Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE comes out on September 3, 2024 — take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

environmental protection agency

"Hi, I just wanted to urge you to resign because of what you're doing to the environment and our country."

Teacher Kristin Mink didn't hold back when confronting Scott Pruitt, the controversial head of the Environmental Protection Agency. When she saw him eating lunch at a Washington, D.C., restaurant, she knew she had to say something. She just didn't know what.

Then it hit her: "His actions are the source of so much of my despair for my child's future and frankly the future of humanity," Mink wrote to Splinter afterward. She decided to make it personal.

Mink walked up to Pruitt and introduced her toddler son — just so Pruitt would know whose future he was affecting.

"This is my son. He loves animals. He loves clean air. He loves clean water. Meanwhile, you're slashing strong fuel standards for cars and trucks for the benefit of big corporations," Mink said as Pruitt's face dropped into a deep and nervous frown.

"We deserve to have somebody at the EPA who actually does protect our environment, somebody who believes in climate change and takes it seriously for the benefit of all of us, including our children," Mink continued.

And then she repeated her first request: "So, I would urge you to resign before your scandals push you out."

That's when, according to Mink, Pruitt rushed from the restaurant, his security detail in tow.

Protecting our environmental future is more important than ever.

Pruitt, a Donald Trump appointee, has been courting controversy since he arrived at the EPA. While only there a short time, he's already begun to undo over 20 Obama-era regulations. He has made himself the final authority on The Clean Water Act, is rolling back emissions regulations for cars and trucks, and is revising fuel efficiency standards, taking away incentives for cleaner cars with a lower carbon footprint.

That's nothing to say of Pruitt's questionable conduct: Since being in the role, he's refused to let his schedule be known to the public, demanded a 24-hour-security detail (a cost of $3 million a year), and built a soundproof phone booth (which cost upward of $43,000). Other ethical concerns include that Pruitt hired his own banker to run the Superfund program and is allowing EPA employees to moonlight as political consultants.

We should be worried. And, like Mink, we should speak out whenever and wherever we can.

It's easy to forget that public servants don't work for themselves: They work for the public. It's incumbent on us to push back and speak out when their policies and actions are corrupt.

"Our children's future is at stake," the end of Mink's video states. "As citizens, it is our responsibility to confront corrupt, unethical, and immoral government officials whenever and wherever we see them."

She's using her voice. We should all raise our own. Elections are coming. Are you registered to vote?

Heroes

These old photos reveal why we needed (and still need) the EPA.

It’s hard for people who weren’t around in 1960s and '70s to remember what the world was like before the EPA.

There was a reason President Richard Nixon’s proposal to establish a federal agency to protect the environment enjoyed bipartisan support.

A mountain of oil drums near an Exxon refinery in Louisiana. All photos via Defiant, via the EPA and National Archives and Records Administration.

Before the Environmental Protection Agency, many industries used U.S. waterways as toxic waste dumps. It was so bad that the Great Lakes and the surrounding rivers frequently caught fire.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 forced industry to control the pollution it dumped into America’s water. But President Donald Trump's budget proposal — which would cut one-fifth of the agency's staff, eliminate entire programs, and trim $2 billion from its budget — could curtail this act.

In 1971, one of the first things the EPA did was hire a team of photojournalists to document the ongoing environmental devastation in America.

The project took six years, involved 100 photojournalists, and produced more than 80,000 images.

The Cuyahoga River Fire of 1952.

They called it "Documerica," and in the past few years the National Archives has digitized some 15,000 images from the project. You can see them at its website or on Flickr. Some are simple pictures of life in the ’70s, but others depict a harrowing world.

A factory burning discarded batteries and belching poison into the air outside Houston.

Along the New Jersey Turnpike.

A landfill outside New York City.

It's a world where industry has carte blanche to poison the environment and the people in the name of profit. A world where our rivers and lakes catch fire. A world of garbage, toxic waste, and ash.

The George Washington Bridge, barely visible through the smog.

A poisoned lake near Ogden, Utah.

When Trump says he wants to make America great again and refers to a fanciful time when the United States was somehow better, this is what he’s talking about. This is what America looks like without the EPA.

This is why we fight.

This story was first published at Defiant is reprinted here with permission.

Heroes

EPA official resigns, explains why cutting his department will cost us all in the future.

The head of the EPA’s environmental justice program has handed in his resignation letter.

Mustafa Ali at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., in 2016. Photo from the Wilson Center/Environmental Change and Security Program.

Mustafa Ali — who helped found the office in 1992 under George H. W. Bush — resigned as the head of the environmental justice program in a letter dated March 7, 2017.

