Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
BREAKING: We filed a lawsuit with Cherokee Concerned Citizens against @EPA’s decision to allow the world’s largest Chevron refinery to turn plastic waste into fuel. EPA found that the production poses up to a 1/4 cancer risk, 250,000x more than it usually considers unreasonable. pic.twitter.com/czVnBQNdIs
— Earthjustice (@Earthjustice) April 10, 2023
The thing about the green agenda is that it is primarily about poisoning everyone for reasons that no one can explain.
The obvious explanation, of course, is that the people pushing the green agenda hate human beings, and want to exterminate them.
That actually fits into their statements that they are constantly making about how they view humans as a disease that needs to be eradicated.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing a lawsuit filed by a community group and questions from a US senator over the agency’s approval of fuels made from discarded plastic under a program it touted as “climate-friendly”.
The new scrutiny is in response to an earlier investigation by ProPublica and the Guardian that revealed the EPA approved the new chemicals even though its own scientists calculated that pollution from production of one of the plastic-based fuels was so toxic that one in four people exposed to it over their lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. That risk is 250,000 times greater than the level usually considered acceptable by the EPA division that approves new chemicals, and it’s higher than the lifetime risk of cancer for current smokers.
On Friday, a community organization sued the EPA in the US court of appeals in Washington DC, over the agency’s decision to allow a Chevron refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, to produce the fuels derived from plastic waste, including the one that could subject people nearby to a one-in-four lifetime cancer risk. Cherokee Concerned Citizens, which represents residents in a housing subdivision close to that refinery, is asking the court to invalidate the EPA’s approval of the new chemicals.
Earlier in the week, the chair of the US Senate subcommittee that oversees chemical safety questioned the head of the EPA over the agency’s approval of those fuels. Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, told the EPA administrator, Michael Regan, in a letter sent on Wednesday that he found what ProPublica and the Guardian discovered “especially troubling”.
Senator Jeff Merkley
“While it is urgent that our country takes actions to address climate chaos we need to ensure that the steps we take actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do not do so by sacrificing historically marginalized communities and those who are already overburdened by toxic pollution,” Merkley wrote.
The plastic-based fuels were given a green light under an EPA program designed to make it easier to create alternatives to fossil fuels. As ProPublica and the Guardian noted in the February story, 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.
Federal law does not allow the EPA to approve new chemicals that have serious health or environmental risks unless the agency finds ways to minimize them. Yet, the agency approved the new plastic-based fuels without requiring lab tests, air monitoring or controls that would reduce the release of cancer-causing pollutants or nearby residents’ exposure to them, ProPublica and the Guardian found.
The sky-high risks and lack of safeguards for the people who would breathe pollution from the refinery’s smokestack are at the center of a lawsuit brought by residents of Pascagoula’s Cherokee Forest subdivision. The subdivision, which is near a number of industrial facilities, was inundated with cancer-causing pollution well before the new fuels were approved, as ProPublica reported in 2021, and the residents have been working for years to curb local emissions.
…
An EPA spokesperson on Friday declined to comment about the lawsuit. When asked about the fuels in February, a spokesperson for the agency said that the 1-in-4 cancer risk calculation was “a very conservative estimate with ‘high uncertainty’”, meaning that it erred on the side of caution in calculating such a high risk.
The spokesperson at that time explained that the EPA included plastic-based fuels in a program focused on biofuels because the initiative also covers fuels made from waste. As of February, the program had approved 34 fuels; 16 of them were made from waste. All 16 of the waste-based fuels were subject to consent orders, documents that the EPA issues when it finds that new chemicals or mixtures may pose an “unreasonable risk” to the environment or human health. Consent orders spell out the risks and specify the agency’s plans for mitigating them.
Asked about Merkley’s letter, the EPA said in a written statement that it “looks forward to the opportunity to clarify the record as well as its approach to reviewing” these new chemicals, “communicate more clearly about the risks associated with the submissions the agency has already reviewed, and discuss ways EPA plans to improve this approach in the future”.
If I were you, I would stay the hell away from anything labeled “green.”
This stuff is clearly designed to kill you, because the “green” people hate human beings and want to kill us all.
