President Donald Trump's nominee to head the US Environmental Protection Agency was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday, drawing cheers from the fossil fuel industry and sparking alarm among green groups.
Lee Zeldin, a former US congressman from New York, has committed to Trump's campaign pledges of boosting US energy dominance and rolling back environmental regulations enacted under former president Joe Biden.
The 44-year-old's nomination was confirmed by a 56-42 vote, with Democrats John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as well as Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona crossing the aisle to vote with their Republican colleagues.&nbsp;
Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Jon Ossoff of Georgia did not vote.&nbsp;
"Administrator Lee Zeldin has a proven track record of finding solutions to the nation's most pressing energy challenges," said American Petroleum Institute president and CEO Mike Sommers.
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-commerce-secretary-nominee-lutnick-advocates-across-the-board-tariffs-in-senate-hearing-8669715">Trump&rsquo;s commerce secretary nominee Lutnick advocates 'across-the-board' tariffs in senate hearing</a>
"We look forward to working with him to advance American energy leadership, from developing smart, effective regulations to ensuring consumers &ndash; not the government &ndash; can choose the vehicles they drive."&nbsp;
Faced with hostile Democratic questioning during his confirmation hearing, Zeldin acknowledged human-caused climate change is real, in contrast with Trump, who has derided it as a hoax.&nbsp;
But he repeatedly emphasized his commitment to "clean air" and "clean water," echoing rhetoric commonly used by conservatives who champion fossil fuels while resisting efforts to combat the worsening climate crisis, which is disrupting ecosystems and intensifying extreme weather events.
"With today's vote, Senate Republicans have installed yet another Trump loyalist to advance his agenda of environmental destruction," said Evergreen Action's Executive Director Lena Moffitt.
"Despite Lee Zeldin's repeated assurances to 'fully' follow the law, his blind loyalty to President Trump in the face of illegal, destructive executive actions makes it clear that his EPA will put polluters over people."
Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-unveils-plan-to-detain-30000-migrants-at-notorious-guantanamo-bay-military-prison-criminal-illegal-aliens-us-illegal-immigrants-8669651">Donald Trump unveils plan to detain 30,000 'criminal illegal aliens' at notorious Guantanamo Bay military prison</a>
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, warned that Zeldin's leadership should be scrutinized closely.
"Let's be clear-eyed that every other person Trump has already deployed to the EPA's pesticide, water and air divisions has a long track record of putting industry profits and polluters above our health and the environment," he said.
Zeldin's confirmation comes amid sweeping moves by Trump to reshape US environmental policy.
On his very first day in office, Trump announced he was removing the United States from the Paris climate accord for a second time, declared a "national energy emergency" to expand drilling, and signed executive orders to slow the transition to electric vehicles and halt offshore windshore farms.
Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

World | The 44-year-old's nomination was confirmed by a 56-42 vote, with Democrats John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as well as Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona crossing the aisle to vote with their Republican colleagues. 

President Donald Trump's nominee to head the US Environmental Protection Agency was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday, drawing cheers from the fossil fuel industry and sparking alarm among green groups. Lee Zeldin, a former US congressman from New York, has committed to Trump's campaign pledges of boosting US energy dominance and rolling back environmental regulations enacted under former president Joe Biden. The 44-year-old's nomination was confirmed by a 56-42 vote, with Democrats John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as well as Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona crossing the aisle to vote with their Republican colleagues. Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Jon Ossoff of Georgia did not vote. "Administrator Lee Zeldin has a proven track record of finding solutions to the nation's most pressing energy challenges," said American Petroleum Institute president and CEO Mike Sommers. Also read | Trump’s commerce secretary nominee Lutnick advocates 'across-the-board' tariffs in senate hearing "We look forward to working with him to advance American energy leadership, from developing smart, effective regulations to ensuring consumers – not the government – can choose the vehicles they drive." Faced with hostile Democratic questioning during his confirmation hearing, Zeldin acknowledged human-caused climate change is real, in contrast with Trump, who has derided it as a hoax. But he repeatedly emphasized his commitment to "clean air" and "clean water," echoing rhetoric commonly used by conservatives who champion fossil fuels while resisting efforts to combat the worsening climate crisis, which is disrupting ecosystems and intensifying extreme weather events. "With today's vote, Senate Republicans have installed yet another Trump loyalist to advance his agenda of environmental destruction," said Evergreen Action's Executive Director Lena Moffitt. "Despite Lee Zeldin's repeated assurances to 'fully' follow the law, his blind loyalty to President Trump in the face of illegal, destructive executive actions makes it clear that his EPA will put polluters over people." Also read | Donald Trump unveils plan to detain 30,000 'criminal illegal aliens' at notorious Guantanamo Bay military prison Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, warned that Zeldin's leadership should be scrutinized closely. "Let's be clear-eyed that every other person Trump has already deployed to the EPA's pesticide, water and air divisions has a long track record of putting industry profits and polluters above our health and the environment," he said. Zeldin's confirmation comes amid sweeping moves by Trump to reshape US environmental policy. On his very first day in office, Trump announced he was removing the United States from the Paris climate accord for a second time, declared a "national energy emergency" to expand drilling, and signed executive orders to slow the transition to electric vehicles and halt offshore windshore farms. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a news agency feed with minimal edits for grammar and punctuation. The headline may have been changed to better reflect the content of the story or to make it more suitable for WION audience.

Lee Zeldin confirmed as Trump's pick for Environmental Protection Agency

WASHINGTON
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet reached a decision on California's ambitious plan to phase out gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, maintaining a cautious approach to the state's groundbreaking emissions regulations.
California's proposed regulations would mandate that at least 80% of new vehicle sales be electric by 2035, with an additional allowance for up to 20% plug-in hybrid models. The plan has already gained substantial momentum, with 11 other states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, adopting similar regulatory frameworks.
The state's emissions strategy involves a progressive transition, requiring 35% of vehicles in the 2026 model year to be zero-emission models, escalating to 68% by 2030. Proponents argue that these regulations are crucial for meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and mitigating smog-forming pollutants.
An EPA spokesperson confirmed that the agency continues to review California's waiver requests meticulously, emphasising the need to ensure decisions are legally robust and sustainable. The state currently has seven additional waivers pending review.
The automotive industry has expressed significant reservations about the proposed regulations. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing major manufacturers including General Motors, Volkswagen, and Toyota, argues that the programme will negatively impact economic activity, increase costs, and limit consumer vehicle choices.
The trade group has been particularly vocal, suggesting that achieving the mandated targets would require "a miracle" and calling for a more balanced approach that might involve some states withdrawing from the programme.
The regulatory landscape is further complicated by potential political interventions. President-elect Donald Trump has previously indicated intentions to rescind EPA waivers granted to California for stricter vehicle emissions standards, adding another layer of uncertainty to the regulatory environment.
California's history of environmental leadership is evident in its long-standing relationship with the EPA. The state has received more than 75 waivers since 1967, consistently pushing for increasingly stringent emissions performance and electric vehicle sales requirements.
The EPA's March 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver for setting independent tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandates through 2025 marked a significant reversal of a 2019 decision made during the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court has further complicated the regulatory landscape by agreeing to hear a challenge from fuel producers regarding the 2022 waiver. This legal battle could potentially reshape the future of state-level emissions regulations and the broader transition to electric vehicles.
Industry analysts and environmental advocates are closely monitoring the EPA's deliberations, recognising that the decision will have far-reaching implications for the automotive industry's transition to cleaner transportation technologies.

