As much as 450 tons of plastic waste contaminated by non-recyclable material will be shipped back to the U.S. and several other countries after it arrived in Malaysia erroneously labeled as recyclable waste — a move Malaysian officials said was part of a larger problem.

Malaysia’s minister of science and environmental matters Yeo Bee Yin said at a press conference that nine shipping containers holding waste from the U.S., the United Kingdom, Singapore, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh would be shipped back to their countries of origin, CNN reported.

ADVERTISEMENT

At a press conference Tuesday, Yeo told reporters that Western nations were guilty of exporting massive amounts of waste to developing nations like Malaysia, pointing to one company in the U.K. which she said was responsible for more than 50,000 tons of plastic imported to Malaysia over just two years.

“We urge the developed countries to review their management of plastic waste and stop shipping garbage to developing countries,” she said.

Click Here:

Malaysia’s government is reportedly working to cut down on illegal plastic waste imports, though there is no evidence of any wrongdoing yet regarding Tuesday’s discovery of mislabeled containers.

A Greenpeace investigation found that Malaysia’s waste processing industry has become overwhelmed by an influx of requests for countries to dump plastic waste, leading to companies resorting to dangerous practices such as open-air burning.

“The Malaysian plastic recycling industry is overwhelmed by the influx and cannot accommodate the waste in a way that is sustainable and acceptable by the government’s own standards. Our investigation found evidence of harmful plastic waste processing being carried out in Klang, on the western outskirts of the capital Kuala Lumpur, and Jenjarom to the south,” Heng Kiah Chun, a Greenpeace Malaysia spokesperson, said in a press release.

A climate researcher compared the Trump administration’s stance on climate science to the Soviet Union, according to The New York Times.

Philip Duffy, the president of the Woods Hole Research Center, told the paper that the administration’s plans to stop including worst-case emissions scenario projections in a key national report are a “blatant attempt to politicize” climate science. 

“What we have here is a pretty blatant attempt to politicize the science — to push the science in a direction that’s consistent with their politics,” Duffy, a member of a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the government’s most recent National Climate Assessment, said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It reminds me of the Soviet Union.”

The next edition of the National Climate Assessment is due to be released in the next two years. The administration wants the report to stop including projections showing worst-case scenarios, such as predictions the Earth could warm as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

James Reilly, the director of the United States Geological Survey, has ordered that his office only conduct assessments projecting climate change’s impact through 2040 rather than the end of the century, according to the Times.

A spokesperson for the Environmental Protection Agency defended the changes, telling the Times that the projections could generate inaccurate data.

“The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future,” EPA spokesman James Hewitt told the newspaper.

The administration is also reportedly considering creating a new panel headed by Princeton physicist William Happer devoted to questioning the scientific consensus on climate change.

While Trump is not yet fully sold on the panel, according to the Times, he has pushed to revive an idea promoted by former EPA Administrator Scott PruittEdward (Scott) Scott PruittOn The Money: Conservative blocks disaster relief bill | Trade high on agenda as Trump heads to Japan | Boeing reportedly faces SEC probe over 737 Max | Study finds CEO pay rising twice as fast as worker pay Overnight Energy: Democrats push EPA to collect 4K in ‘excessive’ Pruitt travel expenses | Greens angered over new rules for rocket fuel chemical | Inslee to join youth climate strikers in Las Vegas Democrats push EPA to collect 4K from Pruitt for ‘excessive airfare expenses’ MORE for a series of debates on the validity of climate change. 

Click Here:

Former FBI Director James ComeyJames Brien ComeyLiz Cheney: Statements by agents investigating Trump ‘could well be treason’ Five takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump orders intel agencies to cooperate with Barr probe into ‘spying’ on 2016 campaign MORE is accusing President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE of peddling “dumb lies” by asserting that bureau officials engaged in “treason” against him by investigating links between Russia and his campaign.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Comey, a frequent critic of Trump, brands the president “a liar” and argues for the need to call him out for what the former FBI director calls Trump’s baseless rants about “treason and corruption” at the FBI.

ADVERTISEMENT

Comey also declares that the FBI did not “spy” on Trump’s or any other presidential campaign — a dig at Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrTrump math: 1 + 1 + 1 = zero accountability Trump’s declassification order helps Barr to uncover the truth Liz Cheney: Statements by agents investigating Trump ‘could well be treason’ MORE, who said last month that he believed Trump’s campaign was spied on and that he was reviewing the origins of the investigation to determine whether intelligence collection was adequately predicated.

“Millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions,” Comey writes. “We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign, and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.”

