Sewer Overflow Wastewater Spill into the Potomac River Near Washington D.C. May Be Largest in U.S. History

   A huge sewage and wastewater spill, possibly the largest in U.S. history, spilled toxic sewage into the Potomac River. DC Water reported that on January 19, there was a collapse in a section of the Potomac Interceptor located along the Clara Barton Parkway at the 495 interchange and C & O Canal National Historical Park.

     According to DC Water:

“Based on flow monitoring data collected before and after interim bypass pumping was activated, DC Water estimates that approximately 243 million gallons of wastewater has overflowed from the collapse site. The vast majority of this volume, approximately 194 million gallons, occurred within the first five days, prior to the overflows being significantly reduced through bypass pumping operations.”

“Efforts to reach the collapse site and finalize the repair strategy remain challenging due to the discovery of a rock dam inside the interceptor, which is significantly restricting internal access. DC Water is implementing a revised construction and repair approach that is expected to take 4-6 weeks and includes:

·        Construction of a new bypass pump location to enable the safe removal of rock at the collapse site.

·        Creation of a new upstream access point to facilitate repairs and enhance worker safety.

·        Development of a new downstream connection to the Potomac Interceptor to improve wastewater conveyance and reduce future risk.

·        Installation of an upstream bulkhead to restrict wastewater flow to the damaged section as much as possible.”

“In the interim, the existing bypass system remains operational and is successfully diverting wastewater around the damaged pipe section and back into the Potomac Interceptor. Some limited overflows have occurred, primarily due to increased wastewater flow associated with snowmelt and brief pump maintenance and operational issues. For example, during overnight pump maintenance, up to 300 gallons of wastewater escaped but was contained and did not reach the Potomac River.”

“Until full functionality is restored to the Potomac Interceptor, there remains a residual risk of additional limited overflows.  However, both the likelihood and volume of any future releases are expected to remain minimal.”

     Early water testing showed extremely high levels of E. Coli. 

     They report that there have been no significant overflows since the connector was successfully bypassed. Water testing is occurring daily. They reached the collapsed sewer line section on February 19, a month after the spill. It is a slow process. First, the wastewater had to be blocked off and rerouted through the bypass. Then, a way to access the damaged section had to be devised.

     Water testing by the University of Maryland School of Public Health found E. coli at very high levels and Staphylococcus aureus, including its resistant version known as MRSA, in the river. They also note:

“Up to 75,000 sewage overflows happen every year in the United States, according to UMD’s Water Emergency Team (WET), exposing residents to raw sewage, waterborne pathogens and possibly antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The effects are serious, including illnesses such as bacterial infections that can cause serious illness and death.”

     DC Water reported that they reached the damaged section after installing a steel bulkhead gate.

“Crews were able to reach the damaged pipe section, after the successful installation of a steel bulkhead gate that is now blocking all flow in the pipe. At the same time, the enhanced bypass pumping system is fully operational and diverting wastewater around the collapse site and back into the Potomac Interceptor further downstream. This critical step has enabled workers to access the site safely and begin assessing the pipe for repairs. The manual nature of this work underscores the complexity of the situation and the debris at the collapse site must be removed to fully expose the pipe for engineers to evaluate the damage inside.”

     Trump recently weighed in on the broken infrastructure, blaming it on Maryland Governor Wes Moore. However, Moore pointed out that DC Water, who owns and operates the infrastructure, is under federal jurisdiction. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser visited the site on February 19.

“Repairs are expected to be completed by mid-March, restoring full flow and function to the Potomac Interceptor. At that point the bypass pumping system utilizing the C & O Canal will no longer be needed.  Once the collapse site is cleared, work will begin to remove a 30-foot rock dam blocking the pipe. Crews will need to proceed carefully not to trigger another collapse, due to the uncertain integrity of the remaining pipe.”

     The Potomac Interceptor was built in 1960 and is now 66 years old. The spill is perhaps an important indicator that we need to pay more attention to aging infrastructure, although underground pipes of any sort are difficult to monitor.