EPA continues review of landmark zero-emission vehicle regulations amid complex legal landscape

 



WASHINGTON The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet reached a decision on California's ambitious plan to phase out gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, maintaining a cautious approach to the state's groundbreaking emissions regulations. California's proposed regulations would mandate that at least 80% of new vehicle sales be electric by 2035, with an additional allowance for up to 20% plug-in hybrid models. The plan has already gained substantial momentum, with 11 other states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, adopting similar regulatory frameworks. The state's emissions strategy involves a progressive transition, requiring 35% of vehicles in the 2026 model year to be zero-emission models, escalating to 68% by 2030. Proponents argue that these regulations are crucial for meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and mitigating smog-forming pollutants. An EPA spokesperson confirmed that the agency continues to review California's waiver requests meticulously, emphasising the need to ensure decisions are legally robust and sustainable. The state currently has seven additional waivers pending review. The automotive industry has expressed significant reservations about the proposed regulations. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing major manufacturers including General Motors, Volkswagen, and Toyota, argues that the programme will negatively impact economic activity, increase costs, and limit consumer vehicle choices. The trade group has been particularly vocal, suggesting that achieving the mandated targets would require "a miracle" and calling for a more balanced approach that might involve some states withdrawing from the programme. The regulatory landscape is further complicated by potential political interventions. President-elect Donald Trump has previously indicated intentions to rescind EPA waivers granted to California for stricter vehicle emissions standards, adding another layer of uncertainty to the regulatory environment. California's history of environmental leadership is evident in its long-standing relationship with the EPA. The state has received more than 75 waivers since 1967, consistently pushing for increasingly stringent emissions performance and electric vehicle sales requirements. The EPA's March 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver for setting independent tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandates through 2025 marked a significant reversal of a 2019 decision made during the Trump administration. The Supreme Court has further complicated the regulatory landscape by agreeing to hear a challenge from fuel producers regarding the 2022 waiver. This legal battle could potentially reshape the future of state-level emissions regulations and the broader transition to electric vehicles. Industry analysts and environmental advocates are closely monitoring the EPA's deliberations, recognising that the decision will have far-reaching implications for the automotive industry's transition to cleaner transportation technologies.

US Environmental Agency delays decision on California's 2035 vehicle emissions plan

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet reached a decision on California's ambitious plan to phase out gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, maintaining a cautious approach to the state's groundbreaking emissions regulations.

California's proposed regulations would mandate that at least 80% of new vehicle sales be electric by 2035, with an additional allowance for up to 20% plug-in hybrid models. The plan has already gained substantial momentum, with 11 other states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, adopting similar regulatory frameworks.

The state's emissions strategy involves a progressive transition, requiring 35% of vehicles in the 2026 model year to be zero-emission models, escalating to 68% by 2030. Proponents argue that these regulations are crucial for meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and mitigating smog-forming pollutants.

An EPA spokesperson confirmed that the agency continues to review California's waiver requests meticulously, emphasising the need to ensure decisions are legally robust and sustainable. The state currently has seven additional waivers pending review.

The automotive industry has expressed significant reservations about the proposed regulations. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing major manufacturers including General Motors, Volkswagen, and Toyota, argues that the programme will negatively impact economic activity, increase costs, and limit consumer vehicle choices.

The trade group has been particularly vocal, suggesting that achieving the mandated targets would require "a miracle" and calling for a more balanced approach that might involve some states withdrawing from the programme.

The regulatory landscape is further complicated by potential political interventions. President-elect Donald Trump has previously indicated intentions to rescind EPA waivers granted to California for stricter vehicle emissions standards, adding another layer of uncertainty to the regulatory environment.

California's history of environmental leadership is evident in its long-standing relationship with the EPA. The state has received more than 75 waivers since 1967, consistently pushing for increasingly stringent emissions performance and electric vehicle sales requirements.

The EPA's March 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver for setting independent tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandates through 2025 marked a significant reversal of a 2019 decision made during the Trump administration.

The Supreme Court has further complicated the regulatory landscape by agreeing to hear a challenge from fuel producers regarding the 2022 waiver. This legal battle could potentially reshape the future of state-level emissions regulations and the broader transition to electric vehicles.

Industry analysts and environmental advocates are closely monitoring the EPA's deliberations, recognising that the decision will have far-reaching implications for the automotive industry's transition to cleaner transportation technologies.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet reached a decision on California's ambitious plan to phase out gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, maintaining a cautious approach to the state's groundbreaking emissions regulations.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet reached a decision on California's ambitious plan to phase out gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, maintaining a cautious approach to the state's groundbreaking emissions regulations. California's proposed regulations would mandate that at least 80% of new vehicle sales be electric by 2035, with an additional allowance for up to 20% plug-in hybrid models. The plan has already gained substantial momentum, with 11 other states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, adopting similar regulatory frameworks. The state's emissions strategy involves a progressive transition, requiring 35% of vehicles in the 2026 model year to be zero-emission models, escalating to 68% by 2030. Proponents argue that these regulations are crucial for meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and mitigating smog-forming pollutants. An EPA spokesperson confirmed that the agency continues to review California's waiver requests meticulously, emphasising the need to ensure decisions are legally robust and sustainable. The state currently has seven additional waivers pending review. The automotive industry has expressed significant reservations about the proposed regulations. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing major manufacturers including General Motors, Volkswagen, and Toyota, argues that the programme will negatively impact economic activity, increase costs, and limit consumer vehicle choices. The trade group has been particularly vocal, suggesting that achieving the mandated targets would require "a miracle" and calling for a more balanced approach that might involve some states withdrawing from the programme. The regulatory landscape is further complicated by potential political interventions. President-elect Donald Trump has previously indicated intentions to rescind EPA waivers granted to California for stricter vehicle emissions standards, adding another layer of uncertainty to the regulatory environment. California's history of environmental leadership is evident in its long-standing relationship with the EPA. The state has received more than 75 waivers since 1967, consistently pushing for increasingly stringent emissions performance and electric vehicle sales requirements. The EPA's March 2022 decision to reinstate California's waiver for setting independent tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandates through 2025 marked a significant reversal of a 2019 decision made during the Trump administration. The Supreme Court has further complicated the regulatory landscape by agreeing to hear a challenge from fuel producers regarding the 2022 waiver. This legal battle could potentially reshape the future of state-level emissions regulations and the broader transition to electric vehicles. Industry analysts and environmental advocates are closely monitoring the EPA's deliberations, recognising that the decision will have far-reaching implications for the automotive industry's transition to cleaner transportation technologies.

President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday announced tough new air quality standards it said were sorely needed to protect the health of vulnerable communities, though industry groups have said the move would devastate domestic manufacturing.

It comes as the Democratic incumbent faces a tough election rematch against the likely Republican candidate Donald Trump, who rolled back dozens of air pollution regulations when he was in office.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s new rule concerns fine particulate matter, commonly known as soot, a widespread, deadly pollutant linked to asthma and heart disease, and more.

Under the new standard, levels of PM2.5 (particles that are 2.5 micrometres in diameter and smaller) would not be permitted to exceed an average annual level of nine&nbsp;micrograms per cubic metre, down from the current 12 micrograms per cubic metre&nbsp;and more stringent than current as well as proposed European Union regulations.

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/delhi-school-timing-changed-classes-to-resume-on-monday-winter-break-extended-in-noida-679936">Delhi schools’ timing changed: Classes to resume on Monday; winter break extended in Noida</a>

"Today's action is a critical step forward to better protect workers, families and communities from the dangerous and costly impacts of fine particle pollution," EPA chief Michael Regan told reporters on a press call.&nbsp;

Vehicles, smokestacks and fires are common sources of fine particles, which also form when gases emitted by car engines, power plants and industrial processes react in the atmosphere. 
 
The agency estimated the action would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays, and generate up to $46 billion in net health benefits in 2032, the first year that states would be required to meet the new standard.

<h2>- Industry critical -</h2>

Wednesday's announcement was hailed by environmental and health groups.

"The body of science around this pollution is so robust -- we know it takes people before their time, premature deaths from heart attacks, we know that it gives children and adults asthma and many other sicknesses," said Abbie Dillen, president of the environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice.

"We could not be more grateful on behalf of all of the clients that we've represented over the years," she added.

Industry groups have said the rule would threaten US manufacturing operations, and the issue threatens to become yet another battleground in key swing states in the 2024 presidential election.

"The standards will hinder onshoring, resulting in continued manufacturing abroad -- which is less clean than manufacturing in the US," the National Association of Manufacturers said in a statement when the rule was first mooted a year ago.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/knowing-more-about-air-pollution-encourages-people-to-help-control-it-heres-how-667582">Knowing more about air pollution encourages people to help control it. Here's how</a>

The move has also been opposed by the American Forest &amp; Paper Association, with the pulp and paper mills large emitters of air pollution.&nbsp;

But the EPA has disputed the characterizations, calculating that 99 per cent of the country's more than 3,100 counties will be in compliance by 2032 because of an overall downward trend in air pollution from other initiatives. 
 
It added states could exclude exceptional circumstances arising from wildfires from the particulate matter they report -- a factor that could be important as climate change makes smoke exposure from forest blazes more common.

President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday announced tough new air quality standards it said were sorely needed to protect the health of vulnerable communities, though industry groups have said the move would devastate domestic manufacturing.

President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday announced tough new air quality standards it said were sorely needed to protect the health of vulnerable communities, though industry groups have said the move would devastate domestic manufacturing. It comes as the Democratic incumbent faces a tough election rematch against the likely Republican candidate Donald Trump, who rolled back dozens of air pollution regulations when he was in office. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s new rule concerns fine particulate matter, commonly known as soot, a widespread, deadly pollutant linked to asthma and heart disease, and more. Under the new standard, levels of PM2.5 (particles that are 2.5 micrometres in diameter and smaller) would not be permitted to exceed an average annual level of nine micrograms per cubic metre, down from the current 12 micrograms per cubic metre and more stringent than current as well as proposed European Union regulations. ALSO READ | Delhi schools’ timing changed: Classes to resume on Monday; winter break extended in Noida "Today's action is a critical step forward to better protect workers, families and communities from the dangerous and costly impacts of fine particle pollution," EPA chief Michael Regan told reporters on a press call. Vehicles, smokestacks and fires are common sources of fine particles, which also form when gases emitted by car engines, power plants and industrial processes react in the atmosphere. The agency estimated the action would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays, and generate up to $46 billion in net health benefits in 2032, the first year that states would be required to meet the new standard. - Industry critical - Wednesday's announcement was hailed by environmental and health groups. "The body of science around this pollution is so robust -- we know it takes people before their time, premature deaths from heart attacks, we know that it gives children and adults asthma and many other sicknesses," said Abbie Dillen, president of the environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. "We could not be more grateful on behalf of all of the clients that we've represented over the years," she added. Industry groups have said the rule would threaten US manufacturing operations, and the issue threatens to become yet another battleground in key swing states in the 2024 presidential election. "The standards will hinder onshoring, resulting in continued manufacturing abroad -- which is less clean than manufacturing in the US," the National Association of Manufacturers said in a statement when the rule was first mooted a year ago. ALSO READ | Knowing more about air pollution encourages people to help control it. Here's how The move has also been opposed by the American Forest & Paper Association, with the pulp and paper mills large emitters of air pollution. But the EPA has disputed the characterizations, calculating that 99 per cent of the country's more than 3,100 counties will be in compliance by 2032 because of an overall downward trend in air pollution from other initiatives. It added states could exclude exceptional circumstances arising from wildfires from the particulate matter they report -- a factor that could be important as climate change makes smoke exposure from forest blazes more common.

US government strengthens soot regulations, angering industry

The US Supreme Court has limited the regulatory tools that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, dealing a massive blow to US President Joe Biden’s climate agenda.

US Supreme court curbs EPA's powers to regulate greenhouse gases

The European Space Agency has collaborated with NASA to launch a mission to study the sun. This historic mission will be the first attempt to capture photographs of the sun's poles.

NASA-EPA joint Solar Mission | Sandeep Ramanath | Member | EUSA Solar Orbiter Mission | Explains

The US Environmental Protection Agency granted some refineries full waivers from biofuels regulation for the 2018 compliance year, even though the Department of Energy had recommended partial exemptions, according to an EPA memo seen by Reuters.

The decision upset the powerful US corn lobby, already angry at the Trump administration's move in August to grant 31 full exemptions to refineries, freeing them from an at-times costly obligation to use biofuels such as corn-based ethanol.

Democratic presidential candidates also seized on the administration's use of waivers on Tuesday, calling them a giveaway to the oil industry that hurts farmers already struggling from the effects of the US trade war with China.

The issue shows how President Donald Trump has struggled to simultaneously please the corn and oil industries, key political constituencies leading into next year's presidential election that has routinely clashed over future biofuels policy.

The August 9 memo showed the EPA granted "full exemptions for those 2018 small refinery petitions where DOE recommended 50 per cent relief."

The memo, signed by Anne Idsal, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, did not specify how many refineries were involved.

Trump's EPA has disregarded DOE advice on waivers in the past, Reuters has reported, marking a break from the Obama administration’s EPA, which had often either adopted energy department recommendations or, when it did not, ruled against exempting oil refiners.

An EPA official did not immediately comment.

Agency officials and oil industry representatives have defended the EPA's expanded use of waivers under the Trump administration, saying they protect refining jobs and there is no evidence they have any impact on ethanol demand.

"Small refinery exemptions are a critical lifeline for small refineries across the US," said a spokesman for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers refining group.

But biofuel industry representatives called the memo evidence the agency is biased in favour of the oil industry.

"Granting favours to refiners that aren’t really facing an economic hardship is just one of the multiple problems with EPA’s handling of small refinery exemptions," said Kurt Kovarik, vice president of federal affairs for the National Biodiesel Board, on the sidelines of an industry event.

"The memo clearly shows that EPA continues to disregard the recommendations of DOE," Geoff Cooper, head of the Renewable Fuels Association industry group, said in an email.

In a clear sign the issue has become a potential political vulnerability for Trump, White House hopeful Democratic Senator Cory Booker seized on the news of the memo, calling the administration's use of the waiver program an "abuse of power."

He added, "Time and time again, this president and his administration have used their power to prop up their political allies, like oil companies, at the expense of hardworking American farmers, and now, they're doing it against the advice of their own Department of Energy."

Mayor Pete Buttigieg also mentioned small refinery waivers on Tuesday during a campaign stop in Iowa, calling them "big giveaways to oil," drawing applause from his crowd.

The US Renewable Fuel Standard requires oil refineries to blend biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol, into their fuel or purchase credits from those that do.

The law is intended to help farmers and cut US dependence on foreign oil but refiners say it costs them a fortune.

The RFS, however, allows the EPA to grant waivers from the regulation to small refining facilities of 75,000 barrels per day or less if they can prove that compliance would cause them disproportionate economic hardship.

This process sees the DOE assess applications and provide recommendations to the EPA, which then makes a final decision.

While the EPA publishes the number of waiver applicants and recipients each year, it keeps their identities secret, arguing the information is business-sensitive.

Since Trump took office, the EPA has vastly expanded its use of the exemptions, providing waivers to small facilities owned by billionaire investor Carl Icahn and oil majors, such as Exxon Mobil Corp and Chevron Corp, Reuters has reported.

Under pressure over the most recent round of 31 waivers, Trump last month promised a "giant package" to farmers to boost the market for ethanol.

That plan has yet to be released.

