the chemical safety unit at the E.P.A. for five years, and spent more than 20 years working there until he left the agency in January when President Trump took office, said he was disappointed by Mr. Pruitt's action.

"They are ignoring the science that is pretty solid," Mr. Jones said, adding that he believed the ruling would put farm workers and exposed children at unnecessary risk.

The ruling is, in some ways, more consequential than the higher profile move by Mr. Trump on Tuesday to order the start of rolling back Obama administration rules related to coal-burning power plants and climate change.

In rejecting the pesticide ban, Mr. Pruitt took what is known as a "final agency action" on the question of the safety and use of chlorpyrifos, suggesting that the matter would not likely be revisited until 2022, the next time the E.P.A. is formally required to re-evaluate the safety of the pesticide.

Mr. Pruitt's move was immediately condemned by environmental groups, which said it showed that the Trump administration cared more about catering to the demands of major corporate players, like Dow Chemical, than the health and safety of families nationwide.

"We have a law that requires the E.P.A. to ban pesticides that it cannot determine are safe, and the E.P.A. has repeatedly said this pesticide is not safe," said Patti Goldman, managing attorney at Earthjustice, a San Francisco-based environmental group that serves as the legal team for the National Resources Defense Council and the Pesticide Action Network of North America, which filed the petition in 2007 to ban the product.

The agency had been under court order to issue a ruling on the petition by Friday. The environmental groups intend to return to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to ask judges to order the agency to "take action to protect children from this pesticide" Ms. Goldman said on Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agency's Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency's own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation's most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers.