By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[My colleagues Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Lindsay McCormick, Ryan O’Connell, and Dr. Maricel Maffini assisted in the research described in this post.]

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

When the Trump Administration announced its intention to nominate Michael Dourson to head the office at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA issued a news release titled “Widespread Praise for Dr. Michael Dourson.”  The release cited four toxicologists:  Samuel M. Cohen, Jay I. Goodman, Gio Batta Gori and Kendall B. Wallace.

Far from representing a “widespread” set of endorsers, it turns out these four and Dourson constitute an exceedingly close-knit group.  

My last post focused on Dourson’s incredibly high rate of publishing his papers in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that is known for its close ties to the tobacco and chemical industries.  It so happens that this journal is also a key thread connecting Dourson to at least three of his endorsers:

• Dourson and Cohen both serve on the journal’s editorial board;
• Goodman is an associate editor of the journal; and
• Gori is its editor-in-chief.

What else can be said about these toxicologists who are endorsing Dourson?

Dr. Gori has a decades-long history of paid work for the tobacco industry.  For details, see these sources:

• SourceWatch
• Landman and Glantz (2009), “Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Policy-Relevant Research,” American Journal of Public Health, January, Volume 99(1): 45–58.
• David Michaels (2008), Doubt is Their Product: How the Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, Oxford University Press, pp. 53-54.

Drs. Cohen, Goodman and Wallace, like Dourson, have for many years been paid consultants to a large range of companies and trade associations.  For example:

• Based on a PubMed search, Cohen has co-authored papers published over just the past six years that were funded by the Arsenic Science Task Force and the Organic Arsenic Products Task Force, the American Chemistry Council, Sumitomo Chemical Company, a Permethrin Data Group operating under the auspices of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the International Organization of Flavor Industries, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
• Goodman has received grant money over many years from RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, and has also done paid work for the American Chemistry Council and Pharmacia. A PubMed search found recent papers he co-authored funded by Syngenta Crop Protection, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, The Dow Chemical Company, and the American Chemistry Council.
• Wallace has done extensive work on diacetyl (the artificial popcorn butter flavoring linked to severe lung damage in workers) paid for by ConAgra. This included a paper, “Safe exposure level for diacetyl” (later retracted).  Based on a PubMed search, he has done work on perfluorinated substances over a number of years for 3M Company.

All four of the toxicologists endorsing Dourson have also worked together.  They are co-authors on two highly controversial 2016 papers that attack the role of science linking chemical exposures and human health effects in risk assessment and regulation, and the identification and regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.  See here and here.  The latter paper is published in … you guessed it, the industry’s go-to journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

Like I said, it’s a very close-knit group of heavily conflicted scientists that are providing that “widespread praise” for Dourson’s nomination.

As I noted earlier about Dourson, these industry consultants have every right to make their living however they choose.  And the tobacco and chemical industries have every right to hire whomever they want.  But Dourson’s nomination is for a position that is supposed to serve the public’s interest, not those of the chemical industry.  It simply must be asked:  Who really stands to benefit if he’s confirmed?  The endorsements of Dourson by this group of wholly like-minded individuals who have the same deep conflicts as Dourson himself shouldn’t count for much.

 

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[My colleagues Dr. Jennifer McPartland, Lindsay McCormick, Ryan O’Connell, and Dr. Maricel Maffini assisted in the research described in this post.]

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

When the Trump Administration announced its intention to nominate Michael Dourson to head the office at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA issued a news release titled “Widespread Praise for Dr. Michael Dourson.”  The release cited four toxicologists:  Samuel M. Cohen, Jay I. Goodman, Gio Batta Gori and Kendall B. Wallace.

Far from representing a “widespread” set of endorsers, it turns out these four and Dourson constitute an exceedingly close-knit group.  

My last post focused on Dourson’s incredibly high rate of publishing his papers in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that is known for its close ties to the tobacco and chemical industries.  It so happens that this journal is also a key thread connecting Dourson to at least three of his endorsers:

• Dourson and Cohen both serve on the journal’s editorial board;
• Goodman is an associate editor of the journal; and
• Gori is its editor-in-chief.

What else can be said about these toxicologists who are endorsing Dourson?