The US Environmental Protection Agency granted some refineries full waivers from biofuels regulation for the 2018 compliance year, even though the Department of Energy had recommended partial exemptions, according to an EPA memo seen by Reuters.

The US Environmental Protection Agency granted some refineries full waivers from biofuels regulation for the 2018 compliance year, even though the Department of Energy had recommended partial exemptions, according to an EPA memo seen by Reuters. The decision upset the powerful US corn lobby, already angry at the Trump administration's move in August to grant 31 full exemptions to refineries, freeing them from an at-times costly obligation to use biofuels such as corn-based ethanol. Democratic presidential candidates also seized on the administration's use of waivers on Tuesday, calling them a giveaway to the oil industry that hurts farmers already struggling from the effects of the US trade war with China. The issue shows how President Donald Trump has struggled to simultaneously please the corn and oil industries, key political constituencies leading into next year's presidential election that has routinely clashed over future biofuels policy. The August 9 memo showed the EPA granted "full exemptions for those 2018 small refinery petitions where DOE recommended 50 per cent relief." The memo, signed by Anne Idsal, EPA’s acting assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, did not specify how many refineries were involved. Trump's EPA has disregarded DOE advice on waivers in the past, Reuters has reported, marking a break from the Obama administration’s EPA, which had often either adopted energy department recommendations or, when it did not, ruled against exempting oil refiners. An EPA official did not immediately comment. Agency officials and oil industry representatives have defended the EPA's expanded use of waivers under the Trump administration, saying they protect refining jobs and there is no evidence they have any impact on ethanol demand. "Small refinery exemptions are a critical lifeline for small refineries across the US," said a spokesman for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers refining group. But biofuel industry representatives called the memo evidence the agency is biased in favour of the oil industry. "Granting favours to refiners that aren’t really facing an economic hardship is just one of the multiple problems with EPA’s handling of small refinery exemptions," said Kurt Kovarik, vice president of federal affairs for the National Biodiesel Board, on the sidelines of an industry event. "The memo clearly shows that EPA continues to disregard the recommendations of DOE," Geoff Cooper, head of the Renewable Fuels Association industry group, said in an email. In a clear sign the issue has become a potential political vulnerability for Trump, White House hopeful Democratic Senator Cory Booker seized on the news of the memo, calling the administration's use of the waiver program an "abuse of power." He added, "Time and time again, this president and his administration have used their power to prop up their political allies, like oil companies, at the expense of hardworking American farmers, and now, they're doing it against the advice of their own Department of Energy." Mayor Pete Buttigieg also mentioned small refinery waivers on Tuesday during a campaign stop in Iowa, calling them "big giveaways to oil," drawing applause from his crowd. The US Renewable Fuel Standard requires oil refineries to blend biofuels, such as corn-based ethanol, into their fuel or purchase credits from those that do. The law is intended to help farmers and cut US dependence on foreign oil but refiners say it costs them a fortune. The RFS, however, allows the EPA to grant waivers from the regulation to small refining facilities of 75,000 barrels per day or less if they can prove that compliance would cause them disproportionate economic hardship. This process sees the DOE assess applications and provide recommendations to the EPA, which then makes a final decision. While the EPA publishes the number of waiver applicants and recipients each year, it keeps their identities secret, arguing the information is business-sensitive. Since Trump took office, the EPA has vastly expanded its use of the exemptions, providing waivers to small facilities owned by billionaire investor Carl Icahn and oil majors, such as Exxon Mobil Corp and Chevron Corp, Reuters has reported. Under pressure over the most recent round of 31 waivers, Trump last month promised a "giant package" to farmers to boost the market for ethanol. That plan has yet to be released.

US EPA granted full biofuel waivers to refineries despite Energy Dept advice: memo

The Trump administration rolled back Obama-era pollution and fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks on Monday, saying they were too stringent.&nbsp;

The decision by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency means the emission standards for vehicles in the 2022-2025 model years will be revised, as sought by automakers.

"The Obama administration's determination was wrong," said EPA chief Scott Pruitt.

Former President Barack Obama's EPA "made assumptions about the standards that didn't comport with reality, and set the standards too high," Pruitt said in a statement.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers applauded the move, saying it would "keep new vehicles affordable to more Americans."

"This was the right decision, and we support the administration for pursuing a data-driven effort and a single national program as it works to finalize future standards," said the industry group representing Fiat Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen and others.

The rules set in 2012, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFE standards, sought to reduce pollutants released into the air by gradually increasing fuel efficiency across all models offered by manufacturers to 54.5 miles per gallon (4.32 litres per 100 kilometres), compared to 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016.

Pruitt said the EPA in 2012 cut short its review of the standards for "politically charged expediency," but he will work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop new, "more appropriate" rules.

The agency is also examining the waiver that allows California, the most popular US state, to impose tougher requirements than called for under the Clean Air Act.

One state cannot "dictate standards for the rest of the country," Pruitt said.

"EPA will set a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions that allows auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford - while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars."

This is likely to open a long legal battle between California, a traditionally Democratic state, and Trump's Republican administration.&nbsp;

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the EPA's "assault" on CAFE standards "risks our ability to protect our children`s health, tackle climate change and save hardworking Americans money."&nbsp;

"We're ready to file suit if needed to protect these critical standards and to fight the Administration`s war on our environment," Becerra said.

Trump has been scaling back many types of regulations, including environmental standards, set by his Democratic predecessor, including pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

'The Obama administration's determination was wrong,' said Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt

The Trump administration rolled back Obama-era pollution and fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks on Monday, saying they were too stringent. The decision by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency means the emission standards for vehicles in the 2022-2025 model years will be revised, as sought by automakers. "The Obama administration's determination was wrong," said EPA chief Scott Pruitt. Former President Barack Obama's EPA "made assumptions about the standards that didn't comport with reality, and set the standards too high," Pruitt said in a statement. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers applauded the move, saying it would "keep new vehicles affordable to more Americans." "This was the right decision, and we support the administration for pursuing a data-driven effort and a single national program as it works to finalize future standards," said the industry group representing Fiat Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen and others. The rules set in 2012, known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFE standards, sought to reduce pollutants released into the air by gradually increasing fuel efficiency across all models offered by manufacturers to 54.5 miles per gallon (4.32 litres per 100 kilometres), compared to 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. Pruitt said the EPA in 2012 cut short its review of the standards for "politically charged expediency," but he will work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop new, "more appropriate" rules. The agency is also examining the waiver that allows California, the most popular US state, to impose tougher requirements than called for under the Clean Air Act. One state cannot "dictate standards for the rest of the country," Pruitt said. "EPA will set a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions that allows auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford - while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars." This is likely to open a long legal battle between California, a traditionally Democratic state, and Trump's Republican administration. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the EPA's "assault" on CAFE standards "risks our ability to protect our children`s health, tackle climate change and save hardworking Americans money." "We're ready to file suit if needed to protect these critical standards and to fight the Administration`s war on our environment," Becerra said. Trump has been scaling back many types of regulations, including environmental standards, set by his Democratic predecessor, including pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

Trump rolls back Obama-era fuel efficiency rules

Taiwan plans to ban single-use of plastic items. The blanket ban will encompass commodities like plastic straws, cups and shopping bags. The country plans to phase out single-use of plastic completely by the year 2030 in a bid to cut pollution. Taiwan already has a recycling programme in plastic and charges citizens for plastic bags.

The country&#39;s eco-drive has also had a crackdown on the use of incense at temples and during festivals.

The plastic ban will require major restaurants to stop providing plastic straws for in-store use from 2019. All dining outlets will be required to abide by the directive from 2020.

Consumers will have to shell out extra money to be able to use plastic articles like straws, shopping bags, disposable utensils and beverage cups from 2025.