     DC Water CEO David L. Gadis summarized what happened in a February 11 post:

“On the evening of Monday, January 19, 2026, security cameras detected unusual activity near one of our odor control facilities along the Clara Barton Parkway. That alert led our teams to discover a collapse in a section of the Potomac Interceptor sewer line, which resulted in an uncontrolled overflow of wastewater into the Potomac River. From that moment forward, DC Water crews and contractors mobilized around the clock - through sub-freezing temperatures and severe winter weather - to contain the overflow, protect public safety, and begin repairs to the 72-inch pipe. By January 24, an emergency bypass was activated to reroute flows and stop the discharge.”

   

 

 

References:

 

Potomac wastewater spill appears to be largest in US history. Tara Suter. The Hill. February 12, 2026. Potomac wastewater spill appears to be largest in US history

DC Water’s Potomac Interceptor. Potomac Interceptor Project | DC Water

DC Water Releases Key Findings on Extent of Sewer Overflow and Potomac River Impact. DC Water. February 6, 2026. DC Water Releases Key Findings on Extent of Sewer Overflow and Potomac River Impact | DC Water

An open letter from DC Water CEO David L. Gadis about the Potomac Interceptor, DC Water. February 11, 2026. An open letter from DC Water CEO David L. Gadis about the Potomac Interceptor | DC Water

UMD team finds E. coli, MRSA in Potomac River after sewage spill: Researchers find extremely high levels of disease-causing bacteria including an antibiotic-resistant strain, raising public health concerns. University of Maryland. School of Public Health. February 5, 2026. UMD team finds E. coli, MRSA in Potomac River after sewage spill | University of Maryland | School of Public Health

DC Water Reaches Collapsed Pipe Section; Damage Assessment Underway. DC Water. February 19, 2026.

UPDATE: Potomac Interceptor Collapse, February 18. DC Water. February 18, 2026. UPDATE: Potomac Interceptor Collapse, February 18 | DC Water

Food Waste Management is a Key to Better Solid Waste Management: Diverting It from Landfills Requires Funding, Personnel, and Storage Capacity

    Studies in 2020-2021 in Wisconsin identified food waste as composing 20% of solid waste, amounting to 854,000 tons, or 294 pounds per person per year. The study also concluded that three-quarters of that food waste could have been consumed. A new study indicates that food waste in the state has increased since then to 900,000 tons per year, and 47% of food waste was derived from residents.

     Other studies indicate that 40% of food ends up as food waste at a cost of as much as $3000 per household. I can confidently say that is not the case with me since I use my food efficiently and waste very little of it. In September 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the EPA announced the U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction goal of reducing food waste by half by 2030. Below are some data from the EPA’s 2019 Wasted Food Report, which was published in 2023. In attempting to discern whether EPA was meeting its goal, they noted in that report:

“In 2021, EPA updated the baseline and goal for the food waste part of the national goal to align with the food waste scope for Sustainable Development Goal Target 12.3 (United Nations, 2019), which aims to cut in half the amount of food from the food retail, food service, and residential sectors that has been removed from the human food supply chain (i.e., food waste that is being sent to: anaerobic digestion; composting; land application; controlled combustion; landfill; sewer/wastewater; and litter, discards and refuse).”

     The UN estimates that food loss and waste account for 8-10% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions at a cost of $1 trillion.

“In 2022, according to UNEP, 19% of food available to consumers was wasted at the retail, food service, and household level, in addition to the 13% of the world's food lost in the supply chain, as estimated by FAO. This level of waste is not only a missed opportunity to feed those in need but also a significant environmental burden.”

     According to the UN, the world is behind the trajectory of meeting the declared Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for reducing food loss and waste. For that goal to be achieved, an acceleration of reducing that waste will be required. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the U.S. or the UN will meet their food waste reduction goals, although we should be able to stabilize the issue and show some meaningful reduction. Significant challenges remain.

     The new Wisconsin study quantifies food waste, how much is diverted from landfills, and how it is diverted.  Food donation outlets are one method of diversion. Only 2% of statewide food waste in 2023 in Wisconsin, according to data. Another method of diversion is composting. The state has 286 licensed composting facilities, but only 30 accept food waste. Composting can reduce methane emissions from food as it decomposes.

