Lawmakers introduce controversial bills to regulate harmful chemicals leaked by factories: 'Taxpayers .. will largely shoulder the burden'
According to Oklahoma Voice, these bills target PFAS, synthetic chemicals that don't break down in nature. Manufacturers first created them 80 years ago, and despite knowing about potential health risks by 1961, they kept making them anyway. Scientists now link PFAS to health problems like cancer, liver damage, and reduced fertility.
Oklahoma plans to tackle this through Senate Bills 268 and 271. SB 268 would stop farmers from using sewage-based fertilizer on cropland, a common practice that spreads PFAS into our food supply — over 80% of Oklahoma's wastewater ends up on farm fields. Meanwhile, SB 271 would protect farmers who unknowingly used contaminated fertilizer from getting sued.
Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home?
Majorly
Sometimes
Not really
I don't know enough about them
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
The proposed laws could save money and protect health. Clean drinking water helps prevent medical issues, while protecting farmland preserves food safety. However, cleaning up PFAS costs money — the EPA has estimated that $1.5 billion is needed yearly just to improve water systems.
Some worry these bills don't address the root cause: industrial facilities releasing PFAS into waterways. Others point out potential gaps in farmer support. It's not clear if farmers will receive income replacement if their production drops or if there will be funding to monitor affected farms and families.
Water bills might rise as local governments pay for cleanup. This would hit low-income households hardest through higher costs and increased exposure to contaminated water.
"States and taxpayers didn't cause the contamination, but they will largely shoulder the burden of testing and monitoring, delivering clean water to communities, cleaning up contaminated sites, and covering health care costs," noted the Oklahoma Voice's Mike Altshuler.
But action beats inaction. Oklahoma joins 11 other states that passed PFAS restrictions in 2024, showing growing momentum to protect Americans' health and resources. These bills could help create cleaner water and safer food for Oklahoma families with proper funding and implementation.
The effects of PFAS might be invisible now, but communities can't afford to wait. By supporting smart regulations today, we're investing in healthier soil, cleaner water, and better health for future generations.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
9 minutes ago
- Politico
Republican tax law leaves experts searching for words
At the same time, it remains to be seen whether Republicans' decision to dub their new savings accounts for children 'Trump accounts' will prove a marketing misstep that will blunt its appeal to the 75 million Americans who voted for Kamala Harris. The overall legislation was christened by Trump, but the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' was scrubbed from the legislation once it got to the Senate, after Democratic leader Chuck Schumer had it struck as a violation of the chamber's internal rules — the latest shot in a long-running feud in which the two parties take turns deleting the names of each other's reconciliation bills. 'I just forced Republicans to delete their ridiculous bill name,' Schumer wrote shortly thereafter on X. 'Nothing about this bill is beautiful.' Technically the legislation is now called 'An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con. Res. 14.' Of course, that isn't stopping many from still using the now-unofficial name. 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' was the winner in a recent EY survey of 10,000 tax pros asking how they referred to the tax law. 'OB3" came in a close second. A similar survey by Grant Thornton also had those names going one-two. Over at the Tax Policy Center, senior fellow Howard Gleckman prefers the colloquial '2025 budget act' or, simply, 'the big budget bill.' The studiously nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, uses the extremely neutral 'H.R. 1.' Some of the individual provisions have been renamed to reflect substantive changes made by the legislation. 'GILTI' was made obsolete by Senate Republicans' revisions to how multinationals will be taxed. The original tax was intended to target profits from things like patents that businesses squirreled away in tax havens. Republicans had trouble coming up with a way of legally defining those earnings, so in the 2017 law they essentially said GILTI was everything except profits resulting from tangible assets like factories. The idea was to distinguish between the money companies made from their actual operations abroad from things that were just accounting maneuvers. Naturally, the tangible stuff got its own acronym — QBAI, or Qualified Business Asset Investment. But the new law dumps QBAI, and so the distinction made by GILTI no longer matters, leaving the tax world with 'Net CFC Tested Income.' Something similar is happening with FDII, or Foreign Derived Intangible Income, another provision that originated in 2017. It's a deduction for companies with overseas profits from intellectual property held in the U.S. — although it's probably best known for inspiring a years-long dispute about whether it should be called 'Fiddy' or 'F-D-I-I.' QBAI was part of the calculations that went into FDII, so, with QBAI now going away, FDII is also renamed in the new law, as the Foreign Derived Deduction Eligible Income, or FDDEI. But if anything, it's even less clear how to shorthand that. Warren Payne, a former Republican tax aide now at the firm Mayer Brown, says he's heard it called 'Fa-Day' — though he's not going there. 'I haven't figured out how to pronounce it,' he said. 'I just spell it out.'