Dr. Gori has a decades-long history of paid work for the tobacco industry.  For details, see these sources:

• SourceWatch
• Landman and Glantz (2009), “Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Policy-Relevant Research,” American Journal of Public Health, January, Volume 99(1): 45–58.
• David Michaels (2008), Doubt is Their Product: How the Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, Oxford University Press, pp. 53-54.

Drs. Cohen, Goodman and Wallace, like Dourson, have for many years been paid consultants to a large range of companies and trade associations.  For example:

• Based on a PubMed search, Cohen has co-authored papers published over just the past six years that were funded by the Arsenic Science Task Force and the Organic Arsenic Products Task Force, the American Chemistry Council, Sumitomo Chemical Company, a Permethrin Data Group operating under the auspices of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the International Organization of Flavor Industries, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
• Goodman has received grant money over many years from RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, and has also done paid work for the American Chemistry Council and Pharmacia. A PubMed search found recent papers he co-authored funded by Syngenta Crop Protection, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, The Dow Chemical Company, and the American Chemistry Council.
• Wallace has done extensive work on diacetyl (the artificial popcorn butter flavoring linked to severe lung damage in workers) paid for by ConAgra. This included a paper, “Safe exposure level for diacetyl” (later retracted).  Based on a PubMed search, he has done work on perfluorinated substances over a number of years for 3M Company.

All four of the toxicologists endorsing Dourson have also worked together.  They are co-authors on two highly controversial 2016 papers that attack the role of science linking chemical exposures and human health effects in risk assessment and regulation, and the identification and regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.  See here and here.  The latter paper is published in … you guessed it, the industry’s go-to journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

Like I said, it’s a very close-knit group of heavily conflicted scientists that are providing that “widespread praise” for Dourson’s nomination.

As I noted earlier about Dourson, these industry consultants have every right to make their living however they choose.  And the tobacco and chemical industries have every right to hire whomever they want.  But Dourson’s nomination is for a position that is supposed to serve the public’s interest, not those of the chemical industry.  It simply must be asked:  Who really stands to benefit if he’s confirmed?  The endorsements of Dourson by this group of wholly like-minded individuals who have the same deep conflicts as Dourson himself shouldn’t count for much.

 

Don't let the Trump Administration take us backwards. Tell Scott Pruitt: Revoking the Clean Power Plan is unacceptable. Regional.

Don't let the Trump Administration take us backwards. Tell Scott Pruitt: Revoking the Clean Power Plan is unacceptable. Regional.

By Maddie Venn, clean energy communications intern Recently, it seems like everyone is competing to become the next big thing in the energy sector. Whether it’s electric vehicles, smart grid technology, or energy storage, innovation continues to pop up left and right as we work to build a smarter, cleaner electric grid. If innovation and […]

Reviewing residential electricity data in Pecan Street's Pike Powers Lab.

By Maddie Venn, clean energy communications intern

Recently, it seems like everyone is competing to become the next big thing in the energy sector. Whether it’s electric vehicles, smart grid technology, or energy storage, innovation continues to pop up left and right as we work to build a smarter, cleaner electric grid.

If innovation and technology spark your competitive drive, here’s your opportunity to dive in and join a community of engaged researchers working to solve some of our most pressing energy concerns. Pecan Street is hosting its second student research competition, inviting the best and the brightest to use the organization’s extensive collection of energy-use data to help solve real-world problems.

Open to all full-time graduate and undergraduate students and with prizes totaling $10,000, the competition aims to connect Pecan Street’s well-established dataset with the innovation of young minds. As the grid gets smarter, data can help people play a more active role in how their electricity is made, moved, and used. Competitions like Pecan Street’s will get us there faster.

What is Pecan Street?

Founded in Austin, Texas with the goal of better understanding the behavior of energy users, Pecan Street’s research network provides the most granular understanding of electricity and water use on the planet. The organization is collecting massive amounts of anonymized data in real time from thousands of houses across the nation, providing a near-constant stream of data on water and energy use.

Research competition invites students to solve real-world energy problems
Click To Tweet

The data collected at these different sites is compiled and made available to university researchers around the world interested in finding out more about the way people interact with the grid. With this information, the possibilities for discovery and innovation are seemingly endless, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity to all interested researchers.