     The report recommends increasing food rescue programs and promoting or incentivizing donations, including for use as animal feed. This is in line with EPA recommendations. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources notes that prevention has the most impact on food waste. Since residential food waste is the biggest source of landfilled food waste, focusing on residential food waste reduction can be impactful. Recommendations include better food storage and a better understanding of food dates. Other diversion methods include home composting and feeding animals. I used to do both, but I don’t compost much anymore. For me, even a small amount of composting generated too many fruit gnats. However, the local deer, raccoons, possums, and mice can often find (appropriate) food treats in the yard.

     Better food waste management means less food waste going to landfills, and this means less solid waste overall and less methane emissions, since food waste is readily converted to methane in landfills.

References:

 

New study finds surprising source of more than 20% of state's landfills: 'We're looking to ... increase public awareness'. Susan Elizabeth Turek. The Cool Down. February 13, 2026.  New study finds surprising source of more than 20% of state's landfills: 'We're looking to ... increase public awareness'

More than 900K tons of food waste ends up in Wisconsin landfills, report finds: Food waste made up 20 percent of the 4.5M tons of trash at Wisconsin landfills in 2024. Danielle Kaeding. Wisconsin Public Radio. February 5, 2026. More than 900K tons of food waste ends up in Wisconsin landfills, report finds - WPR

REDUCING FOOD WASTE AT HOME. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Reducing Food Waste at Home | | Wisconsin DNR

United States 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal. U.S. EPA. United States 2030 Food Loss and Waste Reduction Goal | US EPA

2019 Wasted Food Report: Estimates of generation and management of wasted food in the United States in 2019. U.S. EPA. April 2023. 2019 Wasted Food Report

Food loss and waste account for 8-10% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions; cost USD 1 trillion annually. UN Climate Change. 30 September 2024. Food loss and waste account for 8-10% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions; cost USD 1 trillion annually | UNFCCC

 

Ecomodernism: Modernity Without Ecology by Art Berman: Summary, Review, Critique, and Commentary

     Legendary energy consultant Art Berman is a realist, but many of us see him as quite a pessimist as well. Here, he argues that the Ecomodernists of the Breakthrough Institute are optimists who miss or ignore some of the realities of energy and food production. I generally like and agree with the economists, so I will be critical of Berman’s critique.

     Ecomodernism is generally seen as a pragmatic form of environmentalism that considers economics, business interests, and technology, and criticizes the influence of climate activists and more hardcore environmentalists.

     Berman first calls ecomodernism’s ideas, which he describes below, as too simplistic and perhaps too optimistic, since, as he says, that optimism is unwarranted because they misunderstand energy:

“Ecomodernism offers a clean, linear narrative: technology will rescue us from climate change and ecological decline. Nuclear power will deliver dense, reliable energy. Agricultural intensification will shrink humanity’s land footprint. Urbanization will concentrate people and “spare” nature. Growth can continue. Nature rebounds. Risks become manageable.”

     Perhaps he is correct here that it will be harder to solve these problems than they suggest.

     First, he analyzes some ideas ecomodernists have championed: dematerialization, decarbonization, and land sparing. These, he calls the three pillars of ecomodernist thinking. Dematerialization involves using fewer physical resources. A prominent example is the smartphone, which can also act as many other things: camera, video camera, flashlight, level, calculator, online computer, etc., etc. He states that there is no global dematerialization or decoupling and shows a graph of global material flows continuing to rise.

     His argument is that efficiency gains in some areas are overcome by the sheer scale of growth globally. He also cites offshoring, as do many who have argued that decoupling is not really occurring. I have examined this argument before, and I believe it is certain that there is some decoupling occurring. However, it is difficult to quantify it on a global scale. Offshoring is certainly occurring in several sectors, but it is debatable how much and how it should be counted. While he makes a good point, I believe he falls short here. High material flows will continue as more countries move from developing to developed status. If we look at so-called developed countries, then decoupling (minus offshoring) shows some definite decoupling. We can do more with less, especially in the more technologically advanced countries. While that may be offset by the less efficient efforts of developing countries, it is still occurring and is still significant.

     He also says there is no global decarbonization, and while that too is true, since global emissions continue to rise, it is also true that several countries, including the U.S., have most certainly decoupled carbon emissions and GDP, as well as achieved lower per capita carbon emissions. Of course, as shown below, this has not yet happened globally.