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Republicans can't stop talking about Joe Biden. That may be a problem
ATLANTA — It's been six months since Joe Biden left the Oval Office. Republicans, including President Trump, can't stop talking about him. The House has launched investigations asserting that Biden's closest advisers covered up a physical and mental decline during the 82-year-old Democrat's presidency. The Senate has started a series of hearings focused on his mental fitness. And Trump's White House has opened its own investigation into the Biden administration's use of the presidential autopen, which Trump has called 'one of the biggest scandals in the history of our country.' It all fits with Trump's practice of blaming his predecessors for the nation's ills. Just last week, he tried to deflect criticism of his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case by casting blame on others, including Biden. Turning the spotlight back on the former president carries risks for both parties heading into the 2026 midterms. The more Republicans or Democrats talk about Biden, the less they can make arguments about the impact of Trump's presidency — positive or negative — especially his sweeping new tax cut and spending law that is reshaping the federal government. 'Most Americans consider Joe Biden to be yesterday's news,' Republican pollster Whit Ayres said. Seeking to avenge his 2020 loss to Biden, Trump mocked his rival's age and fitness incessantly in 2024, even after Biden dropped his reelection bid and yielded to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. He and other Republicans seemed poised to spend the summer touting their new tax, spending and policy package. But Trump, now 79 and facing his own health challenges, has refused to let up on Biden, and his allies in the party have followed suit. Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin called the Biden White House's use of the autopen 'a massive scandal,' while Republican Rep. Nick Lalota insists his New York constituents 'are curious as to what was happening during President Biden's days.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently confirmed the administration would pursue an investigation of the Biden administration's use of the presidential autopen. Trump and other Republicans have questioned whether Biden was actually running the country and suggested aides abused a tool that has long been a routine part of signing presidentially approved actions. 'We deserve to get to the bottom of it,' Leavitt said. Biden has responded to the criticism by issuing a statement saying he was, in fact, making the decisions during his presidency and that any suggestion otherwise 'is ridiculous and false.' On Capitol Hill, the House Oversight Committee has convened hearings on use of the autopen and Biden's fitness for office. Van Orden cited the Constitution's Article II vesting authority solely with the president. 'It doesn't say chief of staff. It doesn't say an autopen,' he said. The House panel subpoenaed Biden's physician and a top aide to former first lady Jill Biden. Both invoked Fifth Amendment protections that prevent people from being forced to testify against themselves in government proceedings. 'There was no there there,' said Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell of Missouri, a member of the committee who called the effort 'an extraordinary waste of time.' The committee's chairman, Rep. James Comer, wants to hear from former White House chiefs of staff Ron Klain and Jeff Zients; former senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn; and other former top aides Bruce Reed, Steve Ricchetti and Annie Tomasini, among others. Republicans confirmed multiple dates for the sessions through late September, ensuring it will remain in the headlines. That GOP schedule comes as both parties work feverishly to define Trump's start to his second term. His so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill' is a mix of tax cuts, border security measures and cuts to safety net programs such as Medicaid, a joint state-federal insurance program for lower-income Americans. Polls suggest some individual measures are popular while others are not and that the GOP faces headwinds on tilting the public in favor of the overall effort. A recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about two-thirds of U.S. adults view the bill as a win for the wealthy and another found that only about one-quarter of U.S. adults felt Trump's policies have helped them. In the policy survey, he failed to earn majority support on any of the major issues, including the economy, immigration, government spending and health care. Immigration, especially, had been considered a major strength for Trump politically. It is 'rather tone deaf,' said Bell, for Republicans to go after Biden given those circumstances. 