The competition

To help spark some of these new and innovative ideas, competition organizers have provided a list of potential research topics that may be of interest to students, including:

• understanding the breakdown of energy use within the home,
• characterizing what impact young children have on grid flexibility, and
• understanding how charging electric vehicles at different times impacts the grid.

Each suggested topic can serve as a jumping off point for research that can have significant real world implications. While it is recommended that researchers utilize these suggested topics, it is not required.

In a previous competition, the student who won first prize used Pecan Street’s dataset to ease the pressure that residential air conditioning puts on the grid. Using a centralized control, the winner created a system to adjust thermostats and distribute use throughout the day. This cuts pollution by reducing the need for costly, dirty “peaker” plants, which operate only a few hours each year when demand is high (like on a hot summer afternoon when many people simultaneously crank up the AC).

In a previous competition, the student who won first prize used Pecan Street’s dataset to ease the pressure that residential air conditioning puts on the grid. 

The opportunity for discovery with this next round of competition grows even larger as Pecan Street expands its testbed and data collection.

Interested?

Visit Pecan Street’s website for more information and suggested research topics. All proposals must be submitted to info@pecanstreet.org by January 30, 2018 to be considered. Four finalists will be selected and flown to Austin to present their research at Pecan Street’s annual research conference, with the chance to win big and get involved with this up-and-coming research community.

Smart grid technology is already transforming our energy system, and there has never been a better time to get involved in this fast-growing industry. The future of the national grid may be impacted by the work that comes out of this competition, and you could be influential in the next wave of energy innovation.

This post originally appeared on Energy Exchange blog.

By EDF Blogs

By Maddie Venn, clean energy communications intern

Recently, it seems like everyone is competing to become the next big thing in the energy sector. Whether it’s electric vehicles, smart grid technology, or energy storage, innovation continues to pop up left and right as we work to build a smarter, cleaner electric grid.

If innovation and technology spark your competitive drive, here’s your opportunity to dive in and join a community of engaged researchers working to solve some of our most pressing energy concerns. Pecan Street is hosting its second student research competition, inviting the best and the brightest to use the organization’s extensive collection of energy-use data to help solve real-world problems.

Open to all full-time graduate and undergraduate students and with prizes totaling $10,000, the competition aims to connect Pecan Street’s well-established dataset with the innovation of young minds. As the grid gets smarter, data can help people play a more active role in how their electricity is made, moved, and used. Competitions like Pecan Street’s will get us there faster.

What is Pecan Street?

Founded in Austin, Texas with the goal of better understanding the behavior of energy users, Pecan Street’s research network provides the most granular understanding of electricity and water use on the planet. The organization is collecting massive amounts of anonymized data in real time from thousands of houses across the nation, providing a near-constant stream of data on water and energy use.

Research competition invites students to solve real-world energy problems
Click To Tweet

The data collected at these different sites is compiled and made available to university researchers around the world interested in finding out more about the way people interact with the grid. With this information, the possibilities for discovery and innovation are seemingly endless, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity to all interested researchers.

The competition

To help spark some of these new and innovative ideas, competition organizers have provided a list of potential research topics that may be of interest to students, including:

• understanding the breakdown of energy use within the home,
• characterizing what impact young children have on grid flexibility, and
• understanding how charging electric vehicles at different times impacts the grid.

Each suggested topic can serve as a jumping off point for research that can have significant real world implications. While it is recommended that researchers utilize these suggested topics, it is not required.

In a previous competition, the student who won first prize used Pecan Street’s dataset to ease the pressure that residential air conditioning puts on the grid. Using a centralized control, the winner created a system to adjust thermostats and distribute use throughout the day. This cuts pollution by reducing the need for costly, dirty “peaker” plants, which operate only a few hours each year when demand is high (like on a hot summer afternoon when many people simultaneously crank up the AC).

In a previous competition, the student who won first prize used Pecan Street’s dataset to ease the pressure that residential air conditioning puts on the grid. 

The opportunity for discovery with this next round of competition grows even larger as Pecan Street expands its testbed and data collection.

Interested?

Visit Pecan Street’s website for more information and suggested research topics. All proposals must be submitted to info@pecanstreet.org by January 30, 2018 to be considered. Four finalists will be selected and flown to Austin to present their research at Pecan Street’s annual research conference, with the chance to win big and get involved with this up-and-coming research community.