As recently as last week, Trump suggested Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabeAndrew George McCabeLiz Cheney: Statements by agents investigating Trump ‘could well be treason’ Five takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of ‘destroying the lives’ of his campaign staffers MORE and other officials had committed “treason” by conducting the original counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump and some Republicans have long alleged the investigation was started by agents biased against the president, pointing to text messages exchanged by former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page — both of whom worked on the original Russia investigation — in which the two expressed criticisms of Trump before the election.

“A number of people. They have unsuccessfully tried to take down the wrong person,” Trump told reporters on Thursday.

In the op-ed, Comey describes the treason accusations as a baseless “conspiracy theory,” arguing that agents would have leaked the existence of the probe into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia if they were intent on handing Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonClintons march in Memorial Day parade Nevada emerges as wild card in 2020 Democratic race Tester will endorse a 2020 candidate ‘in the next week’ MORE the election over him.

“The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield. But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must,” Comey writes.

“When those investigations are over, they will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances,” he writes.

Comey also writes that the FBI was justified in its original investigation into Russian interference. Comey points to information the bureau received about former Trump campaign adviser George PapadopoulosGeorge Demetrios PapadopoulosPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Former FBI lawyer defends agency’s probe into Trump campaign officials GOP senator calls Comey a ‘hack politician’ who ‘knows what’s coming’ MORE learning the Russians had information that could damage Clinton before WikiLeaks began releasing hacked emails that were tied to the Russian plot.

Comey also pushes back on Republican suggestions that the FBI abused its surveillance powers in applying for a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, noting investigators believed they had “probable cause” to seek such a warrant and that there was “reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government.”

Barr is currently conducting a review of what he has described as the “genesis and conduct” of the original counterintelligence investigation. Barr has tapped John DurhamJohn DurhamFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump orders intel agencies to cooperate with Barr probe into ‘spying’ on 2016 campaign Attorney General Barr puts former intel bosses on notice MORE, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to spearhead the investigation. The Justice Department inspector general is also conducting an investigation into whether the FBI followed protocol in applying for the warrant to surveil Page and is expected to wrap up in May or June.

Trump last week gave Barr the power to unilaterally declassify documents related to his investigation and ordered U.S. intelligence officials to swiftly cooperate with the attorney general in his probe.

Special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump orders more troops to Mideast amid Iran tensions Trump: Democrats just want Mueller to testify for a ‘do-over’ Graham: Mueller investigation a ‘political rectal exam’ MORE took over the Russia investigation after Trump abruptly fired Comey in May 2017 — an event that sent shock waves through Washington and is examined extensively in the special counsel’s final report as one potential episode of obstruction by Trump.

Mueller wrapped up his probe in late March. He did not find evidence to charge members of Trump’s campaign of conspiring with the Kremlin; the special counsel did not reach a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice, but Barr has deemed the evidence insufficient to accuse Trump of obstruction.

Click Here:

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you don’t already, be sure to sign up for our newsletter with this LINK.

Welcome! Follow the cyber team, Olivia Beavers (@olivia_beavers) and Maggie Miller (@magmill95), and the tech team, Harper Neidig (@hneidig) and Emily Birnbaum (@birnbaum_e).

 

FACEBOOK CLAPS BACK: A Facebook representative on Tuesday defended the company’s decision to not take down a video of Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiTrump: Dems are getting nothing done in Congress Seven key allies for Pelosi on impeachment Democrats claim victory as Trump gets battered in court MORE (D-Calif.) that was meant to make her appear drunk, saying flagging the video and not removing it promoted user choice.

Neil Potts, Facebook’s public policy manager, said taking that approach allows people to understand what the video is and why it has been flagged.

“It is our policy to inform people when we have information that might be false on the platform so they can make their own decisions about that content,” Potts said during a meeting of the International Grand Committee on Big Data, Privacy, and Democracy in Ottawa, Canada.

ADVERTISEMENT

The grand committee includes politicians from a dozen countries who meet with representatives of Facebook and other tech companies to discuss how to protect privacy and prevent abuse on social media.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are grappling with how to handle fake and manipulated videos after the Pelosi video racked up millions of views and raised the debate in the United States. Experts are warning that manipulated videos will be a new frontier for social media companies and people running for office in 2020.

The remarks from Potts underline Facebook’s view that the videos ultimately come down to a form of free expression, and that those seeing the videos on social media simply need to be told of their full context.

The Pelosi video was slowed down to make the Speaker appear to be slurring her words.

While it did not take down the video, Facebook said it had been flagged by company fact checkers as “false,” and that as a result Facebook was “heavily reducing its distribution in News Feed and showing additional context from this fact-checker,” such as related articles.

But in Ottawa and Washington, some said that was not enough.

Read more here.

 

ICYMI over the weekend… All eyes on fake Pelosi video: A fake video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) posted to Facebook on Thursday that was edited to make her appear drunk is underscoring a quickly evolving danger for 2020 campaigns.

One cycle after Russia’s interference in the election through hacks and fake posts on social media wreaked havoc, presidential candidates now have to worry about videos doctored by artificial intelligence technologies that can make candidates say things they didn’t say or look completely different.

The video of Pelosi posted to Facebook didn’t use such advanced technologies.

It was slowed down to make Pelosi appear unwell or potentially drunk, and it still succeeded in fooling many people — at least judged by comment boards.

The video had been viewed more than 2.5 million times as of Friday afternoon. Facebook is refusing to remove the clip, saying it doesn’t violate platform guidelines, though it is not recommending the video in its news feed.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE waded into the controversy, tweeting a clip from Fox Business Network that compiled every time Pelosi stumbled over her words during a recent press conference. The clip included a Fox News commentator saying Pelosi appeared “worn down.”

Coupled with remarks by Trump, it at least appeared the president was trying to use the fake video to his advantage to build a narrative that the Speaker “had lost it,” in Trump’s words. But Trump denied knowing about the fake video.

The fake Pelosi video points to a danger that experts have increasingly been warning about. Fabrice Pothier, a senior advisor for the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity, said foreign actors could use fake videos “to sow distrust and decredibilise their opponents.”

Pothier said the Pelosi video is essentially a cheap one, and more advanced fakes are coming.

Read more here.

 

And there’s more on today’s hearing in Canada…

 

BAD LUCK FOR ZUCK? Facebook CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergFacebook’s Zuckerberg and Sandberg reportedly refuse Canadian hearing summons Hillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality On The Money: Conservative blocks disaster relief bill | Trade high on agenda as Trump heads to Japan | Boeing reportedly faces SEC probe over 737 Max | Study finds CEO pay rising twice as fast as worker pay MORE could be held in contempt of Canadian Parliament if he keeps ignoring requests from lawmakers in that country to testify before their government, Canadian Conservative Member of Parliament Bob Zimmer said Tuesday.

Canadian lawmakers voted Tuesday to issue an open-ended summons for Zuckerberg and Facebook Chief Financial Officer Sheryl Sandberg, meaning the two will face a summons to appear before the Parliament the next time they set foot in Canada. If the executives fail to abide by those summons, Canadian lawmakers would vote on a motion to hold them in contempt of Parliament, Zimmer said.

If approved, that motion could result in jail time for the powerful executives, though it is unlikely it would play out that way.

“It’s only fitting that there’s an ongoing summons, so as soon as they step foot into our country they will be served and expected to [sit in front of] our committee,” said Zimmer, chairman of the Canadian House of Commons committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

How we got here: Zimmer made the announcement after Zuckerberg and Sandberg flouted a subpoena to appear before the committee during a hearing about privacy, misinformation and hate speech attended by lawmakers from around the globe.

Throughout the testy event, lawmakers expressed outrage at the executives for failing to comply with the subpoena, instead opting to send Facebook’s head of public policy in Canada Kevin Chan and its director of public policy Neil Potts.

Jo Stevens, a U.K. member of Parliament, said at the hearing that members of the committee had crossed oceans to make it more convenient for Zuckerberg to testify. Potts said he and Chan have been tasked with representing the company.

The international hearing included representatives from countries including Ireland, Singapore, the United Kingdom and more.

Read more here.

 

IRANIAN MISINFORMATION: Facebook and Twitter said Tuesday that they are working to kneecap an escalating Iran-linked online campaign that was spreading misinformation in the U.S. since months before the 2018 midterms.

In a blog post, Facebook said it removed 51 Facebook accounts, 36 Pages, seven Groups and three Instagram accounts that originated in Iran and have engaged in “coordinated” inauthentic behavior. The pages had amassed about 21,000 followers by the time they were taken down.

Facebook said the individuals behind the activity were pretending to be located in the U.S. and Europe, and at various points misrepresented themselves as journalists or news outlets in order to gain influence and amplify their messages bolstering Iran’s political agenda.   

Twitter said it removed the network of 2,800 inauthentic accounts originating in Iran at the beginning of May.

“Our investigations into these accounts are ongoing,” a Twitter spokesperson told The Hill. “As we continue to investigate potential wider networks and actors, we typically avoid making any declarative public statements until we can be sure that we have reached the end of our analyses.”

Both of the company’s announcements came on the heels of a report from top cybersecurity firm FireEye, which on Wednesday published its report on an Iran-linked misinformation campaign it had identified on Facebook and Twitter.

FireEye has been investigating a network of English-language social media accounts working to promote messages supporting “Iranian political interests” – mostly anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian and anti-Saudi sentiments. FireEye found that some of the accounts were impersonating real Americans, including some Republican political candidates who ran for the House in 2018, while others represented themselves as journalists. Some of the accounts successfully had letters and articles published in top publications such as the Los Angeles Times and The New York Daily News.  