'Americans want us to deal with the issues that are plaguing our country now … the high cost of living, cost of food, the cost of housing, health care,' Bell said, as he blasted the GOP for a deliberate 'distraction' from what challenges most U.S. households. The effort also comes with Trump battling his own supporters over the Justice Department's decision not to publicly release additional records related to the Epstein case. 'The Epstein saga is more important to his base than whatever happened to Joe Biden,' said Ayres, the GOP pollster. Even Lalota, the New York congressman, acknowledged a balancing act with the Biden inquiries. 'My constituents care most about affordability and public safety,' Lalota said. 'But this is an important issue nonetheless.' With Republicans protecting a narrow House majority, every hotly contested issue could be seen as determinative in the 2026 midterm elections. That puts added pressure on Republicans to retain Trump's expanded 2024 coalition, when he increased support among Black and Hispanic voters, especially men, over the usual Republican levels. But that's considerably harder without Trump himself on the ballot. That could explain Republican efforts to keep going after Biden given how unpopular he is with Trump's core supporters. Democrats, meanwhile, point to their success in the 2018 midterms during Trump's first presidency, when they reclaimed the House majority on the strength of moderate voters, including disaffected Republicans. They seem confident that Republicans' aggressiveness about Biden does not appeal to that swath of the electorate. But even as they praise Biden's accomplishments as president, Democrats quietly admit they don't want to spend time talking about a figure who left office with lagging approval ratings and forced his party into a late, difficult change at the top of the ticket. Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia said Biden was productive while acknowledging he 'was not at the top of his game because of his age.' He said Democrats want to look forward, most immediately on trying to win control of the House and make gains in the Senate. 'And then who's our standard bearer in 2028?' Beyer said. 'And how do we minimize the Trump damage with what we have right now?' Barrow and Brown write for the Associated Press. Brown reported from Washington.
UPI
11 minutes ago
- UPI
President Lee must dispatch Han Duck-soo as special envoy to Washington
Han Duck-soo has emerged as a compelling choice for special envoy to Washington to negotiate tariffs and other issues that tie the United States and South Korea. File Photo by Jeon Heon-Kyun/EPA SEOUL, July 21 (UPI) -- With U.S. President Donald Trump having officially declared that a 25% reciprocal tariff on all South Korean exports will take effect Aug. 1, the need for swift diplomatic engagement has become urgent. Sending a special envoy to Washington is no longer a matter of protocol, but a strategic imperative. The envoy's role would be to engage directly with senior U.S. officials -- possibly even with President Trump himself -- to address a range of high-stakes issues, including tariff negotiations, defense cost-sharing and bilateral cooperation on trade, energy and investment. Yet despite the urgency, reports indicate that the Lee Jae Myung administration is struggling to finalize its choice, as political debate and hesitation continue to delay the process. According to media reports, some within the ruling camp are calling for a full reconsideration of the nomination. Kim Chong-in, the former interim leader of the conservative People Power Party and the reported nominee, has publicly expressed displeasure at this development stating, "Did I ever ask to be sent [as a special envoy]?" The presidential office has offered only a vague response, likening the speculation to "being asked about a divorce before a wedding." These remarks suggest that Kim may have been tentatively considered, but mounting political resistance has likely caused the administration to retreat from that choice. Meanwhile, with the Aug. 1 deadline fast approaching, the task of appointing a credible and effective envoy remains unresolved. There is little time left. With Trump's tariff decision already formalized, South Korea must now act with urgency. The appointment of a special envoy is no longer optional -- it is a strategic necessity. Whoever is chosen must be capable of navigating the complex political and economic landscape in Washington and engaging directly with senior U.S. officials on the full range of critical bilateral issues -- from tariffs and defense