    I think we are certainly closer to a point where decarbonization can happen. Again, we have to account for rising energy access in the poor, underdeveloped, and developing countries. We know that globally, energy access and energy consumption will increase as those countries develop, regardless of the emissions from different energy sources. He gives a very general argument, but I think a weak one, that using less emitting energy sources won’t result in fewer emissions. What? That may be true globally as global energy consumption increases, but it won’t be true in more and more developed and developing countries as they use more decarbonized energy sources.  

     Next, he states that the idea that land-sparing due to agricultural intensification is a weak argument and not happening globally. Again, it is the practices of developing countries that are causing any global increase in land use for agriculture. I think his argument is weak here, since we can clearly produce more crops on less land in much of the world.

     Again, I think that the global total is not yet reflecting that the changes implemented in developed countries are reflected globally, but one day they likely will be.

     Does urbanization result in land-sparing? While he acknowledges that urbanization often results in less in-city per-capita transport emissions, that does not mean less total throughput. To support his argument, he gives the following graph in a study of 60 Chinese cities, which shows that urban energy metabolism grows with urban mass. China may not be the best example since it uses lots of coal. I am not really sure how to interpret the following graph, and he does not explain it. He merely says that focusing on specific areas where there has been dematerialization, decarbonization, or land-sparing ignores the global picture, which is all that really counts. Such selectivity gives optimism where it is not warranted, he suggests. The idea is, of course, that the successes in developed countries will eventually trickle down to developing countries, but he does not acknowledge that at all.

     Next, he argues that nuclear energy is not the answer. Here, he cites the high cost of nuclear energy. I am in basic agreement with him here. While I think nuclear energy can be very helpful, it probably won’t be due to costs, long timelines, and risks, including significant safety and regulatory risks and costs. Advanced nuclear and small modular reactors are still expensive and have long timelines. The bottom line is that while more nuclear power may help, it won’t happen anytime soon, and it will be expensive.

 

Berman: Ecological Overshoot is the Real Situation and the Real Problem

     This is an interesting analysis and, in some ways, echoes the concerns of the more catastrophist environmentalists. Berman explains:

“Ecological overshoot is the core systemic risk of our time, and it is the blind spot shared by mainstream climate policy, the renewable transition narrative, and ecomodernism.”

“Overshoot means the scale of the human enterprise exceeds Earth’s capacity to sustain it. Each year we use more energy, materials, land, water, and waste-absorption capacity than the planet can regenerate or safely absorb. As Figure 9 shows, this has been the prevailing condition for more than fifty years. We’re already running more than three times over capacity, and that’s just this year’s overshoot, not the cumulative overrun we’ve been piling up.”

     He makes some interesting arguments here, but also relies on some cherry-picked data and assumptions that may or may not be true. Earlier, he noted that the growth in the human population, whether it stabilizes or not, won’t matter. Here, he gives the whole human enterprise as the source of our overstressing of nature.

     In the figure below, it is shown that the total mass of humans and their livestock is now dominating the mammals on the planet, with wild mammals in decline. However, 100,000 before present, there were many megafauna: mammoths, mastodons, etc. that had quite a lot of mass. It is likely that these megafauna were overhunted by ancient humans.

     Berman suggests overshoot is being ignored because its effects are often delayed. He states:

“Our relationship with nature is the crisis. Overshoot is the consequence. Climate change is one of the symptoms.”

     Berman compares three worldviews: mainstream climate policies, ecomodernism, and overshoot thinking. For those favoring mainstream climate policies, he notes that carbon is the issue and substitution (of low-carbon energy for high-carbon energy) is the solution. For those favoring ecomodernism, he says, it offers a stronger version of the same claim. It relies on technology to help us out of our predicaments and favors urbanization and agricultural intensification. It relies on decoupling and an optimism that suggests that our problems are solvable. Overshoot thinking relies on a systemic framework. It simply acknowledges that we are using resources and nature itself much faster than they can be replenished. The first two, he says, underestimate the dilemma, framing it as a solvable management challenge. Overshoot thinking, he says, is more uncomfortable. He says the first two approaches are humanist and reduce nature to a set of services. They rely on incremental advances, which he says won’t be enough to solve our problems.

