WolfeNotes.com

Don’t Believe It – They Are Lying Again

For once, the Democrats and media actually made aggressively framed substantive policy arguments to expose the radical right wing Christian Nationalist agenda of the Trump people.

But they left out most of the pro-corporate and anti-environmental agenda, including an insane plan to maximize fossil production, abandon all climate programs and politicize science.

They were just beginning to focus and get the word out to the American people.

The political outrage of the American public when they started to learn about what was in Project 2025 forced the Trump campaign to backpedal (and wait until people and the media find out about the ideas driving ideology and politics of JD Vance)

Read Project 2025 https://project2025.org/policy/ There are 30 chapters, almost all of which were written by people appointed by or connected to Trump. Trump Executive Orders, regulations, and policies are cited hundreds of times. There is a video of Trump congratulating Heritage for their work on the project.

The next shoe to drop in exposing the radical anti-democratic and expressly pro Dictator ideas of the Trump/Vance ticket are the financial and ideological links to Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin, & the “Dark Enlightenment”. Google them!

Don’t believe them. They lie. See:

• The Right Wing’s New Long Game Plan – “Project 2025″

• Trump’s Project 2025 Attack On The Department Of Interior Might Be Worse Than EPA Dismantling

• What “Project 2025″ Would Do To US EPA, Climate, And Environmental Protection Programs

Climate Is Driving Wildfires, Not Excessive Fuel Load

Prescribed Burns And Logging Won’t Work

Northern Cascades, Washington State

Caption: Pasayten Wilderness, the Diamond Creek fire (taken on 7/27/17, Bill Wolfe)

Once again, major wildfires are burning in western forests.

And once again, forest managers and proponents of the current flawed forest management approach are using wildfires to justify and expand their status quo flawed management approach: i.e. “prescribed burns” and “thinning” (actually logging).

The false assumption (myth) being used to justify these flawed forest management programs is that excessive “fuel load” created by fire suppression is the primary source of the problem.

But the best available science finds that the primary causal factors are high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds, exacerbated by climate change.

The NY Times coverage illustrates both the myth and the scientific reality, see:

• How Did the Park Fire Get So Big, So Fast?

Here’s the myth: (from the mouth of a former US Forest Service manager)

What’s more, there’s not only dry fuel, but a lot of it. The blaze has spread across parts of the state that haven’t experienced fire in decades. Fire suppression practices have allowed vegetation to build up over long periods, in contrast to the frequent burns that were a common forest management tool of Indigenous tribes in California pre-1850, said Hugh Safford, a research ecologist at the University of California, Davis, and a former ecologist for the United States Forest Service in California. Those policies mean the rapid spread of the Park fire was “absolutely not surprising at any level,” he said.

But here’s the science:

Extreme heat in June and July was the most likely cause of the fire’s rapid growth, said Park Williams, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It’s the record-breaking hot and dry weather that’s singed the fuels and made them as ready to burn as they could possibly be,” Dr. Williams said.

Heat has been breaking records all summer, and Dr. Williams said records will probably continue to fall over the next several years as the burning of fossil fuels continues to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The NJ Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) climate, land use, and forest management policies and management programs share this flawed US Forest Service (timber industry) analysis based on myth, not science.

So, I again urged Murphy DEP Commissioner LaTourette to change course:

Dear Commissioner LaTourette – The Department has taken a strong interest in wildfires and the climate emergency, but unfortunately misdiagnosed the driving causal factors, prescribed a flawed forest management approach, and failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The best available science finds that the driving causal factors of wildfires are high temperatures, low humidity, and strong wind, not fuel load. Climate change makes all these factors worse.

Yet the Department’s forest management approach (e.g. prescribed burn and “thinning” (logging)) is based on a false assumption that excessive fuel loads drive wildfire and seeks to reduce fuel load. The Department’s failure to more strictly regulate land use in the Department’s mapped high wildfire hazardareas invites risks to public safety. Similarly, the Department is failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is instead approving major new fossil fuel sources.