&quot;We aim to implement a blanket ban by 2030 to significantly reduce plastic waste that pollutes the ocean and also gets into the food chain to affect human health,&quot; said Lai Ying-ying, an EPA official supervising the new programme.

According to EPA data, a Taiwanese person uses nearly 700 plastic bags annually. The EPA aims to reduce the number to 100 by 2025 and to zero by 2030.

(With inputs from AFP)&nbsp;

Consumers will have to shell out extra money to be able to use plastic articles from 2025

Taiwan plans to ban single-use of plastic items. The blanket ban will encompass commodities like plastic straws, cups and shopping bags. The country plans to phase out single-use of plastic completely by the year 2030 in a bid to cut pollution. Taiwan already has a recycling programme in plastic and charges citizens for plastic bags. The country's eco-drive has also had a crackdown on the use of incense at temples and during festivals. The plastic ban will require major restaurants to stop providing plastic straws for in-store use from 2019. All dining outlets will be required to abide by the directive from 2020. Consumers will have to shell out extra money to be able to use plastic articles like straws, shopping bags, disposable utensils and beverage cups from 2025. "We aim to implement a blanket ban by 2030 to significantly reduce plastic waste that pollutes the ocean and also gets into the food chain to affect human health," said Lai Ying-ying, an EPA official supervising the new programme. According to EPA data, a Taiwanese person uses nearly 700 plastic bags annually. The EPA aims to reduce the number to 100 by 2025 and to zero by 2030. (With inputs from AFP)

Taiwan to phase out disposable plastic items completely by 2030

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Tuesday to undo his predecessor Barack Obama&#39;s plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fueled power plants, according to the new environmental chief.

Speaking on ABC&#39;s Sunday talk show &quot;This Week,&quot; Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said rolling back Obama&#39;s 2015 Clean Power Plan would bring back coal jobs.

&quot;The past administration had a very anti-fossil fuel strategy,&quot; he said. &quot;So this is a promise (Trump) is keeping to the American people to say that we can put people back to work.&quot;

Told by ABC host George Stephanopolous that most coal job losses took place a decade ago under Obama&#39;s predecessor George W Bush -- as natural gas increasingly replaced coal -- Pruitt dismissed concerns that Trump had made a promise he can&#39;t keep.

&quot;It will bring back manufacturing jobs across the country, coal jobs across the country,&quot; he said of the president&#39;s forthcoming order.

&quot;For too long over the last several years, we have accepted a narrative that if you&#39;re pro-growth, pro-jobs, you&#39;re anti-environment,&quot; he added, accusing the Obama administration of making &quot;efforts to kill jobs across this country through the clean power plan.&quot;

He said Trump&#39;s order would also lower electricity rates for Americans.

Supporters of the Clean Power Plan say it would help create thousands of clean-energy jobs.

A known fossil-fuel ally, Pruitt&#39;s appointment to head the EPA -- an agency he repeatedly sued as a state attorney general -- has been deeply contentious.&nbsp;

Earlier this month, the climate change sceptic said he believes carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming, as scientists have said for decades.

Trump&#39;s action comes as the Clean Power Plan rule has been on hold since last year while a federal appeals court considers a challenge by coal-friendly Republican-governed states and more than 100 companies.

Trump&#39;s proposed federal budget unveiled earlier this month already envisioned ending funding for the plan along with a number of other programs aimed at combating climate change.

Trump&#39;s order -- along with his promise to reverse rules about vehicle emissions -- would make it impossible for the United States to reach its commitments under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

But Pruitt criticised the accord as a &quot;bad deal.&quot;

&quot;This is an effort to undo the unlawful approach the previous administration engaged in,&quot; he said of Trump&#39;s executive order, &quot;and to do it right going forward with the mindset of being pro-growth and pro-environment.&quot;

He called Obama&#39;s emissions rules &quot;counter-helpful to the environment.&quot;

As attorney general for Oklahoma, the 48-year-old Republican filed or joined in more than a dozen lawsuits to block key EPA rules, siding with industry executives and activists seeking to roll back various regulations on pollution, clean air and clean water.

(AFP)

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said rolling back Obama's 2015 Clean Power Plan would bring back coal jobs

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Tuesday to undo his predecessor Barack Obama's plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fueled power plants, according to the new environmental chief. Speaking on ABC's Sunday talk show "This Week," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said rolling back Obama's 2015 Clean Power Plan would bring back coal jobs. "The past administration had a very anti-fossil fuel strategy," he said. "So this is a promise (Trump) is keeping to the American people to say that we can put people back to work." Told by ABC host George Stephanopolous that most coal job losses took place a decade ago under Obama's predecessor George W Bush -- as natural gas increasingly replaced coal -- Pruitt dismissed concerns that Trump had made a promise he can't keep. "It will bring back manufacturing jobs across the country, coal jobs across the country," he said of the president's forthcoming order. "For too long over the last several years, we have accepted a narrative that if you're pro-growth, pro-jobs, you're anti-environment," he added, accusing the Obama administration of making "efforts to kill jobs across this country through the clean power plan." He said Trump's order would also lower electricity rates for Americans. Supporters of the Clean Power Plan say it would help create thousands of clean-energy jobs. A known fossil-fuel ally, Pruitt's appointment to head the EPA -- an agency he repeatedly sued as a state attorney general -- has been deeply contentious. Earlier this month, the climate change sceptic said he believes carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming, as scientists have said for decades. Trump's action comes as the Clean Power Plan rule has been on hold since last year while a federal appeals court considers a challenge by coal-friendly Republican-governed states and more than 100 companies. Trump's proposed federal budget unveiled earlier this month already envisioned ending funding for the plan along with a number of other programs aimed at combating climate change. Trump's order -- along with his promise to reverse rules about vehicle emissions -- would make it impossible for the United States to reach its commitments under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But Pruitt criticised the accord as a "bad deal." "This is an effort to undo the unlawful approach the previous administration engaged in," he said of Trump's executive order, "and to do it right going forward with the mindset of being pro-growth and pro-environment." He called Obama's emissions rules "counter-helpful to the environment." As attorney general for Oklahoma, the 48-year-old Republican filed or joined in more than a dozen lawsuits to block key EPA rules, siding with industry executives and activists seeking to roll back various regulations on pollution, clean air and clean water. (AFP)

Trump to now sign executive order undoing Obama's clean power plan

President Donald Trump will ask the US&nbsp;Congress for dramatic cuts to many federal programs as he seeks to bulk up defence spending, start building a wall on the border with Mexico and spend more money deporting illegal immigrants.

In a federal budget proposal with many losers, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department stand out as targets for the biggest spending reductions. Funding would disappear altogether for 19 independent bodies that count on federal money for public broadcasting, the arts and regional issues from Alaska to Appalachia.

Trump&#39;s budget outline is a bare-bones plan covering just &quot;discretionary&quot; spending for the 2018 fiscal year starting on October 1. It is the first volley in what is expected to be an intense battle over spending in coming months in Congress, which holds the federal purse strings and seldom approves presidents&#39; budget plans.

Congress, controlled by Trump&#39;s fellow Republicans, may reject some or many of his proposed cuts. Some of the proposed changes, which Democrats will broadly oppose, have been targeted for decades by conservative Republicans.

Moderate Republicans have already expressed unease with potential cuts to popular domestic programs such as home-heating subsidies, clean-water projects and job training.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Trump is willing to discuss priorities, said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman who made a name for himself as a spending hawk before Trump plucked him for his Cabinet.

&quot;The president wants to spend more money on defence, more money securing the border, more money enforcing the laws, and more money on school choice, without adding to the deficit,&quot; Mulvaney told a small group of reporters during a preview on Wednesday.

&quot;If they have a different way to accomplish that, we are more than interested in talking to them,&quot; Mulvaney said.