Smart grid technology is already transforming our energy system, and there has never been a better time to get involved in this fast-growing industry. The future of the national grid may be impacted by the work that comes out of this competition, and you could be influential in the next wave of energy innovation.

By Maddie Venn, clean energy communications intern Recently, it seems like everyone is competing to become the next big thing in the energy sector. Whether it’s electric vehicles, smart grid technology, or energy storage, innovation continues to pop up left and right as we work to build a smarter, cleaner electric grid. If innovation and […]

By EDF Blogs

By Maddie Venn, clean energy communications intern

Recently, it seems like everyone is competing to become the next big thing in the energy sector. Whether it’s electric vehicles, smart grid technology, or energy storage, innovation continues to pop up left and right as we work to build a smarter, cleaner electric grid.

If innovation and technology spark your competitive drive, here’s your opportunity to dive in and join a community of engaged researchers working to solve some of our most pressing energy concerns. Pecan Street is hosting its second student research competition, inviting the best and the brightest to use the organization’s extensive collection of energy-use data to help solve real-world problems.

Open to all full-time graduate and undergraduate students and with prizes totaling $10,000, the competition aims to connect Pecan Street’s well-established dataset with the innovation of young minds. As the grid gets smarter, data can help people play a more active role in how their electricity is made, moved, and used. Competitions like Pecan Street’s will get us there faster.

What is Pecan Street?

Founded in Austin, Texas with the goal of better understanding the behavior of energy users, Pecan Street’s research network provides the most granular understanding of electricity and water use on the planet. The organization is collecting massive amounts of anonymized data in real time from thousands of houses across the nation, providing a near-constant stream of data on water and energy use.

Research competition invites students to solve real-world energy problems
Click To Tweet

The data collected at these different sites is compiled and made available to university researchers around the world interested in finding out more about the way people interact with the grid. With this information, the possibilities for discovery and innovation are seemingly endless, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity to all interested researchers.

The competition

To help spark some of these new and innovative ideas, competition organizers have provided a list of potential research topics that may be of interest to students, including:

• understanding the breakdown of energy use within the home,
• characterizing what impact young children have on grid flexibility, and
• understanding how charging electric vehicles at different times impacts the grid.

Each suggested topic can serve as a jumping off point for research that can have significant real world implications. While it is recommended that researchers utilize these suggested topics, it is not required.

In a previous competition, the student who won first prize used Pecan Street’s dataset to ease the pressure that residential air conditioning puts on the grid. Using a centralized control, the winner created a system to adjust thermostats and distribute use throughout the day. This cuts pollution by reducing the need for costly, dirty “peaker” plants, which operate only a few hours each year when demand is high (like on a hot summer afternoon when many people simultaneously crank up the AC).

In a previous competition, the student who won first prize used Pecan Street’s dataset to ease the pressure that residential air conditioning puts on the grid. 

The opportunity for discovery with this next round of competition grows even larger as Pecan Street expands its testbed and data collection.

Interested?

Visit Pecan Street’s website for more information and suggested research topics. All proposals must be submitted to info@pecanstreet.org by January 30, 2018 to be considered. Four finalists will be selected and flown to Austin to present their research at Pecan Street’s annual research conference, with the chance to win big and get involved with this up-and-coming research community.

Smart grid technology is already transforming our energy system, and there has never been a better time to get involved in this fast-growing industry. The future of the national grid may be impacted by the work that comes out of this competition, and you could be influential in the next wave of energy innovation.

By EDF Blogs

By Maddie Venn, clean energy communications intern

Recently, it seems like everyone is competing to become the next big thing in the energy sector. Whether it’s electric vehicles, smart grid technology, or energy storage, innovation continues to pop up left and right as we work to build a smarter, cleaner electric grid.

If innovation and technology spark your competitive drive, here’s your opportunity to dive in and join a community of engaged researchers working to solve some of our most pressing energy concerns. Pecan Street is hosting its second student research competition, inviting the best and the brightest to use the organization’s extensive collection of energy-use data to help solve real-world problems.

Open to all full-time graduate and undergraduate students and with prizes totaling $10,000, the competition aims to connect Pecan Street’s well-established dataset with the innovation of young minds. As the grid gets smarter, data can help people play a more active role in how their electricity is made, moved, and used. Competitions like Pecan Street’s will get us there faster.