The Department’s flawed forest management programs do not work to reduce wildfire frequency and intensity, while they exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions, worsen NJ’s unhealthy air pollution, and destroy forest ecosystems.

Failure to restrict and better manage development increases wildfire hazards to public safety and property.

Permitting new GHG emission sources and failure to regulate and reduce current emissions worsens the climate emergency.

The current Park Fire in California is another illustration of the Department’s mismanagement – from today’s NY Times:

“Extreme heat in June and July was the most likely cause of the fire’s rapid growth, said Park Williams, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It’s the record-breaking hot and dry weather that’s singed the fuels and made them as ready to burn as they could possibly be,” Dr. Williams said.

Heat has been breaking records all summer, and Dr. Williams said records will probably continue to fall over the next several years as the burning of fossil fuels continues to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/climate/park-fire-california-heat.html

I again strongly urge you to: 1) abandon the Department’s forest management approach, 2) impose a moratorium on logging and burning NJ’s forests and permitting new sources of GHG emissions, 3) regulate all major sources of and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 4) develop a far more aggressive integrated climate and forest management and regulatory strategy based on the best available science.

Should you not commit to major changes, perhaps Senator Smith will consider legislative policy mandates to force revision of the Department’s current forest management and climate programs.

Bill Wolfe

Big Pharma Praised For Voluntary industry Standards In Lieu Of Strict Regulation

NJ Spotlight Reporting Normalizes Radical Trump Policies 

NJ Spotlight ran another story today on the horseshoe crab, see:

• Horseshoe crabs get help by way of new drug standards

I’ve previously criticized their excessive coverage of this horseshoe crab – red knot dynamic, while ignoring virtually all other ecosystem collapse issues (other than reporting the “good news” on bald eagle recovery).

But this time, Spotlight casually reports on and praises what are actually radical anti-environmental policies that exactly mirror Trump’s Project 2025 radical right wing corporate anti-regulatory policies. Ironically, these policies are widely being denounced by media, democrats, and environmental groups.

In the opening paragraphs of the story, NJ Spotlight praises and normalizes the following Project 2025 radical policies:

• support for corporations setting private voluntary industry standards

• reliance on markets and supply and demand to manage public natural resources

• conservation groups have abandoned calls for regulatory standards to protect important ecosystems and species

Here it is (emphases mine):

Protection of Delaware Bay’s horseshoe crabs took a step forward when a standards-setting group for the pharmaceutical industry moved away from its longtime endorsement of horseshoe crab blood in drug-testing.

The standards body approved the use of two synthetic chemicals for detecting toxins in medical products rather than a substance based on horseshoe crab blood, which is commonly used now.

Pharmaceutical companies are not required to switch to the new standards, but conservationists hope demand for horseshoe crabs will drop as a result of the change, improving survival prospects for the crabs and imperiled species that depend on them, notably the red knot shorebird.

Did you get that? Let’s break it down:

1. A Big Pharma controlled private industry standards setting group adopted voluntary standards that directly impact an important public natural resource management issue (endangered red knot).

2. Those Big Pharma standards are praised as “a step forward” in “protecting” horseshoe crabs (and thus red knot).

3. The private Big Pharma corporate standards are voluntary. The public had no involvement in the development and adoption of those private standards.

4. Conservationist are “hoping” that market demand will improve survival of the red knot.

5. Omitted from the passage is the fact that conservation groups are not making demands for strict regulation to protect horseshoe crabs and red knot from commercial exploitation by Big Pharma and extinction.

Each of these radical policies being praised by conservationists and NJ Spotlight virtually mimic identical radical policies in Project 2025, for example, see:

• Trump’s Project 2025 Attack On The Department Of Interior Might Be Worse Than EPA Dismantling

Here is my note to NJ Spotlight reporter Jon Hurdle and his editors:

Jon – Do realize that the sentence below from your story today is an incredibly revealing statement and an indictment of the conservationists? Allowing Big Pharma (privatization) to set standards and then relying on market demand to determine the management of a species, while not even calling for regulation is shameful:

“Pharmaceutical companies are not required to switch to the new standards, but conservationists hope demand for horseshoe crabs will drop as a result of the change, improving survival prospects for the crabs and imperiled species that depend on them, notably the red knot shorebird.”