Trump wants to spend $54 billion more on defence, put a down payment on his border wall, and breathe life into a few other campaign promises. His initial budget outline does not incorporate his promise to pour $1 trillion into roads, bridges, airports and other infrastructure projects. The White House has said the infrastructure plan is still to come.

The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit. Mulvaney acknowledged the proposal would likely result in significant cuts to the federal workforce.

&quot;You can&rsquo;t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,&quot; Mulvaney said.

&#39;America first&#39;

White House officials looked at Trump&#39;s campaign speeches and &quot;America First&quot; pledges as they crunched the numbers, Mulvaney said.

&quot;We turned those policies into numbers,&quot; he said, explaining how the document mirrored pledges to spend more on the US&nbsp;nuclear weapons arsenal, veterans&#39; health care, the FBI, and Justice Department efforts to fight drug dealers and violent crime.

The Department of Homeland Security would get a 6.8 per cent increase, with more money for extra staff needed to catch, detain and deport illegal immigrants.

Trump wants Congress to shell out $1.5 billion for the border wall with Mexico in the current fiscal year -- enough for pilot projects to determine the best way to build it -- and a further $2.6 billion in fiscal 2018, Mulvaney said.

The estimate of the full cost of the wall will be included in the full budget, expected in mid-May, which will project spending and revenues over 10 years.

Trump has vowed Mexico will pay for the border wall, which the Mexican government has flatly said it will not do. The White House has said recently that funding would be kick-started in the United States.

The voluminous budget document will include economic forecasts and Trump&#39;s views on &quot;mandatory entitlements&quot; -- big-ticket programs like Social Security and Medicare, which Trump vowed to protect on the campaign trail.

Biggest losers

Trump asked Congress to slash the EPA by $2.6 billion or more than 31 per cent, and the State Department by more than 28 per cent or $10.9 billion.

Mulvaney said the &quot;core functions&quot; of those agencies would be preserved. Hit hard would be foreign aid, grants to multilateral development agencies like the World Bank and climate change programs at the United Nations.

Trump wants to get rid of more than 50 EPA programs, end funding for former Democratic President Barack Obama&#39;s signature Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and cut renewable energy research programs at the Energy Department.

Regional programs to clean up the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay would be sent to the chopping block.

Community development grants at the Housing Department - around since 1974 - were cut in Trump&#39;s budget, along with more than 20 Education Department programs, including some funding program for before- and after- school programs.

Anti-poverty grants and a program that helps poor people pay their energy bills would be slashed, as well as a Labor Department program that helps low-income seniors find work.

Trump&#39;s rural base did not escape cuts. The White House proposed a 21 per cent reduction to the Agriculture Department, cutting loans and grants for wastewater, reducing staff in county offices and ending a popular program that helps US&nbsp;farmers donate crops for overseas food aid.

(Reuters)

Trump wants to slash the EPA's budget by 31%, the State Department's by more than 28%

President Donald Trump will ask the US Congress for dramatic cuts to many federal programs as he seeks to bulk up defence spending, start building a wall on the border with Mexico and spend more money deporting illegal immigrants. In a federal budget proposal with many losers, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department stand out as targets for the biggest spending reductions. Funding would disappear altogether for 19 independent bodies that count on federal money for public broadcasting, the arts and regional issues from Alaska to Appalachia. Trump's budget outline is a bare-bones plan covering just "discretionary" spending for the 2018 fiscal year starting on October 1. It is the first volley in what is expected to be an intense battle over spending in coming months in Congress, which holds the federal purse strings and seldom approves presidents' budget plans. Congress, controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, may reject some or many of his proposed cuts. Some of the proposed changes, which Democrats will broadly oppose, have been targeted for decades by conservative Republicans. Moderate Republicans have already expressed unease with potential cuts to popular domestic programs such as home-heating subsidies, clean-water projects and job training. The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit × Trump is willing to discuss priorities, said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman who made a name for himself as a spending hawk before Trump plucked him for his Cabinet. "The president wants to spend more money on defence, more money securing the border, more money enforcing the laws, and more money on school choice, without adding to the deficit," Mulvaney told a small group of reporters during a preview on Wednesday. "If they have a different way to accomplish that, we are more than interested in talking to them," Mulvaney said. Trump wants to spend $54 billion more on defence, put a down payment on his border wall, and breathe life into a few other campaign promises. His initial budget outline does not incorporate his promise to pour $1 trillion into roads, bridges, airports and other infrastructure projects. The White House has said the infrastructure plan is still to come. The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit. Mulvaney acknowledged the proposal would likely result in significant cuts to the federal workforce. "You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it," Mulvaney said. 'America first' White House officials looked at Trump's campaign speeches and "America First" pledges as they crunched the numbers, Mulvaney said. "We turned those policies into numbers," he said, explaining how the document mirrored pledges to spend more on the US nuclear weapons arsenal, veterans' health care, the FBI, and Justice Department efforts to fight drug dealers and violent crime. The Department of Homeland Security would get a 6.8 per cent increase, with more money for extra staff needed to catch, detain and deport illegal immigrants. Trump wants Congress to shell out $1.5 billion for the border wall with Mexico in the current fiscal year -- enough for pilot projects to determine the best way to build it -- and a further $2.6 billion in fiscal 2018, Mulvaney said. The estimate of the full cost of the wall will be included in the full budget, expected in mid-May, which will project spending and revenues over 10 years. Trump has vowed Mexico will pay for the border wall, which the Mexican government has flatly said it will not do. The White House has said recently that funding would be kick-started in the United States. The voluminous budget document will include economic forecasts and Trump's views on "mandatory entitlements" -- big-ticket programs like Social Security and Medicare, which Trump vowed to protect on the campaign trail. Biggest losers Trump asked Congress to slash the EPA by $2.6 billion or more than 31 per cent, and the State Department by more than 28 per cent or $10.9 billion. Mulvaney said the "core functions" of those agencies would be preserved. Hit hard would be foreign aid, grants to multilateral development agencies like the World Bank and climate change programs at the United Nations. Trump wants to get rid of more than 50 EPA programs, end funding for former Democratic President Barack Obama's signature Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and cut renewable energy research programs at the Energy Department. Regional programs to clean up the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay would be sent to the chopping block. Community development grants at the Housing Department - around since 1974 - were cut in Trump's budget, along with more than 20 Education Department programs, including some funding program for before- and after- school programs. Anti-poverty grants and a program that helps poor people pay their energy bills would be slashed, as well as a Labor Department program that helps low-income seniors find work. Trump's rural base did not escape cuts. The White House proposed a 21 per cent reduction to the Agriculture Department, cutting loans and grants for wastewater, reducing staff in county offices and ending a popular program that helps US farmers donate crops for overseas food aid. (Reuters)

In Trump's first budget proposal, military wins, environment & aid lose big

The US&nbsp;House of Representatives voted on Monday to require law enforcement authorities to obtain a search warrant before seeking old emails from technology companies, a win for privacy advocates fearful the Trump administration may work to expand government surveillance powers.

The House passed the measure by a voice vote. But the legislation was expected to encounter resistance in the Senate, where it failed to advance last year amid opposition by a handful of Republican lawmakers after the House passed it unanimously.

Technology companies such as Microsoft have lobbied Congress for years to pass the Email Privacy Act, which updates a decades-old law to force authorities to first get a warrant to access emails or other digital communications that are at least 180 days old.

Currently, agencies such as the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission only need a subpoena, which is subject to less judicial oversight than a warrant, to seek such data from a service provider - a standard that has existed since the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was adopted in 1986.

Supporters of the bill passed&nbsp;say it is needed to update an out of date law conceived and written before the rise of the commercial internet.

