I consider the role of populism and of private property rights in President Trump’s choice to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Despite Trump’s campaign promise, the decision to withdraw was uncertain due to significant disagreement among his advisors, and the perceived but eventually rejected availability of an option permitting the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement while downsizing the commitments made by President Obama. Populist themes are evident in Trump’s June 2017 speech announcing the US withdrawal, including repetitive statements of the need to defend against the machinations of countries which are unfairly taking advantage of the United States, his use of populist tropes such as acting for the people of Pittsburgh rather than the people of Paris, and that the rest of the world is laughing at us. Following significant disagreement among his advisors, the decision to withdraw was in large part due to an active alliance between Steve Bannon, a right-wing populist, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a staunch ally of major extractive industries exploiting natural resources - organizations that had historically been the target of American populism and progressivism. The legal implications of the Paris Agreement to the American coal industry was crucial to Trump’s ultimate decision to withdraw. Two often overlooked factors of particular importance to American anti-environmentalism are the belief among right wing and rural Americans that modern environmentalism is a threat to constitutionally derived rights to control their private property without government interference; and the relatively greater insistence of Americans on individual freedom rather than collective security. Further, the anti-elitism central to both right and left-wing populism had been successfully extended to climate change science and scientists. I conclude that Trump’s decision primarily was based on those factors that were most likely to validate him personally through reelection - keeping faith with both his right-wing populist voting base and his industry funding base. In doing so he actively brought toward the mainstream the anti-environmentalist views of right-wing populists. Approaches that might lessen the voting strength of anti-environmental right-wing populists include recognizing and exploiting the unholy alliance between big industry and right-wing populists; focusing more attention on the significant environmental risks faced by populations that tend to vote for Trump or Trump-like candidates, such as farmers and military families; and respectful sensitivity to constitutionally-derived property rights and similar issues underlying American anti-environmentalism.

Bernard D. Goldstein, Emeritus Dean and Emeritus Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, has published broadly on environmental issues including the science and communication of risk. He was Professor and Chair of Environmental and Community Medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, and founding Director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) of Rutgers University, as well as of the New Jersey Graduate Program in Public Health. He served as the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Goldstein is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine, the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the Collegium Ramazzini. He is past president of the Society for Risk Analysis and has received the 2017 Public Communications Award of the Society of Toxicology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:In the United States, the Federal Incident Command System (ICS) directs response to major oil spills. Its initial imperative is to prevent immediate impacts on human health and safety. Subsequently, the ICS primarily turns its attention to environmental concerns, including considering vulnerable ecosystems. There is a growing body of evidence that disasters such as major oil spills lead to adverse psychosocial effects; yet, preventing such effects has not been formally incorporated into ICS disaster mitigation considerations.RECENT FINDINGS:Community mental and behavioral effects are increasingly recognized as a significant impact of disasters. Standardized ecosystem analytical frameworks are key to ICS responses to its mandate for environmental protection. Similar frameworks have only begun to be developed for mental and behavioral effects. Providing the ICS with a formal mandate would likely lead to the prevention of community mental and behavioral effects being more systematically incorporated into ICS disaster responses.

Haematological cancers present an example of seeming discordance between epidemiological data and animal data, which is apparently resolved by mechanistic information. Known causes of haematological cancers in humans are ionizing radiation, chemotherapeutic agents, infectious agents such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and occupational exposures to chemical agents such as formaldehyde and benzene. These agents are recognized as causes of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), and all have been implicated in the causation of other forms of haematological cancers. This chapter focuses on the issue of whether benzene can be considered to cause lymphoproliferative disorders in humans, as distinct from AML. Whereas epidemiological evidence establishes that benzene is a cause of human AML (IARC, 1987), long-term studies in experimental animals exposed to benzene generally have not indicated an increased risk of AML. In contrast, increased incidence of lymphoma has been readily evident in such studies, but the corresponding epidemiological evidence can be debated. However, recent mechanistic data, as well as information that has led to a reclassification of haematological neoplasms, are consistent with benzene being recognized as a cause of human lymphoproliferative disorders (Smith et al., 2007, Goldstein, 2010; Smith, 2010). Recent epidemiological evidence also strongly supports this notion (Bassig et al., 2015; Linet et al., 2015).

A controversial study has claimed that most cancer is due to random processes unrelated to external causes, i.e., bad luck. The controversy has obscured the study's importance toward spurring scientific understanding of how best to prevent cancer.