According to FireEye, most of the accounts they’d been tracking over the past year were suspended around May 9.

Read more on the misinformation campaign here.

 

NETFLIX BECOMES NETFIGHTS: Netflix says it’ll work with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to “fight” against Georgia’s so-called heartbeat abortion law.

“We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law,” Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said in a statement Tuesday first reported by Variety. “It’s why we will work with the ACLU and others to fight it in court.”

The legislation, signed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) earlier this month, bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is sometimes as early as six weeks.

Several actors and production companies have since threatened to pull their projects that are based in the Peach State in protest of the abortion bill, which is poised to take effect in January.

“We thank Netflix for offering to support our upcoming lawsuit against Georgia’s unconstitutional abortion ban,” Talcott Camp, deputy director with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement to The Hill. “The moment is now — no one can sit on the sidelines while our reproductive rights are under attack.”

Multiple Netflix productions are currently filming in Georgia, according to the state’s department of economic development, including the Emma Roberts feature film “Holidate” and the third season of the drama series “Ozark,” among others.

What this could mean: In his statement, Sarandos also said the media giant would “rethink” its slate of productions in Georgia if the law goes into effect.

Read more here.

 

HEALTH ORG SAYS YOUR PARENTS ARE RIGHT ABOUT VIDEO GAMES: Addiction to video games is now considered a mental health disorder by a leading international body.

The World Health Organization (WHO) added video game addiction to its International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in an update Saturday, according to NBC News.

The classification refers to “gaming disorder” as “a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behavior” that becomes so extensive it “takes precedence over other life interests.” The move comes less than a year after WHO added gaming addiction to its list of potentially harmful technology-related behaviors.

Shekhar Saxena, the WHO’s expert on mental health and substance abuse, told NBC News that the disorder is rare and is only diagnosed following months of extended playing.

Pushback: A lobbying group for the video game industry pushed back on the new classification, saying video games are “enjoyed safely and sensibly by more than 2 billion people worldwide” and noting that the “educational, therapeutic, and recreational value” of games is widely recognized.

Read more here.

 

SLEEP WELL TONIGHT: A key component of malware used by hackers to disrupt U.S. cities, paralyzing local governments and frustrating residents, was developed by the National Security Agency (NSA), The New York Times reported.

The NSA reportedly lost control of the tool, called EternalBlue, in 2017.

After that, it was used across the globe by hackers in Russia, China and North Korea, according to the Times, which added that it has affected hospitals, airports, shipping operators, ATMs and factories.

More recently, it has been used against a number of U.S. cities, including the recent high-profile ransomware attack on Baltimore in which computers were frozen and water bills, health alerts, real estate sales and other services were disrupted, the newspaper reports.

On May 7, city workers’ screens suddenly locked and a message demanded $100,000 to free the city’s files. Baltimore has not paid and almost three weeks later remains affected.

According to the Times, damage from these attacks would be less vast without EternalBlue.

Read more here.

 

TWITTER THREAD OF THE DAY: How one guy tracked down the personal data companies have on him.

 

AN OP-ED TO CHEW ON: Three reasons you should pay attention to the OECD artificial intelligence principles.

 

A LIGHTER CLICK: When your parents ask how far ahead you’ve planned your future.

Click Here:

 

NOTABLE LINKS FROM AROUND THE WEB:

Colorado students secretly photographed for government-led facial recognition research. (The Denver Post)

An in depth look at Huawei’s rise over the years and the multiple allegations lobbed against it. (The Wall Streete Journal)

Google’s shadow work force: temps who outnumber full-time employees. (The New York Times)

Amazon is poised to unleash a long-feared purge of small suppliers. (Bloomberg News)

The Supreme Court avoided making a major ruling on abortion Tuesday, even as conservative Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasJuan Williams: Anti-abortion extremism is on the rise Teflon Joe? Biden brushes off attacks Anita Hill: Female 2020 Democrats ‘not being taken seriously’ MORE warned it would not be able to put off the inevitable for much longer.

The court handed down a pair of rulings on an Indiana abortion law — letting stand one part of the statute that requires remains from an abortion or miscarriage be buried, but keeping in place a lower court ruling that struck down the ban on abortions based on the fetus’s gender, race or disabilities.

ADVERTISEMENT

The decisions come as Republican-led state legislatures have approved a series of laws in recent months aimed at getting the high court’s conservative majority to potentially overturn the Roe v. Wade decision now that Justices Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchDemocratic groups gear up to use abortion rights as attack on GOP in 2020 2020 Dems break political taboos by endorsing litmus tests Kennedy considering retiring from Supreme Court: reports MORE and Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughDemocratic groups gear up to use abortion rights as attack on GOP in 2020 Murkowski celebrates birthday with electric scooter ride Graham urges Trump not to abandon infrastructure talks with Democrats MORE, both nominated by President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE, are on the bench.