Do NJ Spotlight and PBS realize that they are reporting on policies that exactly comply with the radical anti-regulatory and pro-market policies of Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025?

Have you even read Project 2025? Because it calls for market solutions, privatization, and deregulation – which are exactly the policies controlling horseshoe crab.

Wolfe

EPA found that the level of forever chemicals in drinking water should be ZERO

A friend just emailed me a question about EPA’s proposed drinking water standard (known as an “MCL” for “Maximum Contaminant Level”) for “forever chemicals” (e.g. PFOA, PFAS, et al).

He could not find it and asked me what was the cancer risk level that the EPA MCL was based upon.

EPA has an “acceptable cancer risk” range policy based on individual lifetime cancer risks. The risk range is one in 10,000 (10(-4)) to one in a million (10 (-6)). The federal law allows EPA to consider costs in setting an MCL.

This EPA policy can and likely would be weakened under a Trump 2.0 Project 2025 EPA. The EPA risk policy is applied across the board (air, water, drinking water, Superfund, RCRA, et al), so the rollback would have huge impacts on public health.

NJ has a more stringent cancer risk legislative standard of one in a million. The NJ law does not authorize consideration of costs in setting those standards. Trump’s EPA can’t touch that, only the NJ Legislature can.

Accordingly, for many chemicals, the NJ MCL is more stringent than the US EPA national MCL.

In the case of “forever chemicals”, the NJ DEP 13 – 14 ppt MCLs reversed this historical reality and is LESS stringent than the proposed EPA 4 ppt MCL. Therefore, DEP will need to revise their MCL to lower it to meet the EPA national MCL when (and if) that MCL becomes effective.

In addition to cancer risks, forever chemicals have a host of other negative health and developmental  impacts.

So, in answering my friends question, I found that the EPA MCL is NOT based on the acceptable cancer risk policy. The real basis has not been reported by the media and the public does not understand what is really going on.

Instead, it is based on the most sophisticated laboratory technology that can reliably quantify the level of forever chemicals in the drinking water.

This is important, because EPA found that the level of forever chemicals should be ZERO. That level is known as a “Maximum Contaminant Level Goal” (MCLG).

Here are the scientific and regulatory findings that form the basis of the EPA proposed 4 ppt MCL:

Just follow the logic of points 1 – 3 (verbatim excerpts from the EPA proposal, highlights mine):

1. “Based upon a consideration of the best available peer reviewed science and a consideration of an adequate margin of safety, EPA proposes a MCLG of zero for PFOA in drinking water.

2. “Under section 1412(b)(4)(B) of SDWA, EPA must generally establish an enforceable MCL as close to the MCLG as is feasible, taking costs into consideration. The Agency evaluates feasibility according to several factors including the availability of analytical methods capable of measuring the targeted compounds in drinking water and examining available treatment technologies capable of contaminant removal examined under laboratory and field conditions.

3. “In this evaluation, EPA determined that 4.0 ppt is the lowest concentration that PFOA and PFOS can be reliably quantified within specific limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. EPA has historically called this level the “practical quantitation level,” also known as a PQL (USEPA, 1987). Under UCMR5, EPA published MRLs of 4.0 ppt each for PFOA and PFOS (USEPA, 2022g). As described in the UCMR 5 rulemaking, this reporting level is the minimum quantitation level that, with 95 percent confidence, can be achieved by capable analysts at 75 percent or more of the laboratories using a specified analytical method (i.e., Method 533 and 537.1, discussed in more detail in section VIII of this preamble). Based on the multi-laboratory data acquired for the UCMR 5 rule, EPA has defined the PQL for PFOA and PFOS to be equal to the UCMR 5 MRL of 0.0000040 mg/L or 4.0 ppt. “

So there you have it. As usual, the reality is far worse than the press or environmental groups tell you it is.

Hope this helps.