The justice program was created to ensure all people had equal access to a clean and healthy environment, regardless of race, national origin, or income. However, a recent budget proposal from the Trump administration would cut the EPA’s funding by a quarter overall and get rid of the justice program altogether.

“I never saw in the past a concerted effort to roll back the positive steps that many, many people have worked on … I can’t be a part of anything that would hurt those [disadvantaged] communities. I just couldn’t sign off on those types of things,” the Washington Post quoted Ali as saying.

But before he left, Ali penned a letter to the EPA’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, imploring Pruitt to think before slashing funds. The full text of Ali's letter was tweeted by Emily Atkin, a staff writer at The New Republic.

Here are four key points from Ali in that letter:

1. “Communities of color, low-income communities and indigenous populations are still struggling to receive equal protections before the law.”

Those communities are more likely to be affected by air pollution, crumbling water or sewage infrastructure, hazardous waste, and lead in the water.

That last one rings especially true, given that Flint, Michigan, still doesn't have clean water (and now they must now pay for that water again, even though it’s still unsafe to drink without a filter).

Flint water protester in 2016. Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images.

2. “I wonder if our new leadership has had the opportunity to converse with those who need our help most.”

Communities speak for themselves, Ali says and notes that some of the best results have come from working collaboratively with local communities through grants and programs. Administrators just have to listen. But cutting out the small grant and collaborative problem-solving programs that formed the backbone of this relationship could silence these people’s voices.

“I strongly encourage you and your team to continue promoting agency efforts to validate these communities’ concerns, and value their lives,” Ali wrote.

3. “Any cuts to this program will increase the public health impacts and decrease the economic opportunities.”

Flint residents holding up contaminated water during a news conference. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

“One of the points that you shared with staff in your recent town hall was that you were looking for opportunities to balance the environment and the economy,” wrote Ali. “There are countless examples of how the local communities vision for revitalization have grown into productive collaborative partnerships.”

He also pointed out that the program makes good economic sense. In 2016, Brownfields revitalization (cleaning up formerly contaminated sites) leveraged more than $16 for every dollar the EPA spent and created eight-and-a-half new jobs for every hundred million spent.

4. “The upcoming choices you make will have significant impacts on the public health and environment of our country.”

He ended his letter with a reminder: “Administrator Pruitt, you have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring people together, to ensure that all communities have safe places to live, learn, work, play and pray,” he wrote. “I wish you well as you move forward on protecting the public health and environment of our nation, as you help make the American Dream a reality for all.”

And he's right. Environmental protections affect everyone who lives in our country, but the proposed budget cuts could defang anti-pollution measures, blindfold our watchdogs, and stifle clean-up measures. Restoration along the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, the San Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound could be slashed or completely eliminated.

Without strong protections, it's hard to see how Pruitt could live up to the legacy Ali is leaving behind.

Ali is moving to a job as senior vice president at the Hip Hop Caucus, a nonprofit that gets younger Americans involved in grass roots activism.

'Hamilton' creator Lin-Manuel Miranda offers up a musical guide to climate change.

The 'Hamilton' creator's latest playlist has an important theme.

It's not often these days that you see news about climate change and think, "Yes! I can't wait!" This is the rare exception — sort of.

Through the magic of a Spotify playlist, "Hamilton" creator Lin-Manuel Miranda wants to help you keep your eye on the ball and inspire you to take action (here's a list of 21 things you can do right now) on climate change.

Climate change is depressing to read about. Things like the fact that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency isn't sure that climate change exists (it does) or the fact that actual climate scientists are a bit freaked out by our current approach to addressing climate change are unnerving — if not downright scary.

Miranda's playlist provides a soundtrack to help keep you motivated so you don't lose hope while you're reading the latest news.

The playlist, called "Climb It, Change Is Real," is 16 tracks long and it's a straight-up banger.

It features songs like R.E.M.'s "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)," Nelly's "Hot in Herre," Sean Paul's "Temperature," and Michael Jackson's "Earth Song." It's a fun mix you can listen to while reading up on things like how climate change might change the world's food supply, how India's plan to plant 50 million trees can help fight back against rising temperatures, and why 21 teens and young adults are suing the U.S. government over climate inaction.

Photo by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images.

"Hamilton" did wonders for national interest in our nation's first Secretary of the Treasury. Maybe Miranda could make a musical about climate change? No pressure or anything.

Until then, you can check out his playlist on Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube.

From Your Site Articles

Need a pick-me-up? Revisit these Lin-Manuel Miranda tweets offering pure love and joy. - Upworthy ›

We can't let the government gag our scientists.