What is Pecan Street?

Founded in Austin, Texas with the goal of better understanding the behavior of energy users, Pecan Street’s research network provides the most granular understanding of electricity and water use on the planet. The organization is collecting massive amounts of anonymized data in real time from thousands of houses across the nation, providing a near-constant stream of data on water and energy use.

Research competition invites students to solve real-world energy problems
Click To Tweet

The data collected at these different sites is compiled and made available to university researchers around the world interested in finding out more about the way people interact with the grid. With this information, the possibilities for discovery and innovation are seemingly endless, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity to all interested researchers.

The competition

To help spark some of these new and innovative ideas, competition organizers have provided a list of potential research topics that may be of interest to students, including:

• understanding the breakdown of energy use within the home,
• characterizing what impact young children have on grid flexibility, and
• understanding how charging electric vehicles at different times impacts the grid.

Each suggested topic can serve as a jumping off point for research that can have significant real world implications. While it is recommended that researchers utilize these suggested topics, it is not required.

In a previous competition, the student who won first prize used Pecan Street’s dataset to ease the pressure that residential air conditioning puts on the grid. Using a centralized control, the winner created a system to adjust thermostats and distribute use throughout the day. This cuts pollution by reducing the need for costly, dirty “peaker” plants, which operate only a few hours each year when demand is high (like on a hot summer afternoon when many people simultaneously crank up the AC).

In a previous competition, the student who won first prize used Pecan Street’s dataset to ease the pressure that residential air conditioning puts on the grid. 

The opportunity for discovery with this next round of competition grows even larger as Pecan Street expands its testbed and data collection.

Interested?

Visit Pecan Street’s website for more information and suggested research topics. All proposals must be submitted to info@pecanstreet.org by January 30, 2018 to be considered. Four finalists will be selected and flown to Austin to present their research at Pecan Street’s annual research conference, with the chance to win big and get involved with this up-and-coming research community.

Smart grid technology is already transforming our energy system, and there has never been a better time to get involved in this fast-growing industry. The future of the national grid may be impacted by the work that comes out of this competition, and you could be influential in the next wave of energy innovation.

Funding a coastal protection and restoration program by first having to suffer through a catastrophe is an extremely painful and unsustainable way to work toward resilience. That being said, because of the disasters Louisiana has endured and thanks to the State’s widely-respected Coastal Master Plan, Louisiana has been entrusted with the financial resources, around $10 billion over the next 15 years, to implement a suite of the most significant projects in its $50 billion plan. The majority of the funds, ...

Read The Full Story

The post Making the Most of an Unprecedented Opportunity: Funding Louisiana’s Coastal Program appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Funding a coastal protection and restoration program by first having to suffer through a catastrophe is an extremely painful and unsustainable way to work toward resilience. That being said, because of the disasters Louisiana has endured and thanks to the State’s widely-respected Coastal Master Plan, Louisiana has been entrusted with the financial resources, around $10 billion over the next 15 years, to implement a suite of the most significant projects in its $50 billion plan. The majority of the funds, ...

Read The Full Story

The post Making the Most of an Unprecedented Opportunity: Funding Louisiana’s Coastal Program appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Funding a coastal protection and restoration program by first having to suffer through a catastrophe is an extremely painful and unsustainable way to work toward resilience. That being said, because of the disasters Louisiana has endured and thanks to the State’s widely-respected Coastal Master Plan, Louisiana has been entrusted with the financial resources, around $10 billion over the next 15 years, to implement a suite of the most significant projects in its $50 billion plan. The majority of the funds, ...

Read The Full Story

The post Making the Most of an Unprecedented Opportunity: Funding Louisiana’s Coastal Program appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Pruitt's inquiry gives climate science the reality TV treatment

Like a television executive peddling reality shows, Scott Pruitt has decided to stage an exercise pitting the well-established science of climate change against a grab bag of fringe theories. 

It will be marketed by the Trump administration as an effort in the best traditions of scientific inquiry, but the real goal is to confuse the public and distract from the serious damage Pruitt is doing to our air, water and health.

Here’s the first red flag for anyone who cares about science: A legitimate climate exercise would be organized by scientific leaders in the field – rather than by officials with a political motivation for seeding doubt.

