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

Progressive Politics

1194 readers
321 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cris_Color 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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 3 points 2 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...