• Cris
    link
    English
    122 months ago

    Same comment I left on the other thread for this article:

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

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

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

    Edit, also a worthwhile excerpt:

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

    • @seaQueue
      link
      42 months ago

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

      Years of Republican attacks on federal agencies (the EPA in particular) with the Trump admin as the trigger man

  • @BigTrout75
    link
    English
    52 months ago

    I bet they were hoping it would take 20 years to find out the bad stuff.

  • @buzz86us
    link
    42 months ago

    We need huge tariffs on virgin plastics

    • @seaQueue
      link
      32 months ago

      Makers of virgin plastics should be required to pay the cost of disposing of those plastics