In defiance of President Donald Trump's gag order preventing Environmental Protection Agency organizations from tweeting about climate change, the Badlands National Park Twitter account began doing just that.

Within hours of the bold move, those tweets disappeared. For the rest of the day, the account was eerily silent, leaving people to wonder what befell the courageous social media manager in charge of the park's account.

Thankfully, Twitter users anticipated that the tweets might not survive for long. As soon as the tweets disappeared, a slew of accounts began posting them as screengrabs, proof that they had once existed.

With the @BadlandsNPS account quiet, other Twitter accounts picked up where it left off, tweeting out other facts about climate change along with actionable ways to support government-run climate research.

One particularly noteworthy account that has doggedly continued tweeting climate facts is @AltNatParkSer.

There are a few theories as to who is behind the account: It seems most likely to be the same staff who ran the NPS Badlands account, but another common theory is it's run by a few active and/or former employees of the entire National Parks Service. Based on their tweets, they're vehemently against government censorship of a prevalent and important issue — climate change.

Or, as their bio states, they are "the Unofficial 'Resistance' team of U.S. National Park Service. Not taxpayer subsidised! Come for rugged scenery, fossil beds, 89 million acres of landscape."

Just one day after the account started tweeting, it accumulated over 450,000 followers. On the second day, it had reached 985,000. Obviously the mission to keep science facts alive is significant to the world, at least on Twitter.

Freedom of speech is part of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Even though that is currently being threatened by the government, thanks to the power of the social media and groups like this, the gag rule will not stand.

Here are 14 tweets showing how it all went down:

1. First, @AltNatParkSer replicated the tweets that had been removed from the official Badlands National Park account.

2. Then it got honest about what likely happened to Badland's social media manager.

3. Next, it quoted a president who actually understood the threat climate change poses to humanity.

4. Then, knowing the power of a strong visual, it posted a scary photo.

5. Then it tried sending out a not-so-subtle theory as to why the Trump administration — and Trump in particular — doesn't want government organizations tweeting about climate change.

6. It also directed people toward other organizations fighting the good and true science fight.

7. And it retweeted this tweet — a dark joke from the original Badlands Twitter account.

8. Those behind @AltNatParkSer also responded truthfully to people who were curious about just what the heck they were hoping the account would do.

9. It also broke the tension with a bit of humor.

10. And it clearly explained what's at stake for the national parks.

11. As such, it needs your help to preserve vital scientific information.

12. And it empathized with the overwhelming frustration over reinvigorated pipeline projects.

13. It even created fun chants for upcoming science marches.

14. And finally, it's helping its environmentalist friends who are also running rogue accounts and fearlessly keeping science facts alive.

It's scary to watch in real time as something as innocent as a handful of scientifically accurate tweets about climate change are deleted, seemingly censored by an administration that refuses to acknowledge the danger it poses to us all.

As more and more government groups find that what they can or cannot say to the public is restricted (the Sunlight Foundation is keeping track of them here), it's up to everyday concerned citizens to help keep the truth alive.

You can easily help @AltNatParkSer by following them on Twitter and doing all the things they've suggested above. Call your representative and demand the gag rule lifted and EPA grant funding unfrozen. March for science in the Scientists' March on Washington. Donate, if you can, to the science research organizations at risk of losing their federal support.

This is not a battle that's going to be won with several rogue tweets. It's going to take time, dedication, and considerable efforts on behalf of civilians. But this a fight we can't afford to lose. For the sake of the planet and everyone you know, if you believe in science, don't stay silent.

This post was updated 5/4/2017.

Family

If you see the 'Safer Choice' label at your local market, now you can know what it means.

True

Bad news, folks. Your house? It's kinda dirty.

But you're not alone. The world is a dirty place, and every time we step into it, we bring home morsels of its muck.

GIF from "Chappelle Show."

As do our housemates.

Image by Nikolas J. Britton/Wikimedia Commons.

And all that dust? That's the dirt we track in, our hair, fibers from carpet, bedding, clothing, and upholstery, food crumbs, dander, bug poo, and who knows what else.

GIF from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs."

And sometimes we're just clumsy, messy, germ-y people.

Maybe just ... get used to hard-boiled.

That's why we clean. But we don't just do it to keep our homes sightly. It's also good for our health.

There are billions of bacteria living in our homes — some potentially harmful. And they love gettin' cozy on the surfaces we come into contact with the most.

Photo by Rachel Zack/Flickr.

Cleaning doesn't just protect us from disease-causing germs — it can even boost our health.