That’s like Pope Gregory trying Galileo Galilei back in 1633, OJ searching for the real killers, or Trump looking for 3 million illegal votes. Pruitt’s “Red Team-Blue Team” exercise – for which his agency is now soliciting participants – is a show based on everything but reality.

Science: grueling and unglamorous work

Climate science is not speculation devised by a clever professor alone in his study; it’s based on satellite images, ice core samples, temperatures records, sea level measurements and millions of other data points across the globe since long before we put a man on the moon.

The conclusions drawn from such data have been challenged and refined countless times by the international scientific community. That includes NASA, the National Academies of Sciences and every globally recognized scientific organization.

We lose more than you think if NASA’s budget is cut

A new and trust-worthy science inquiry, in other words, would move on to important, still-open questions and not waste everybody’s time with what’s already known.

Cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer, after all?

Now you’re thinking, “Okay, if the science is so strong, what’s the harm?”

But just imagine the Federal Drug Administration suddenly holding a public trial to determine whether smoking actually causes lung cancer.

Then consider the FDA letting tobacco companies appoint a team that presents clever-sounding theories “proving” that smoking isn’t so dangerous, after all – just to protect their business. All that would do is sow confusion among non-experts.

It’s even worse in the case of climate change, because the details are less well-known by the general public and the issue is caught up in our partisan divisions.

Beware of “alternative facts”

Pruitt is a clever man and will pick “reasonably-sounding” advocates for his position to build excuses for inaction. Growing doubt about whether climate change is real would be a huge victory for the polluting industries that enabled Pruitt’s political career. 

A real science inquiry would not solicit participation by fringe groups such as the Heartland Institute, known for comparing climate scientists with the Unabomber. It would hear from a range government agencies with deep climate expertise, such as the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA – and, of course, experts at Pruitt’s own agency.

2 or 4 degrees? Questions remain.

So is there nothing to debate about climate science? Is every detail settled? No, of course not. Scientists around the world continue to explore the details and impact of climate change, as global decisions evolve and emissions rise or fall.  

What year will Earth cross the 1.5-degree centigrade temperature threshold? Exactly what level of global sea rise should we expect by 2100? 

Just as public health experts don’t gather to explore whether or not viruses cause disease, climate scientists today are focused on the real questions in their field.

Treating Pruitt’s reality TV show like a legitimate exercise in scientific inquiry would accomplish just two things: Setting back our effort to solve the largest environmental crisis facing us, and create baseless confusion.

Tell Congress: Protect and defend our core environmental standards krives August 10, 2017 - 07:18

See comments

Comments

Shocking and absolutely disgusting. I'm so confused by this administration and their insistence that reality isn't reality. Don't they have to live on this Earth as well? Aren't they going to suffer just as much as the rest of us when the Earth can no longer support us? Don't they have children and grandchildren that they want to live happy, healthy lives?

I refuse to believe that they don't actually know the truth. Is their corporate greed so much bigger and more important than living to them????

Carrie August 10, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Yes.

Edward August 16, 2017 at 10:57 am

In reply to Shocking and absolutely by Carrie

Yep. It's just another exercise in delay, fighting hard to extract profit from the nasty but reliably profitable fossil infrastructure. Too bad it's also reckless endangerment -- not just of America's future, not just of the future of technological civilization, not just of humanity -- but of all the above plus massive chunks of the biosphere. Oh, well, Earth will be fine -- in a few million years, at least.

Kevin McKinney August 14, 2017 at 2:43 pm

It is very important that serious scientists boycott this sham. Participation just gives them credibility. If they were not immune to evidence and logic, they would already be on board.

John Whitbeck August 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm

EPS economists were induced by Pruitt to redo a study on economic effects of pollution. They were leaned on to make the #s come out false. They did it; they knew that otherwise, they would lose their jobs -- the area of study was in GL and had to do with ocean pollution and real estate values.

Jodi lubar August 16, 2017 at 12:55 pm Add new comment

This week, the oil and gas giant Shell took a positive step toward addressing methane emissions. The company announced a new technology trial at a wellsite in Alberta, Canada, where it is piloting a specially designed laser to continuously monitor emissions of methane, a powerful pollutant known to leak from oil and gas equipment. The move by […]