“Overshoot thinking is Earth- and process-centered. It focuses on the macro forces that actually drive the system: population, economic growth, energy use, material throughput, carbon emissions, and ecological footprint. All of these have risen together since at least 1970 (Figure 15). Growth and overshoot cannot be separated. More population and GDP require more energy and materials, which expand ecological footprint and emissions. This is the basic reality that mainstream climate policy and ecomodernism tend to minimize or overlook.”

     He suggests ecomodernism is worse than mainstream climate policy because it gives us false hope that these problems can be solved at all. He says ecomodernism is big government.

“Ecomodernism’s rejection of nature is, at bottom, a fear-based worldview. Like the demagogue who plays on anxiety, it implies: only we know the way through this. It is the height of egotism—light on eco and heavy on modernity, relentlessly human-centered rather than Earth-centered.”

“The more probable outcome is that we will reach for comforting stories that promise abundance without limits—stories like ecomodernism—because they flatter our preferred self-image and ask nothing of us except belief. They cannot deliver what they promise, because they are built on fallacies and on the same immature habits that brought us here: denial, substitution for reflection, and the insistence that reality must negotiate with our plans.”

     That is perhaps a hard pill to swallow, but is it really true? Is resigning to pessimism because there are problems with other approaches that may be difficult to overcome, a smart way to be? We do need to be realistic, but do we need to be pessimistic? His pessimism reminds me of the late James Lovelock, who basically said we are doomed, Climate change will win, and we will lose. Our natural systems just can’t handle us. While I believe it is good to avoid overly optimistic thinking when it is not warranted, we still need to try to do our best to solve problems. His notion of overshoot thinking may provide a framework for our predicament, but it does nothing to address it. His essay offers no way out, only a resignation to our doom. It is perhaps a more realistic form of catastrophism, but it is still catastrophism. Is he saying we shouldn’t try to reduce carbon emissions and our ecological footprint? He doesn’t say. His emphasis on overshoot thinking is perhaps good for us to contemplate as a possibility, but we are humans, and we like to solve problems and will continue to do that as we are able. My response is: ‘duly noted,’ but let’s get back to work.

     I don’t see ecomodernism as some kind of miracle philosophy, but merely an approach to environmentalism that is not grounded in pessimism and catastrophism, neither of which offers any kind of solution. We humans will continue to seek solutions to our problems, regardless of their difficulty.

 

 

 

References:

 

Ecomodernism: Modernity Without Ecology. Art Berman. Blog post. January 5, 2026. Ecomodernism: Modernity Without Ecology | Art Berman

U.S. EPA Updates Finalized Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde That Was Issued Before Trump Assumed Office: Now, Allowable Workplace Levels are Not Likely to Be Lowered

    The Biden administration finalized a risk evaluation for formaldehyde just before Trump took office. Now, the Trump EPA has updated that risk evaluation. The result is that allowable workplace levels are not likely to be lowered.

     Formaldehyde is released naturally from the breakdown of organic materials like wood chips and leaves. It is also used in the manufacture of plastics, resins, textiles, cosmetics, foam bedding/seating, semiconductors, glues, composite wood products, paints, coatings, rubber, construction materials (including roofing), furniture, toys, and various adhesives and sealants. It is also present in car exhaust and other combustion sources. Formaldehyde exposure has been linked to increased cancer risk, miscarriages, and respiratory issues. Exposure pathways include inhalation, skin absorption, and eating and drinking, since some fruits contain it.

     The risk evaluation concerns formaldehyde’s use in manufacturing and related workplace exposure. The chemical industry opposed the Biden administration’s plans to reduce workplace exposure, but the Trump administration is likely to ignore those recommendations.

     The Environmental Defense Fund’s chemicals policy director, Maria Doa, complained that the Trump administration cherry-picked data to arrive at conclusions not supported by the data and that chemical industry lobbyists were now leading the EPA. Some have worked for the American Chemistry Council, which opposes many regulations, and some worked directly on opposing new proposed allowable levels for formaldehyde. At issue are things like requiring respirators to be worn where exposure risk is high.

     The Biden EPA risk evaluation was conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and determined that:

“…formaldehyde presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, specifically to workers and consumers, under its conditions of use (COUs).”

