Breaking: Trump EPA rescinds the 2009 endangerment finding, saying greenhouse gases aren’t a public‑health threat — critics say it unlawfully favors the oil industry. California vows to sue. What do you think? Comment below. According to AP. #news
Posted inUncategorized
Breaking news: the Trump administration has issued a rule claiming greenhouse gases are not a threat to public health, a conclusion critics say unlawfully favors the oil industry. Legal experts and environmental groups argue the determination violates federal law and ignores scientific evidence linking emissions to respiratory, cardiovascular, and climate harms. California announced it will sue, pledging a legal challenge to block what state officials call a lawless rollback driven by industry pressure. Advocates warn the move would undermine air quality protections, hinder climate action, and increase health risks for vulnerable communities nationwide. Court fight could shape national climate policy.
Posted by
By
No Comments
By
No Comments
Post navigation
Previous Post
Senators failed 52-47 to advance a bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded, teeing up a partial DHS shutdown by the end of the week unless negotiators strike a deal. (cbsnews.com) Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman was the lone Senate Democrat to vote to advance the measure. (yahoo.com) The lapse would not affect ICE and CBP operations, which were already funded from prior legislation, but would disrupt agencies such as TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard and cyber‑security programs, forcing many workers to operate without pay until funding is restored. (theguardian.com) Lawmakers remain deadlocked over immigration‑enforcement reforms and talks continue around the clock. (washingtonpost.com)
Next Post
Sen. Lindsey Graham briefly blocked a Senate funding package to demand a guaranteed floor vote on legislation that would criminalize state and local officials who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, saying such officials “should be punished.” The Senate then approved a bipartisan spending deal and a two‑week extension for Homeland Security after a White House‑backed agreement that left time for immigration negotiations, and leaders agreed to schedule Graham’s sanctuary‑city proposal for a vote. Supporters say it would enforce federal law; critics warn it is vague, risks criminalizing local policymakers, and raises constitutional and federalism concerns and legal challenges.
Sources: (congress.gov)