Richard Salgado, director of law enforcement and information security at Google, said in a statement the measure would &quot;fix a constitutional flaw&quot; in the ECPA. &quot;While there are disagreements about other aspects of surveillance reform, there is no disagreement that emails and electronic content deserve Fourth Amendment protections,&quot; he said.

But some senators, including No 2 Republican John Cornyn, last year sought to use the legislation as a vehicle for amendments that would expand the FBI&#39;s domestic surveillance capabilities, effectively killing the bill.

The debate over law enforcement access to Americans&#39; electronic communications intensified last year when the FBI sought a court order to make Apple help unlock an encrypted iPhone linked to one of the shooters behind a deadly attack in San Bernardino, California.

Privacy advocates have expressed alarm at President Donald Trump&#39;s ability to expand government spying. The Republican campaigned on a &quot;law and order&quot; platform that included suggestions he may want to place some mosques in the United States under surveillance and maintain a national database on Muslims.

Microsoft last year filed a federal lawsuit against the Justice Department over ECPA, alleging that the government&#39;s use of the law violated the U.S. constitution.

It argued that ECPA is too often used to prevent companies from notifying its users, sometimes indefinitely, when investigators pry into emails and other data stored on remote servers.

(Reuters)

Technology companies such as Microsoft have lobbied Congress for years to pass the Email Privacy Act

The US House of Representatives voted on Monday to require law enforcement authorities to obtain a search warrant before seeking old emails from technology companies, a win for privacy advocates fearful the Trump administration may work to expand government surveillance powers. The House passed the measure by a voice vote. But the legislation was expected to encounter resistance in the Senate, where it failed to advance last year amid opposition by a handful of Republican lawmakers after the House passed it unanimously. Technology companies such as Microsoft have lobbied Congress for years to pass the Email Privacy Act, which updates a decades-old law to force authorities to first get a warrant to access emails or other digital communications that are at least 180 days old. Currently, agencies such as the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission only need a subpoena, which is subject to less judicial oversight than a warrant, to seek such data from a service provider - a standard that has existed since the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was adopted in 1986. Supporters of the bill passed say it is needed to update an out of date law conceived and written before the rise of the commercial internet. Richard Salgado, director of law enforcement and information security at Google, said in a statement the measure would "fix a constitutional flaw" in the ECPA. "While there are disagreements about other aspects of surveillance reform, there is no disagreement that emails and electronic content deserve Fourth Amendment protections," he said. But some senators, including No 2 Republican John Cornyn, last year sought to use the legislation as a vehicle for amendments that would expand the FBI's domestic surveillance capabilities, effectively killing the bill. The debate over law enforcement access to Americans' electronic communications intensified last year when the FBI sought a court order to make Apple help unlock an encrypted iPhone linked to one of the shooters behind a deadly attack in San Bernardino, California. Privacy advocates have expressed alarm at President Donald Trump's ability to expand government spying. The Republican campaigned on a "law and order" platform that included suggestions he may want to place some mosques in the United States under surveillance and maintain a national database on Muslims. Microsoft last year filed a federal lawsuit against the Justice Department over ECPA, alleging that the government's use of the law violated the U.S. constitution. It argued that ECPA is too often used to prevent companies from notifying its users, sometimes indefinitely, when investigators pry into emails and other data stored on remote servers. (Reuters)

US House passes bill requiring warrants for email searches

House Republicans have revived a law from 1876 that allows members of Congress to target individual federal employees and reduce their pay to $1, the Washington Post reports.

The Holman Rule, as it&#39;s known, permits Congress members to single out any of the 2.1 million civil servants the US employs for a career-ending reduction in pay, as well as to cut specific programs to $0, the Washington Post reports.

Majorities in the House and Senate still&nbsp;need to approve the amendment before the Holman Rule can be enacted, but the mere possibility has critics fearing&nbsp;Republicans can use this to target&nbsp;opponents.

There are reasons to be suspicious.

Two&nbsp;weeks ago the Trump transition team sent a questionnaire to&nbsp;the <a href="http://www.salon.com/2017/01/06/house-republicans-support-rule-that-could-allow-them-to-pay-individual-federal-workers-1/">Department of Energy</a>&nbsp;to identify&nbsp;specific employees working on&nbsp;climate change, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2017/01/06/house-republicans-support-rule-that-could-allow-them-to-pay-individual-federal-workers-1/">Salon reports</a>. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/12/22/trump-team-asked-state-department-for-info-on-womens-issues-programs-stoking-fears-of-another-witch-hunt/?utm_term=.f3fbe99d7958">The Washington Post</a> reports that Trump&#39;s team also sought the names from the State Department&nbsp;of individuals working on women&#39;s health issues.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Oh, hey, remember when the transition team asked for names of climate change staff at DOE and women&#39;s program staff at State? This is why. <a href="https://t.co/fAxAOliFwG">https://t.co/fAxAOliFwG</a>
&mdash; Megan Carpentier (@megancarpentier) <a href="https://twitter.com/megancarpentier/status/817147618363117569">January 5, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Also in the crosshairs is&nbsp;intelligence.&nbsp;On Thursday,&nbsp;Trump said that plans to overhaul the Office of the Director National Intelligence, Salon reports.&nbsp;

Trump has clashed for weeks&nbsp;with US intelligence agencies, who now state&nbsp;unequivocally that&nbsp;Vladimir Putin interefered in the US election to benefit Trump. Trump, who in the presidential debates openly called on Russia&nbsp;to hack Clinton&#39;s emails, denied that Russia had any role in interfering&nbsp;with the US election. Last night he issued a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-admits-russia-interfered-with-us-election-after-meeting-intelligence-heads-10988">statement</a>&nbsp;admitting&nbsp;that Russia, among others, did interefere&nbsp;in the US election, but denied&nbsp;that it&nbsp;affected its&nbsp;outcome.

Trump&nbsp;has&nbsp;claimed&nbsp;he does not receive daily intelligence briefings, and has cast doubt on his country&#39;s own intellgence agencies. Last week he publicly sided with&nbsp;Julian Assange over&nbsp;the FBI, CIA and the White House.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Julian Assange said &quot;a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta&quot; - why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/816620855958601730">January 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Republican Represenative from Virginia H Morgan Griffith suggested the Holman Rule may really&nbsp;come about&nbsp;and&nbsp;appeared to justify it,&nbsp;telling&nbsp;the Washington Post:&nbsp;&quot;I can&#39;t tell you it won&#39;t happen...The Power is there. But isn&#39;t that appropriate? Who runs the country, the people of the United State or the people on the people&#39;s payroll?&quot;

House Majority leader told reporters earlier in the week appeared to justify the Holman Rule, saying, &quot;All agencies should be held accountable and tested in a manner, and this is an avenue to allow them to do it&quot;, Salon reports.

The Holman Rule could be used in still more places&nbsp;too, critics fear.&nbsp;

As <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/congress-can-now-cut-the-pay-of-individual-civil-servants.html">NYMag</a> neatly points&nbsp;out, Trump is picking candidates with decades of experience&nbsp;that run contrary to&nbsp;the stated objectives of the departments they will lead: &quot;The president-elect&rsquo;s Labor Secretary&ndash;designate is&nbsp;<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/trump-gives-middle-finger-to-wage-earners-with-labor-pick.html" target="_blank">a fast-food executive</a>&nbsp;whose restaurants are serial violators of labor law; his EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) head is an&nbsp;<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/report-donald-trump-names-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa.html" target="_blank">ally of the oil industry</a>&nbsp;who loves to sue the EPA; his&nbsp;<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/carson-is-trumps-pick-for-hud-for-some-awful-reason.html" target="_blank">head of Housing and Urban Development</a>&nbsp;has called the Fair Housing Act &#39;communist&#39;.&quot;

On Tuesday Republicans voted to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-republicans-scrap-move-to-gut-non-partisan-ethics-watchdog-10872">gut the only non-partisan ethics </a>watchdog committed to overseeing&nbsp;Congress.&nbsp;

This week, in an unprecedented step,&nbsp;Trump demanded&nbsp;that&nbsp;all US envoys around the world posted by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-asks-us-envoys-appointed-by-obama-to-quit-by-inauguration-day-10984">Obama must quit their post</a> before his January 20 inauguration. This threatens to leave the US without envoys in several important countries, including Canada, Germany, and Britain.