    Formaldehyde does break down in the environment. Thus, it is not considered an environmental threat. Chronic and acute workplace exposures are probably the highest risk factors. According to the Biden EPA’s risk evaluation:

“Workers who are in workplaces where formaldehyde is used are at the most risk from formaldehyde exposure, particularly if workers are not wearing personal protective equipment. Workers may be exposed to formaldehyde in air during manufacturing, processing, or use of formaldehyde and products and articles containing formaldehyde. Workers can also be exposed to formaldehyde by making skin contact with formaldehyde-containing materials. Most of the risk to workers is because of acute inhalation and dermal exposures. Cancer risk to workers under many conditions of use also supports the risk determination.”

     The Obama administration signed the bipartisan Lautenberg Act in 2016 to update the TSCA, but now it appears some of it could be rolled back.

     According to the updated Trump EPA risk evaluation, the draft version, published in December 2025, it:

“…provides risk estimates from acute inhalation exposures based on feedback from independent peer reviewers, enhancing the scientific rigor of the underlying information used to support the risk determination while maintaining EPA’s January 2025 determination that formaldehyde presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, specifically to workers and consumers, under its conditions of use. The Agency will simultaneously continue working on a proposed risk management rule for formaldehyde as required by TSCA. EPA plans to expeditiously convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to get input on a proposed rule. The agency will rely on gold standard science and take the Updated Draft Risk Calculations and Revised Draft Risk Evaluation into account when drafting a proposed risk management rule to meet statutory deadlines and ensure health protections.”  

“Consistent with statutory obligations and Executive Order (EO) 14303, Restoring Gold Standard Science, EPA is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and reliance on the best available scientific information. As such, OCSPP has re-evaluated the use of the IRIS cancer IUR in the formaldehyde risk evaluation. EPA has considered the peer-review record, including comments from the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB), and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Following their recommendations and focusing on the science, EPA is issuing this Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum which was used as the basis for the Revised Draft Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde.” 

“Consistent with the recommendations from the SACC, EPA is supplementing the endpoints used in the TSCA risk evaluation to determine human health effects from formaldehyde. In its review of the draft formaldehyde risk evaluation, the SACC was generally critical of the agency’s reliance on cancer and non-cancer hazard values for formaldehyde inhalation presented in the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde – Inhalation.”

“In this Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum and the documents that rely on the information presented in the Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum, EPA is proposing that the best available science supports using sensory irritation as the most sensitive endpoint for determining human health effects from inhalation exposures. Managing risks from acute sensory irritation will be protective against other health effects, including cancer. This approach is supported by the recommendations of the SACC and other federal advisory committees. Because this Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum implements recommendations from the multiple peer review bodies, additional peer review is not necessary.”

     I am not quite sure what they mean when they say, “using sensory irritation as the most sensitive endpoint for determining human health effects from inhalation exposures.” It sounds like they are focused more on acute exposures and perhaps ignoring chronic exposures. Evaluating the risks from chronic exposures is no doubt more difficult, but that does not mean those risks should be ignored. The focus on acute exposure is supported in the December 2025 EPA memorandum on the subject, although they do acknowledge that there are risks associated with long-term exposure.

“Short-term inhalation exposure to high levels of formaldehyde can cause sensory irritation and respiratory effects. Short-term skin contact can cause sensitization. Exposure over longer periods can also cause respiratory effects and cancer. The complex toxicology and exposure profiles for formaldehyde make its evaluation challenging. The formaldehyde sources that EPA evaluated in the TSCA risk evaluation, and this Draft Memorandum, involve, in general, the production and use of products that are subject to TSCA (as opposed to products that are specifically excluded from TSCA under 15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(B), such as pesticides).”

     Both the Biden and Trump risk evaluations focus on inhalation as the main exposure pathway. However, the Trump EPA evaluation does not consider cumulative exposure in its evaluation. The Biden EPA identified 58 scenarios in which formaldehyde can present an “unreasonable risk” to human health, and the Trump administration is reversing five of those.

     The bottom line is that workplace exposure levels that the Biden EPA determined are a cancer risk will not be considered a cancer risk under the Trump EPA.