cost-sharing to investment and energy cooperation. In this context, the government must prioritize credibility, clarity and results. That is why former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo emerges as a compelling choice. While Kim Chong-in is widely respected as a seasoned economic policymaker and negotiator, he may not be the right person for this delicate moment. In 2021, he publicly criticized Trump on social media -- a fact that likely has not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump, famously reactive to criticism and guided by a highly transactional worldview, recently doubled tariffs on Brazil after President Lula voiced opposition. Sending an envoy with a history of confrontation could risk derailing already fragile talks. Han, on the other hand, has no prior personal relationship with Trump, but is said to have developed a warm rapport with him during a phone call. Trump reportedly praised Han's fluent English, perhaps sensing a sense of familiarity -- Han is a Harvard-trained economist, while Trump graduated from the Wharton School. That small personal connection may make a big difference in setting the tone of the conversation. In a high-stakes negotiation, personal chemistry matters. Compared to Kim, Han is more likely to establish a constructive dialogue with Trump -- something South Korea urgently needs. Beyond personal rapport, Han brings unmatched policy credentials. He is one of Korea's foremost experts in trade and economic diplomacy, having served across the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and as the country's first chief trade Nngotiator. He also was ambassador to the United States, and uniquely, he has served as prime minister under progressive and conservative administrations --Roh Moo-hyun and Yoon Suk-yeol -- earning bipartisan respect. From trade and security to American politics and protocol, Han is arguably the most qualified figure to handle a volatile and transactional counterpart like Trump. His greatest asset may be his ability to engage the U.S. president without a translator -- an advantage that cannot be overstated at the negotiating table. The stakes are especially high. The envoy will not only be tasked with addressing tariffs, but also with resolving disputes over non-tariff barriers, securing investment opportunities like the Alaska LNG project and navigating difficult defense-related negotiations -- including cost-sharing for U.S. troops stationed in Korea. Any misstep could have long-term consequences for Korea's economic and strategic position. And Trump is no ordinary interlocutor. To understand who Trump is, one need only look back to a 2016 interview in a Korean newspaper. "I sleep 28 hours a week and read 28 hours a week," he said. He is not merely a real estate developer, but a lifelong student of negotiation strategy. One of his favorite books is The Art of War by Sun Tzu, whose first principle is to win without fighting. In fact, Trump authored The Art of the Deal in 1987 -- a book that transformed him from an unknown businessman into a household name. Facing a leader like Trump requires more than policy expertise; it requires strategic insight and mental discipline. Yet, sending Han as special envoy may seem politically unthinkable at this moment. From the perspective of many in Lee's coalition, Han is a deeply controversial figure. He served as prime minister under former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who is currently in jail awaiting trial on treason charges following his administration's failed martial law declaration. Han was seen by many progressives as being aligned with the previous government and even at odds with Lee himself. For some, nominating Han as envoy may appear to betray the spirit of political reform. But this is precisely where Lee has a chance to lead. If he truly seeks national unity and international credibility, now is the time to rise above partisanship and prioritize the national interest. Over the past few weeks, he has surprised many by making gestures of political inclusion -- retaining a minister from the previous administration, meeting with opposition leaders and even encouraging dialogue with the business community. These steps have stabilized markets, lifted investor confidence and helped push his approval rating above his election-day result. Appointing Han as special envoy would be a natural extension of that leadership style. Whether or not Han succeeds in negotiations, the act of appointing him would signal the seriousness and maturity of the Lee administration to both domestic and international audiences. In moments like this, personal risk is often the price of statesmanship. What's needed now is not just diplomacy -- but a decision.