The rightward shift has abortion-rights supporters nervous and abortion opponents hoping the court will hand down a ruling that severely restricts the procedure or makes it illegal.

Thomas, in an opinion already being touted by prominent conservatives, agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to let lower courts decide first on a part of the Indiana law stopping abortions based on the fetus’s sex, gender or disability. But he said the court will have to take up abortion laws in the near future, writing that he was concerned about the possibility of abortions being used for “eugenics.”

“Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever,” Thomas wrote. “Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope.”

The court gave a partial win to conservatives by allowing the provision on the disposal of fetal remains to stand.

Vice President Pence, who signed the legislation into law as Indiana’s governor in 2014, tweeted that allowing the fetal remains law to stay in place was “a victory for life!”

He added he was “hopeful” that in the future the Supreme Court “will recognize the same protections for the unborn” when it comes to shielding against discrimination on the basis of sex, race and disability.

By issuing the opinion on the fetal remains, the court avoids having to hear oral arguments on the Indiana abortion law during its upcoming term and delve even deeper into the topic. The next term begins in October.

But the justices weren’t unanimous in their decision: Justices Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorSotomayor breaks shoulder, but won’t miss work Sotomayor: Judges haven’t become politicized, but society has Sotomayor calls for ‘diversity’ in Supreme Court, in several ways MORE and Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader Ginsburg’RBG’ gets four MTV Movie & TV Awards nominations Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court for oral arguments Ginsburg released from hospital following cancer surgery MORE publicly stated that they would have allowed the lower court rulings against both provisions of the law to stand. It was not clear how most of the other justices would have ruled.

Ginsburg wrote in a separate opinion that while she agreed with the decision to not take up the case involving one aspect of the Indiana law, she felt that the fetal remains provision should have had further review by the court, as she believed it invoked Supreme Court precedent on abortion.

“This case implicates ‘the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state,’ so heightened review is in order,” she wrote.

However, Thomas’s lengthy opinion made the argument that lower appeals courts should make further rulings on abortion laws before the Supreme Court addresses the issue.

He made clear he would prefer that happen sooner rather than later, arguing there is “the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation.”

Anti-abortion groups were quick to celebrate Thomas’s opinion, which heavily featured statements by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger that promoted eugenics.

Sanger, who died in 1966, did make comments in favor of eugenics on the basis of disability, but Planned Parenthood has since denounced that viewpoint. The abortion-rights group was behind the legal challenge to that aspect of the Indiana law.

ADVERTISEMENT

“No one deserves to lose her life just because she was born with Down syndrome or because of the color of her skin,” Jeanne Mancini, the president for March for Life, said in a statement. “As Justice Thomas commented in his concurring opinion, laws like this that bar such discrimination ‘promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern day eugenics.’ ”

Rachel Morrison, litigation counsel for Americans United for Life, told The Hill that while the justices didn’t take up the abortion law, Thomas’s concurring opinion is a signal to lower courts that “their hands are not tied on this issue.”

Thomas wrote in his opinion that a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade “did not decide whether the Constitution requires states to allow eugenic abortions” — a statement that Morrison said could be cited by judges when they are faced with abortion restrictions similar to the one struck down in Indiana.

“It’s going to have a big impact as far as how these laws are viewed both by individuals who want to prohibit this kind of discrimination, and then also by judges who … are trying to uphold Supreme Court precedent and apply the law faithfully,” Morrison said.

Tuesday’s decision comes as federal courts across the U.S. are bracing for legal challenges to recently passed abortion measures. Laws in Alabama and Ohio are already the subject of lawsuits, and a federal judge in Mississippi last week blocked that state’s ban on abortions upon detection of a fetal heartbeat.

Some of the conservative authors behind those restrictive laws hope to take them all the way to the Supreme Court, with their eye on a potential reversal of Roe v. Wade. But legal experts are doubtful that justices would want to wade into such a controversial topic at this time, particularly with the 2020 elections on the horizon.

Morrison, however, said that waiting too long to take up an abortion case could backfire and cause the justices to appear more political.

“It starts looking very political pretty quickly if you start not taking any abortion-related cases,” Morrison said.

Carol Sanger, a law professor at Columbia University, said that if the court had decided to take up the Indiana abortion law next term, it would have required them to implicitly make a ruling on Roe v. Wade, as it related to under which circumstances a woman can obtain an abortion.

The precedent set by Roe protects women’s rights to abortions for the initial part of their pregnancy without giving specific reasons.

Sanger said that by allowing the fetal remains law to stay in place, the court was giving a smaller victory to conservatives without having to dive into the broader issue, as the disposal of fetal remains takes place after a woman has already had an abortion.