How&nbsp;the Republicans use this 140-year-old law has yet to be seen, but&nbsp;their hostility to the previous administration&nbsp;is&nbsp;beyond a doubt.&nbsp;

(WION)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Critics fear Republicans will use the obscure Holman Rule to attack a broad spectrum of opponents. There are many good reasons to worry

House Republicans have revived a law from 1876 that allows members of Congress to target individual federal employees and reduce their pay to $1, the Washington Post reports. The Holman Rule, as it's known, permits Congress members to single out any of the 2.1 million civil servants the US employs for a career-ending reduction in pay, as well as to cut specific programs to $0, the Washington Post reports. Majorities in the House and Senate still need to approve the amendment before the Holman Rule can be enacted, but the mere possibility has critics fearing Republicans can use this to target opponents. There are reasons to be suspicious. Two weeks ago the Trump transition team sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy to identify specific employees working on climate change, Salon reports. The Washington Post reports that Trump's team also sought the names from the State Department of individuals working on women's health issues. Oh, hey, remember when the transition team asked for names of climate change staff at DOE and women's program staff at State? This is why. https://t.co/fAxAOliFwG — Megan Carpentier (@megancarpentier) January 5, 2017 × Also in the crosshairs is intelligence. On Thursday, Trump said that plans to overhaul the Office of the Director National Intelligence, Salon reports. Trump has clashed for weeks with US intelligence agencies, who now state unequivocally that Vladimir Putin interefered in the US election to benefit Trump. Trump, who in the presidential debates openly called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails, denied that Russia had any role in interfering with the US election. Last night he issued a statement admitting that Russia, among others, did interefere in the US election, but denied that it affected its outcome. Trump has claimed he does not receive daily intelligence briefings, and has cast doubt on his country's own intellgence agencies. Last week he publicly sided with Julian Assange over the FBI, CIA and the White House. Julian Assange said "a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta" - why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2017 × Republican Represenative from Virginia H Morgan Griffith suggested the Holman Rule may really come about and appeared to justify it, telling the Washington Post: "I can't tell you it won't happen...The Power is there. But isn't that appropriate? Who runs the country, the people of the United State or the people on the people's payroll?" House Majority leader told reporters earlier in the week appeared to justify the Holman Rule, saying, "All agencies should be held accountable and tested in a manner, and this is an avenue to allow them to do it", Salon reports. The Holman Rule could be used in still more places too, critics fear. As NYMag neatly points out, Trump is picking candidates with decades of experience that run contrary to the stated objectives of the departments they will lead: "The president-elect’s Labor Secretary–designate is a fast-food executive whose restaurants are serial violators of labor law; his EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) head is an ally of the oil industry who loves to sue the EPA; his head of Housing and Urban Development has called the Fair Housing Act 'communist'." On Tuesday Republicans voted to gut the only non-partisan ethics watchdog committed to overseeing Congress. This week, in an unprecedented step, Trump demanded that all US envoys around the world posted by Obama must quit their post before his January 20 inauguration. This threatens to leave the US without envoys in several important countries, including Canada, Germany, and Britain. How the Republicans use this 140-year-old law has yet to be seen, but their hostility to the previous administration is beyond a doubt. (WION)

Republicans invoke 140-year-old law that could reduce federal employees' wage to $1

US President-elect Donald Trump will name Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, a climate change sceptic, as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), news agency Reuters reports.

Pruitt has said the science on climate change is &quot;<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/3-things-scott-pruitt-actually-said-climate-change/">far from settled</a>&quot;.&nbsp;Pruitt&nbsp;is an ardent opponent of President Barack Obama&#39;s measures to curb climate change. He, along with fellow state attorneys general, sued the EPA over the EPA&rsquo;s recently announced regulations seeking to curtail the emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from the oil and gas sector,&nbsp;the Washington Post reports.&nbsp;

In an interview with Reuters in September, Pruitt said he sees the Clean Power Plan, a key part of meeting US obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement, as a form of federal &quot;coercion and commandeering&quot; of energy policy and that his state should have &quot;sovereignty to make decisions for its own markets&quot;.

The Washington Post characterised him as an &quot;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ee-epa-310pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&amp;utm_term=.52740c9dede9">ally&nbsp;of the energy industry</a>&quot; as&nbsp;he, along with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, defended ExxonMobil when it was being investigated for failing to disclose material information about climate change.

The news of the appointment was confirmed by a member of Trump&rsquo;s transition team, according to Reuters.

During his election campaign, Trump vowed to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, saying that&nbsp;it would put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Heather Zichal, a former deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change under Obama, said Trump&#39;s choice was alarming.

&quot;You can meet with Al Gore on Monday, pledge to keep Teddy Roosevelt&#39;s environmental legacy alive on Tuesday, but if you nominate the Clean Power Act&#39;s leading opponent to head the EPA on Wednesday, you&#39;re making an unequivocal statement about the direction of your leadership,&quot; Reuters quoted her as saying.&nbsp;

Vermont Senator and Democratic candidate for the presidency Bernie Sanders&nbsp;called Trump&#39;s pick to run the EPA &quot;sad and dangerous&quot;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Trump&#39;s nominee to lead EPA, Scott Pruitt, is a climate denier who&#39;s worked closely with the fossil fuel industry. That&#39;s sad and dangerous.
&mdash; Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/806589902062284801">December 7, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

(WION)

Scott Pruitt opposes President Barack Obama's climate change measures, and is currently suing the EPA, the group he may lead

US President-elect Donald Trump will name Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, a climate change sceptic, as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), news agency Reuters reports. Pruitt has said the science on climate change is "far from settled". Pruitt is an ardent opponent of President Barack Obama's measures to curb climate change. He, along with fellow state attorneys general, sued the EPA over the EPA’s recently announced regulations seeking to curtail the emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from the oil and gas sector, the Washington Post reports. In an interview with Reuters in September, Pruitt said he sees the Clean Power Plan, a key part of meeting US obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement, as a form of federal "coercion and commandeering" of energy policy and that his state should have "sovereignty to make decisions for its own markets". The Washington Post characterised him as an "ally of the energy industry" as he, along with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, defended ExxonMobil when it was being investigated for failing to disclose material information about climate change. The news of the appointment was confirmed by a member of Trump’s transition team, according to Reuters. During his election campaign, Trump vowed to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, saying that it would put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Heather Zichal, a former deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change under Obama, said Trump's choice was alarming. "You can meet with Al Gore on Monday, pledge to keep Teddy Roosevelt's environmental legacy alive on Tuesday, but if you nominate the Clean Power Act's leading opponent to head the EPA on Wednesday, you're making an unequivocal statement about the direction of your leadership," Reuters quoted her as saying. Vermont Senator and Democratic candidate for the presidency Bernie Sanders called Trump's pick to run the EPA "sad and dangerous". Trump's nominee to lead EPA, Scott Pruitt, is a climate denier who's worked closely with the fossil fuel industry. That's sad and dangerous. — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 7, 2016 × (WION)

Trump to name climate change sceptic to head environmental protection agency

Epa, News on Epa, stories on Epa, articles on Epa, Epa stories at Wion, Epa news, Epa latest news