this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
96 points (97.1% liked)

Progressive Politics

3096 readers
237 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The decision comes after a ProPublica investigation revealed that the EPA had found that one of the fuels had a cancer risk more than 1 million times higher than the agency usually considers acceptable.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The EPA had failed to note the sky-high cancer risk from the marine fuel additive in the agency’s document approving the chemical’s production. When ProPublica asked why, the EPA said it had “inadvertently” omitted it.

Asked last week for an accurate estimate of the true risk posed by the chemicals, the EPA declined to respond, citing pending litigation. The EPA also did not respond when asked why it did not acknowledge that its approval may have been made in error during the months that ProPublica was asking about it.

Uhhh.... Anyone know what the fuck is happening over at the EPA???

Edit, also a worthwhile excerpt:

As ProPublica and The Guardian noted last year, making fuel from plastic is in some ways worse for the climate than simply creating it directly from coal, oil or gas. That’s because nearly all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, and additional fossil fuels are used to generate the heat that turns discarded plastic into fuels.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Did Trump put another DeJoy in charge of it? I know Repugs want to destroy the EPA. Wouldn't surprise me if they have troublemakers on staff...

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Inb4 the military claims it as a new chemical warfare agent!

"We didn't kill 'em, the tumors did!"

[–] SadSadSatellite@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah cool the EPA is a captured industry, good to know.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's not an industry, and it's something that can happen to any agency. Figure out how to recover it if you want ANY environmental protection agency, because this kind of stuff can happen with ANY remotely compromised protection agency.

[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I think hiding behind the three-letter acronym "EPA" is pretty weak journalism. I want to find out who was bribed, when, why, and how harshly they will be sentenced for approving this obviously toxic chemical exposure to our environment.