However, she said the justices’s decision to not fully take up the Indiana abortion law is a strong signal that they aren’t quite prepared to take on measures that fall under the scope of Roe v. Wade.

“I would say that the court clearly doesn’t seem to be in a rush to do this. They had material before them today where they could have done it,” Sanger said. “And they chose not to.”

Click Here:

KLOBUCHAR CALLS FOR TOUGHER ETHANOL STANDARDS IN CORN COUNTRY: Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharMeghan McCain to Amy Klobuchar: Leave my father ‘out of presidential politics’ 2020 Democrats jockey over surging college costs Democratic senator says McCain listed off names of dictators during Trump inaugural MORE (D-Minn.), a 2020 presidential candidate, is proposing changes to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biofuel regulations that could help her win over support in Iowa.

Speaking at a campaign stop over the weekend in Iowa, the country’s top corn producer, Klobuchar called for the EPA to give away fewer of its waivers that allow oil refineries to avoid mixing their fuel with ethanol, according to Reuters.

The waivers, aimed at helping small refineries meet fuel standards, exempt some refineries from the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires oil refiners to blend ethanol with their gasoline pool or purchase credits from refiners that do.

ADVERTISEMENT

Smaller refineries with a capacity of less than 75,000 barrels per day can obtain a waiver after proving that complying with the rule could cause financial stress. But ethanol groups and politicians representing corn-producing states have long called for the EPA to reconsider how it grants the waivers.

What Klobuchar is proposing: Klobuchar called the EPA’s waivers “misguided” and said the biofuels trading market is manipulated by financial institutions, according to Reuters.

She called for new compliance standards and oversight, a stance likely to drum up support from ethanol groups and leaders in Iowa, a key battleground state in the 2020 race.

Read more about the ethanol waivers here.

 

HAPPY RECESS TUESDAY! Welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news.

Please send tips and comments to Miranda Green, mgreen@thehill.com and Rebecca Beitsch, rbeitsch@thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @mirandacgreen, @rebeccabeitsch and @thehill.

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our newsletter.

 

EPA QUESTIONED FOXCONN AS TRUMP PROMOTED PROJECT: Political appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reportedly convinced then-EPA Administrator Scott PruittEdward (Scott) Scott PruittOn The Money: Conservative blocks disaster relief bill | Trade high on agenda as Trump heads to Japan | Boeing reportedly faces SEC probe over 737 Max | Study finds CEO pay rising twice as fast as worker pay Overnight Energy: Democrats push EPA to collect 4K in ‘excessive’ Pruitt travel expenses | Greens angered over new rules for rocket fuel chemical | Inslee to join youth climate strikers in Las Vegas Democrats push EPA to collect 4K from Pruitt for ‘excessive airfare expenses’ MORE to reverse course on declaring a Wisconsin county in violation of federal smog standards, a move that allowed Foxconn to build a facility in the area without new anti-pollution technologies.

Documents obtained by the Sierra Club and reported by the Star Tribune revealed that a top scientist at the agency questioned the basis for Pruitt’s guidance that reversed an earlier decision by officials to declare Racine County as “non-attainment,” meaning it would have to adopt new standards to battle air pollution to continue receiving federal funds.

“I do not see a sound technical basis for the area we are being directed to finalize in Wisconsin,” Jenny Liljegren, an EPA scientist focused on air quality, wrote in April 2018, according to the Star Tribune.

“I am still in disbelief,” added another who was not named.

A former acting air quality administrator with the EPA called the revelations in the emails “disturbing,” adding that it showed a preference for political influence over the agency’s actual scientific work.

“To see apparent direction from political leadership that the technical staff is objecting to is disturbing,” Janet McCabe, former head of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation,  told the Star Tribune.

Read more on the Foxconn controversy here.

 

IS NUCLEAR NECESSARY? The declining use of nuclear power may increase reliance on fossil fuels, making it harder for countries to meet their goal of reducing carbon emissions, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

“Without an important contribution from nuclear power, the global energy transition will be that much harder,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, said in a Tuesday statement on the study. “Alongside renewables, energy efficiency and other innovative technologies, nuclear can make a significant contribution to achieving sustainable energy goals and enhancing energy security. But unless the barriers it faces are overcome, its role will soon be on a steep decline worldwide, particularly in the United States, Europe and Japan.”

The issue: Aging nuclear power plants in the U.S. and elsewhere mean many of the plants are set to fall out of use before renewables like wind and solar are able to fill in the gaps. Some advocates worry that will lead to further reliance on fossil fuels as utilities work to meet growing demand for electricity.

Nuclear power supplies about 20 percent of U.S. electric generation. It also occupies a controversial role in the energy economy. Though it provides low-carbon energy, many environmentalists don’t consider nuclear a clean source of energy given that nuclear waste must be properly stored for decades.

