Environmental Integrity Project

More than 2,000 coal-ash waste dumps across the U.S. are slowly leaking lead, arsenic, mercury, and other toxic metals into our underground water supplies. Under the Obama Administration, in 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency imposed the nation’s first-ever federal rules for controlling coal ash pollution. But now, the Trump Administration is trying to gut these rules and exempt old ash landfills from cleanup requirements. Environmental groups are pushing back. We talk about this with Abel Russ, Director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project and a coal ash expert.

Photo credit: U.S. EPA.

Although the Trump Administration's war on Iran was not authorized by Congress, President Trump is using it as a pretext to invoke a wartime law and provide subsidies and support to his allies in the U.S. petroleum industry. The White House recently released a memo saying the President is using the Defense Production Act of 1950 to increase domestic petroleum production. We talk about the implications of this with Tyson Slocum, Director of the Energy Program at Public Citizen. Among other things, the Trump Administration is using the Korean War- era law to try to override the opposition of California and re-open a pipeline near Santa Barbara that has been closed since a massive oil spill in 2015.

Wetlands are miracles of nature. They work as the world’s kidneys, filtering and cleaning our water. Wetlands capture carbon dioxide more effectively than even forests and act as cradles of life for biodiversity, sheltering many endangered species. Despite all this, the Trump Administration on November 17 proposed regulations that would strip federal protections from more than 80 percent of wetlands across the U.S., leaving more than 70 million acres of wetlands vulnerable to development. We discuss the issue with Jon Devine, Director of Freshwater Ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

On this week's podcast we interviewed EIP's visiting scientist, Dr. Kimberly Terrell. Facing a gag order imposed on her by Tulane University leadership because her study on racial discrimination in petrochemical industry jobs reportedly angered Louisiana’s governor, Dr. Terrell faced a new decision - remain silent and sacrifice her scientific integrity, or resign in protest, speaking out publicly about an important issue and shining a light on the pressure campaign to keep her silent.

The $4 trillion Republican spending bill, signed by President Trump on July Fourth, is packed with giveaways to the oil and gas industry. These include tax breaks, opening more public lands and offshore acres to drilling, and a lowering of royalty rates that oil and gas companies must pay for extracting fuel from government lands. Trump’s so-called “big, beautiful” bill is also full of ugly ironies, including this one: While Trump campaigned on lowering energy prices for consumers, his spending bill is expected to raise average household energy costs by about $280 per year, in part because it slashes support for wind and solar, which are some of the cheapest forms of energy. To break down all the handouts to the fossil fuel industry, we interview Josh Axelrod, senior program advocate at NRDC. (Photo by iStock)

State legislatures are seeing a wave of industry-backed bills that would ban or restrict the public’s ability to test for air pollution in local communities. Last year, the Louisiana legislature effectively banned community groups from using their own air monitoring to warn residents about pollution or publicly advocate for cleanups. Violators can face penalties of up to $32,500 per day, plus $1 million for intentional violations. Earlier this year, Kentucky passed legislation that attempts to restrict what evidence state and local environmental regulators can use when enforcing pollution regulations. Morgan King, climate and energy program manager with the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, joins us to discuss her work building up an air monitoring network around West Virginia, where industry-backed legislation to restrict monitoring has failed twice over the last two years.

President Trump won election to his second term promising an “American Energy Dominance” agenda that would stimulate more oil drilling and cut the price of energy in half for consumers. Despite pledges of dramatic regulatory cuts, after his first quarter in office, neither is happening. Drilling is down compared to the first quarter of 2024 and gasoline prices are up, according to data from the Trump Administration. Why is “Drill, Baby, Drill” backfiring? We ask Boston University professor and oil industry expert Robert Kaufmann about the impact of Trump’s tariffs and economic slowdown on the oil industry.

Although he did not mention it during his campaign, since taking office, President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested the U.S. should buy or seize Greenland – the largest island in the world, and part of the Kingdom of Denmark. A U.S. Geological Survey study estimates that there are 31 billion barrels of oil in eastern Greenland, and beneath the ice are also rare earth metals needed for electric cars, batteries, and computers, as well as uranium. We talk to two Greenland experts, Paul Bierman, a professor at the University of Vermont (pictured) and Anne Merrild, who grew up on the island and is now a professor at Aalborg University in Denmark, about what role minerals and oil are playing in the politics – and potential take-over – of Greenland. Local elections on March 11 may help decide whether prohibitions remain on the extraction of oil and gas and uranium on the island.

When President Trump takes office, one of the first things he is expected to do is to accelerate the approval of permits to drill for oil and gas on federal land. But this is likely to have little to no impact on the production of fuel from federal lands. Why? Because there are already more than 6,000 approved drilling permits and millions of acres of leases owned by oil and gas companies on public lands that are not being used. We explore this curious phenomenon with an oil industry veteran: Mark Finley, former chief U.S. economist with BP who is now an independent expert and fellow in energy and global oil at Rice University’s Baker Institute.

One of President Biden’s signature achievements to combat climate change has been the approval of billions of dollars in federal subsidies to encourage carbon capture and storage. It sounds good: capturing carbon dioxide from industry, then piping it underground so it can’t heat the planet. But most of these projects don’t really help the climate. They provide taxpayer money to oil and gas companies, who use captured carbon to force more oil and gas out of the ground. We interview an expert on carbon capture, MIT Professor Charles Harvey, who was the scientific advisor to a pioneering carbon capture company who discovered, firsthand, that the technology was not economically viable. We ask Professor Harvey: What would happen if the incoming president, Donald Trump, a climate change denier, followed the advice of his allies at Project 2025 and killed all federal funding for carbon capture?