“Drill Baby Drill” On Steroids

Endangered Species Act, NEPA, Alaska, & Western Lands On The Chopping Block

An Extractors Paradise

The Heritage Foundation’s radical Project 2025, designed as the policy, program and personnel Strategic Plan for a second Trump administration, is finally getting some attention by the media, Democrats, and advocacy groups.

For the most part, the Plan is being denounced by superficial slogans, with little substantive analysis of what’s actually in the plan. The primary focus of the media and criticism is on the culture wars.

Limited exceptions to this superficial coverage and culture war emphasis include a policy focus on:

1) the attack on the federal civil service system and its replacement by a Trump political loyalty program (AKA “Schedule F”); and

2) a recent NY Times story on attacks on EPA environmental and climate programs.

We initially wrote to warn about the threat of Project 2025 to EPA, science, climate, and environmental programs last July, and more recently here and here.

But I focused on EPA and did not read Chapter 16, on the Department of Interior until last week.

I was astounded.

The implications and impacts of the attacks on DoI could be worse than those at US EPA. So, here’s a first cut very cursory bulleted overview and verbatim excerpts of the recommendations (with page numbers) :

1. Promotes Mining

• Reduce the number of field coal-reclamation inspectors
• Reissue Trump’s Schedule F executive order
• Permit coal company employees to benefit from the OSM Training (p.535)

2. Eliminates Endangered Species Act Protections

• Delist the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystems
• Delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 states
• Cede to western states jurisdiction over the greater sage-grouse
• Abolish the Biological Resources Division of USGS

3. Gut the Endangered Species Act

“reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private property, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations.

4. Gut the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

“DOI should reinstate the secretarial orders adopted by the Trump Administration, …. eliminate judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents or the rectitude of NEPA decisions.” (p.533)

5. Log and Destroy Oregon and California Forests

“the new Administration must immediately fulfill its responsibilities and manage the Oregon and California lands for “permanent forest production” to ensure that the timber is “sold, cut, and removed” (p.533)

6. The End Of National Monument Designation

“the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906″ (p.532)

7. Destroy Unique Lands And Waters

• Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state
• Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska
• Vacate The 30 by 30 Plan President Biden’s Ex. Order 14008

8. Kill Fish and Wildlife

• Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting
• Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands (p.531)

9. Drill Alaska

• Approve the 2020 National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Integrated Activity Plan
• Reinstate the 2020 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Impact Statement
• Approve the 2020 Willow EIS, the largest pending oil and gas projection in the US (p.530)
• Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development” (p.524)

10. Rollback Regulatory Protections

“Rollbacks. A new Administration must immediately roll back Biden’s orders, reinstate Trump-era Energy Dominance Agenda, rescind Secretarial Order (SO) 3398, and review all regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, & similar actions” p.521

Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking: Rescind Biden rules, reinstate Trump rules:

• Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and
• Critical Habitat Exclusions Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• CEQ reforms to NEPA p.524

11. Expedite Oil and Gas Leases And Drilling

“Require regional offices to complete right-of-way and drilling permits within the average time it takes states in the region to complete them.” p.523

Reinstate quarterly onshore lease sales in all producing states Conduct offshore oil/natural gas lease sales to the maximum extent establish leasing & development program in Coastal Plainof Alaska Conclude review of the coal leasing program

“the new Administration must immediately reinstate the following Trump DOI secretarial orders: (all coal, oil, gas extraction – see page 522 for specifics)

12. Block Protections Of Pristine Lands

“Abandon withdrawals of lands from leasing in Thompson Divide of the White River National Forest, Colorado; the 10-mile buffer around Chaco Cultural Historic National Park in New Mexico; and the Boundary Waters area in northern Minnesota p.523

13. Kill All Climate Programs

• DOI is abusing bureaucratic procedures to advance a radical climate agenda, ostensibly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for which DOI has no statutory responsibility or authority.” (p.521)

• Given the dire adverse national impact of Biden’s war on fossil fuels, no other initiative is as important for the DOI under a conservative President than the restoration of the department’s historic role managing the nation’s vast store-house of hydrocarbons (p.520)