  

 

References:

 

EPA Finalizes TSCA Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde. U.S. EPA. Released January 2, 2025. EPA Finalizes TSCA Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde | US EPA

Officials spark backlash with plan that could expose Americans to toxic threat: 'Horrendous'. Susan Elizabeth Turek. The Cool Down. February 11, 2026. Officials spark backlash with plan that could expose Americans to toxic threat: 'Horrendous'

EPA Releases Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum for Formaldehyde under TSCA for Public Comment. U.S. EPA. Released December 3, 2025. EPA Releases Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum for Formaldehyde under TSCA for Public Comment | US EPA

Trump’s EPA wants to weaken formaldehyde protections – this is what it could mean. Tom Perkins. The Guardian. December 19, 2025. Trump’s EPA wants to weaken formaldehyde protections – this is what it could mean | Trump administration | The Guardian

Our toxic chemicals safety law is under attack. Environmental Defense Fund. September 8, 2025. Our toxic chemicals safety law is under attack | Environmental Defense Fund

Formaldehyde; Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment. Notice by the Environmental Protection Agency on 12/03/2025. Federal Register. Federal Register :: Formaldehyde; Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment

How our bedrock chemical safety law, the Lautenberg Act, protects us. Environmental Defense Council. November 25, 2025. How our bedrock chemical safety law, the Lautenberg Act, protects us | EDF

Is There a Detectable Acceleration of Global Warming? Some Data Suggests That There Is

       Some climate scientists are saying there is clearly a detectable acceleration of global warming in the data. It seems to be the case regarding land surface temperature data. Sea surface temperature data also seems to indicate an acceleration, though significantly smaller than the land surface temperature data.  However, I do not believe the satellite-derived tropospheric temperature data show an acceleration.

“There is greater acceptance now that there is a detectable acceleration of warming,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and the research lead at the payments company Stripe.

    John Muyskens and Shannon Osaka of the Washington Post examined NASA’s climate data and confirmed what they see as a global warming acceleration. According to their analysis, from 1970 to 2010, the land and ocean surface temperatures warmed by 0.19 deg Celsius per decade, but during the past decade they warmed at a rate of 0.27 degrees Celsius per decade. They also think that a 40% global reduction in sulfate aerosol emissions has led to lower global warming since atmospheric sulfate aerosol emissions dropped by 40% since the mid-2000s, The graph below from Carbon Brief shows that since 1880 aerosols have cooled the atmosphere by as much as 0.7 deg Celsius by around 2008, but since then the drop in those aerosols has warmed it back up by about 0.2 degrees. Thus, the total cooling since 1880 is now at about 0.5 degrees Celsius. Sulfate aerosols mask global warming by cooling the atmosphere, and when their level drops, the atmosphere heats up. The phasing out of high-sulfur fuels for shipping in 2020 has accelerated the drop in atmospheric sulfate aerosols.

     Decreases in low-level cloud cover are also thought to be contributing to global warming. However, they also note the uncertainty of the effects of low-level cloud cover. Thus, some warming is attributable to drops in aerosols and some to drops in low-level cloud cover. Untangling or attributing how much warming comes from each effect is difficult and uncertain.

     Below are graphs of some of NASA’s land and ocean surface temperature data. As can be seen, there is a likely acceleration seen in land surface temperature data and a possible acceleration in ocean surface temperature data. Others argue that land surface temperature data may be biased by such things as heat island effects. They say that the lack of equivalent warming in tropospheric temperature data supports that position.

     While some climate scientists think it is too soon to declare an acceleration of global warming, others say the signal is clearly there. A 2025 paper in Earth System Science Data attempts to attribute global warming to each source, concluding that the bulk is due to human activities, namely energy, industrial processes, agriculture, and waste.

References:

 

Scientists thought they understood global warming. Then the past three years happened. John Muyskens and Shannon Osaka. Washington Post. February 11, 2026. Scientists thought they understood global warming. Then the past three years happened.

Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence. Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai. Earth System Science Data. Volume 17, issue 6. ESSD, 17, 2641–2680, 2025. ESSD - Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4). NASA. Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4): Analysis Graphs and Plots

Explainer: How human-caused aerosols are ‘masking’ global warming. Zeke Hausfather. Carbon Brief. October 6, 2025. Explainer: How human-caused aerosols are ‘masking’ global warming - Carbon Brief