An Indiana University study revealed links between home cleanliness and physical fitness. Researchers found that the tidier the participant's home, the more likely they were to lead healthy and active lifestyles.

Ironically, a lot of the products we use to clean are potential health hazards.

It can be hard to determine at times because under current law, companies that make cleaning products don't have to print full ingredient lists on their packaging.

Photo by Maz Ali/Upworthy.

You can squint your way through tinily printed precautions, but vague references to "other ingredients" aren't very helpful with choices about our health or the environmental impacts of our cleaning products.

The EPA thought we needed a better way to find safer cleaning products. So they started their own label.

Yes, like the Berry Gordy of the cleaning aisle, they scouted top talent from both environmental groups and conscious companies in the industry to launch Safer Choice.

Image via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/YouTube.

The Safer Choice label means every single ingredient in the product was reviewed by EPA scientists and cleared as being safer for public health and the environment.

They don't only evaluate products for chemical toxicity. The agency's criteria also covers labeling transparency, energy- and water-saving potential, packaging sustainability, and even products' ability to make a long-term positive difference.

Image via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/YouTube.

Oh, and seeing as how they're cleaning agents, they also test them for performance so consumers can get exactly what they expect.

Sure, cleaning's a chore. But if we can do it without potential risks to our health or the planet, well, that's worth a little jig.

So fresh. So clean.

Watch a quick primer on the EPA's Safer Choice label:

The interesting — and kinda confusing — way your cleaning products make it to market.

True

Congratulations! You've just bought a brand-new cleaning product that's going to revolutionize the way you clean your home/car/workplace.

It's been a long time coming, but after years of development, testing, and marketing, this game-changing clean-making innovation is now available to the world. This time next year, the person who invented it will be on stage receiving the Nobel Prize in chemistry, and Jennifer Lawrence or Michael Keaton will be getting ready to play them in a movie.

J-Law on her way to collect more award nominations, this time for playing said cleaning-supply creator. GIF from "Joy"/20th Century Fox.

In the meantime, though, it's sitting on your shelf. Getting it home from the store was easy, but its journey from future Nobel-Prize-winner's brain to your grocery store was not.

If you've ever wondered who makes sure your cleaning supplies are safe, well ... the answer's a little complicated.

According to the International Sanitary Supply Association, who oversaw a product on its way to the shelf depends on what you're planning to use it for. Let's say, for example, that your incredible cleaning product is a new type of sanitizer.

In general, hand sanitizers are considered "drugs," so it would have been regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Can you see the drug in this photo? Image via Ann Godon/Flickr.

The FDA regulates and oversees food safety, medical devices, cosmetics, animal feed, and everything in between. Like eating food that won't make you accidentally sick? Then you love the FDA.

Say, though, that you're a commercial janitor and plan to use this sanitizer for work. In that case, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had a word with the product's makers.

This man's job is safer because of OSHA. Image via iStock.

The wonderful people at OSHA ensure working Americans have safe and healthful working conditions. They're responsible for making sure janitors don't use chemicals that could give them illnesses like cancer or respiratory problems.

Maybe you work in a hospital? If this product's going to assist in cleaning that hospital, it's considered a "medical device" and went through both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FDA.

I'm in favor of anything that makes hospitals cleaner. Image via iStock.

The EPA follows rules and laws developed by Congress to protect human health and the environment. Their regulations, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act have forced companies to build environmental safeguards into their operations and remove harmful pollutants from our air and drinking water.

Who is ultimately responsible for governing cleaning products depends on whether they're considered critical (something that enters the human body and touches blood), semi-critical (something that touches the human body and mucous membranes like eyes or the mouth but not blood) or non-critical. Critical and semi-critical are governed by the FDA, non-critical by the EPA.

Oh, while we're here, does this product make any statements about being able to kill bugs, pests, or microorganisms?

If so, it's been registered with the EPA, like all products that claim to "prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest," including harmful microorganisms.

Does it contain a known hazardous material? Then someone ran it by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

No babies were boxed in the making of this label. We hope! Image via Danny Norton/Flickr.

The fine folks at the Consumer Product Safety Commission are in charge of protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of certain consumer products. In this case, they've reviewed the potential health effects of chemicals used in the product.

Confused yet? Maybe a little defeated? Understandable. But you're one step closer to being an informed consumer!

For a product creator, this can be a complicated (but supremely necessary) process. For a consumer standpoint — it's even more so. Without one overall governing body for cleaning products, it can be hard to know where to look for info about about how the things that keep us clean are keeping us safe. Don't get me wrong, I'm so grateful all these regulatory bodies exist. I just wish they all had one website. With pictures!