Some environmental groups, however, back its use as an alternative to fossil fuel sources. In a report earlier this month the Union of Concerned Scientists found that retiring nuclear plants could lead to a spike in fossil fuel use.

The IEA advises that countries work to extend the life of aging nuclear facilities, despite the expense. Getting another 10 years out of a facility could range from $500 million to $1 billion.

But that dollar amount could be similar to the investments needed for new large-scale renewable projects and “can lead to a more secure, less disruptive energy transition,” the IEA wrote.

Fight over subsidies: States like New York and Illinois have chosen to subsidize nuclear power, spurring lawsuits from the Electric Power Supply Association, which represents power producers and marketers. Those cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not take them up, leaving the subsidies in place.

New York has argued that the subsidies were necessary to avoid plant closures.

“If they close before enough new renewable resources are built, the gap will be filled with fossil-fuel generation and emissions will spike,” the state wrote in a legal brief.

Read more about the study here.

 

And two deep dives from the Memorial Day weekend. First up, Miranda looks at the pressure on former Vice President Biden over his coming climate plan.

 

BIDEN UNDER PRESSURE ON CLIMATE: Former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenTrump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support Will top 2020 Democrats make ending war in Afghanistan a defining issue or an afterthought? Nevada emerges as wild card in 2020 Democratic race MORE is expected to unveil his climate change plan any day now, and he’s under increasing pressure from environmentalists who want him to take a strong position against fossil fuels.

The former Delaware senator has touted his decades-long environmental record in Congress and the Obama White House, but progressives argue that his approach to climate change is outdated and his record is anything but spotless.

Biden’s position on climate could open him up to further attacks from the left wing of the party and create an obstacle to winning the party’s nomination, especially since the environment is the main concern for liberal voters.

The criticism: “Joe Biden or any presidential candidate who wants to win over voters living though climate disasters today has to give us more than something he did 30 years ago,” said Charlie Jiang, climate campaigner for Greenpeace.

According to media reports, his plan’s main goals will consist of keeping the U.S. in the 2015 Paris climate agreement and reversing the Trump administration’s rollback of Obama-era environmental rules.

But progressives and climate activists have criticized any approach that involves moderate or steady steps.

More on Biden’s challenge here.

 

And Rebecca looked at the growing fight over cancer-causing chemicals in the water supply.

 

FIGHT LOOMS OVER CHEMICALS IN WATER: An aggressive push by Congress to pass bipartisan legislation addressing cancer-causing chemicals that are leaching into the water supply is setting the stage for a fight with the Trump administration.

The chemicals, commonly abbreviated as PFAS, are used in items ranging from food wrappers and Teflon pans to raincoats and firefighting foam. But studies have found that as they break down and find their way into drinking water, they can cause a variety of negative health effects.

PFAS has been linked with kidney and thyroid cancer along with high cholesterol and other illnesses. Contamination has spread to 43 states, and a 2015 study found 98 percent of Americans tested now have the chemical in their blood.

The bipartisan push to tackle the problem is setting up a clash with agencies, in particular the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Pentagon, that have been resistant to regulating the chemicals.

More on the controversy here.

 

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY:

EPA fills southeast post, six months after prior chief indicted, Bloomberg reports.

Coal Ash Prevention Act moves forward to Illinois governor’s desk, KHQA reports.

As North Dakota oil soars, so does waste of natural gas, the Associated Press reports.

Bill banning sales of shark fins in Connecticut awaits Senate vote, the Associated Press reports.

 

ICYMI:

Stories from Tuesday and over the weekend…

Biden under pressure from environmentalists on climate plan

Lawmakers, Trump agencies set for clash over chemicals in water

Trump administration proposes closing 9 Civilian Conservation Centers

Schwarzenegger blasts Trump for not attending climate change conference

Trump appointees overruled EPA experts on pollution requirements for Foxconn site: report

Klobuchar, in Iowa, calls for changes to EPA ethanol rules

Malaysia’s last Sumatran rhino dies, dealing blow to critically endangered species

Scientist compares Trump’s climate stance to Soviet Union

Malaysia sending contaminated plastic waste back to US, other countries

Declining use of nuclear power may increase reliance on fossil fuels: study

Click Here:

A coalition of civil rights groups on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, asking a federal judge to strike down a recently issued “conscience protection” rule that allows health care providers to refuse to provide care on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The suit, filed in coordination with Santa Clara County in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues the rule is unconstitutional.

According to the groups, which include Lambda Legal, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Center for Reproductive Rights, the rule will result in “mass confusion among health care providers and is completely infeasible to implement.” 

As a result, they argue, health care facilities may do away with reproductive and LGBTQ services altogether, leaving millions without access to critical health care.

Tuesday’s lawsuit is the latest challenge to the rule, which President TrumpDonald John TrumpCitizenship and Immigration Services union blasts Trump’s pick to head agency Texas secretary of state resigns after botched voter purge Trump hits Biden for 1994 crime bill support MORE personally announced earlier this month during the National Day of Prayer.

A coalition led by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) filed a similar lawsuit last week, as did California Attorney General Xavier BecerraXavier BecerraOvernight Energy: Trump moves forward with rule on California drilling | House panel advances bill that resumes participation in Paris climate fund | Perry pressed on ‘environmental justice’ | 2020 Dem proposes climate corps Trump administration moves forward with final rule to allow new California drilling Overnight Energy: Interior chief says climate response falls on Congress | Bernhardt insists officials will complete offshore drilling plans | Judge rules EPA must enforce Obama landfill pollution rules MORE (D). The city of San Francisco is also suing.

The rule expressly singles out transgender people, and “invites religious and moral objections to treating transgender patients,” said Jamie Gliksberg, senior attorney at Lambda Legal.

“This rule erodes trust between patients and providers,” Gliksberg said. “Health care providers should not be encouraged to toy with whether to provide life-saving care.”

The rule is scheduled to take effect on July 22. Its proponents say it aims to protect health care workers and institutions from having to violate their religious or moral beliefs by participating in abortions, providing contraception, sterilization or other procedures.

According to the complaint, however, the rule “endangers patients’ health in the name of advancing the religious beliefs of those who are entrusted with caring for them — a result sharply at odds with the stated mission of the Department of Health and Human Services.”

Click Here:

The complaint alleges the rule “infringes the constitutional rights of patients by impermissibly advancing the religious beliefs of individual employees over the constitutional rights of patients, including patients’ rights to liberty and privacy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.”

The rule is part of a recent string of policies from the Trump administration that favor religious conservatives. Last week, the administration proposed a policy that would roll back anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ patients.

The administration is also attempting to stop providers receiving federal family planning grants from referring women for abortions. That proposal was recently blocked in federal court.

The State Department on Tuesday called recent Russian and Syrian government airstrikes in northwest Syria a “reckless escalation” as Syrian president Bashar Assad seeks to oust rebels from the country’s Idlib province.

“Indiscriminate attacks on civilians and public infrastructure such as schools, markets and hospitals is a reckless escalation of the conflict and is unacceptable,” State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The violence must end,” she added.

Click Here:

Recent government airstrikes, backed by Assad’s allies in Moscow, have uprooted more than 300,000 people and killed 229 civilians, according to the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations.

The statement came nearly a week after the State Department said it had seen signs that Assad may have renewed his use of chemical weapons in northwest Syria, warning Damascus of a quick response if such an attack were proved. 

Idlib is home to thousands of anti-government fighters and has been a focal point of clashes as Assad seeks to wipe out any remaining opposition to his government.

Syria’s civil war first began in 2011 and has left hundreds of thousands of civilians dead and forced millions of Syrians to flee violence.

Updated at 5:10 p.m.

Vice President Pence on Tuesday applauded the Supreme Court for upholding an Indiana law on the disposal of fetal remains that he signed in 2014 and said he’s “hopeful” the court will in the future rule in favor of abortion restrictions.

Pence tweeted he was “proud” to have signed the law requiring that fetal remains be buried or cremated after abortions, calling the ruling that upheld the law “a victory for life.”

 

Click Here:

ADVERTISEMENT

Pence had also signed into law another Indiana measure that blocked abortions on the basis of the sex, disability or race of the fetus. The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of an appeals court decision that struck down that law.

 

But Pence, like other conservatives, seized on a concurring opinion authored by Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasJuan Williams: Anti-abortion extremism is on the rise Teflon Joe? Biden brushes off attacks Anita Hill: Female 2020 Democrats ‘not being taken seriously’ MORE that cited eugenics being a possible motivation behind abortions as a reason to rule in favor of further restrictions on the medical procedures.

“Today, Justice Thomas wrote: SCOTUS has been zealous in the past in barring discrimination based on sex, race, & disability,” Pence tweeted. “Hopeful someday soon SCOTUS will recognize the same protections for the unborn when they rule on future appeals of pro-life legislation.”

Justices Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorSotomayor breaks shoulder, but won’t miss work Sotomayor: Judges haven’t become politicized, but society has Sotomayor calls for ‘diversity’ in Supreme Court, in several ways MORE and Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader Ginsburg’RBG’ gets four MTV Movie & TV Awards nominations Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court for oral arguments Ginsburg released from hospital following cancer surgery MORE said that they would have allowed both laws to remain invalidated.

 

But Thomas, in a 20-page concurring opinion, raised concerns about eugenics in arguing that the Supreme Court will have to rule on abortion laws in the near future.

“Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope,” the justice wrote.