An editorial is presented which discusses the authors' views about global climate change (GCC), U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw America from the Paris Agreement international climate change accord, and public attitudes about various environmental and sustainability issues. The history of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mentioned, along with concerns regarding climate change and distributions of social and economic capital.

Various emerging technologies challenge existing governance processes to identify, assess, and manage risk. Though the existing risk-based paradigm has been essential for assessment of many chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear technologies, a complementary approach may be warranted for the early-stage assessment and management challenges of high uncertainty technologies ranging from nanotechnology to synthetic biology to artificial intelligence, among many others. This paper argues for a risk governance approach that integrates quantitative experimental information alongside qualitative expert insight to characterize and balance the risks, benefits, costs, and societal implications of emerging technologies. Various articles in scholarly literature have highlighted differing points of how to address technological uncertainty, and this article builds upon such knowledge to explain how an emerging technology risk governance process should be driven by a multi-stakeholder effort, incorporate various disparate sources of information, review various endpoints and outcomes, and comparatively assess emerging technology performance against existing conventional products in a given application area. At least in the early stages of development when quantitative data for risk assessment remain incomplete or limited, such an approach can be valuable for policymakers and decision makers to evaluate the impact that such technologies may have upon human and environmental health.

Adam Finkel has proposed “Solution-Focused Risk Assessment” (SFRA) to largely replace what he describes as “analysis run wild” in problem assessment. His major objective is to have detection of a “signal of harm” followed first with consideration of possible solutions jointly between risk assessors and risk managers. Rigorous risk assessment of the potential value of a broad range of solutions to decreasing risk would then ensue with what he believes will be greater likelihood of effective responses. Among the questions that need to be addressed in practice include how does SFRA differ from sustainability, the precautionary principle, environmental justice, public health, green chemistry, and similar proposals to improve environmental decision making; whether SFRA brings risk assessment too close to risk management; how will “signal of harm” be determined, and what would be a fair trial to determine if SFRA is of practical value?

Sutton’s Law urges the medical practitioner to utilize the test that goes directly to the problem. When applied to exposure science, Sutton’s Law would argue that the major emphasis should be on techniques that directly measure exposure in or close to the human, animal or ecosystem receptors of concern. Exposure science largely and appropriately violates Sutton’s Law by estimating exposure based on information on emissions or measurements obtained at a distance from the receptors of concern. I suggest four criteria to help determine whether Sutton’s law should be violated for an innovative technology, and explore these criteria in relation to potential human exposure resulting from unconventional gas drilling (UGD): (1) The technological processes possibly leading to release of the chemical or physical agents of concern are reasonably understood; (2) the agents of concern are known; (3) the source and geographical location of the releases can be reasonably identified; and (4) there is information about the likely temporal pattern of the releases and resulting pollutant levels in relation to the temporal patterns of receptor susceptibility. For UGD, the complexity of the technology including many possible release points at different time periods; the existence of three variable mixtures of chemical and physical agents as well as possible unknown reactants; the demonstrated large variation in releases from site to site; and deficiencies in transparency and regulatory oversight, all suggest that studies of the potential health impact of UGD should follow Sutton’s Law. This includes the use of techniques that more directly measure exposure close to or within the receptors of concern, such as biological markers or through community-based citizen science. Understanding the implications of Sutton’s Law could help focus scientific and regulatory efforts on effective approaches to evaluate the potential health and ecosystem implications of new and evolving technologies.

We describe the underlying role of environmental and social justice concepts in the development of the Gulf Region Health Outreach Program (GRHOP), an ongoing 5-year, $105 million community health program funded through the medical settlement of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill. The DWH oil spill affected a broad area of the Gulf Coast, causing direct health, social, environmental, and economic effects. The affected communities have health statistics that is among the poorest in the nation, and had previously been battered and disrupted by natural disasters. A major toxic tort law suit ensued. Included in this $7.6 billion settlement was a unique provision for a community health outreach program to expand and improve access to healthcare in underserved areas; address behavioral and mental health needs; train community health workers; and expand and improve environmental health expertise, capacity, and literacy. The settlement specified the 17 counties and parishes in four states for GRHOP activities. Using the CDC Comparative Health Statistics Indicator, we find that these counties have worse health statistics than comparative counties. Specified to be involved in GRHOP are the Alliance Institute, the Louisiana Public Health Institute (LPHI), and five universities. Approaches to strengthening community-based health clinics in underserved areas were based on a thorough initial evaluation of needs and resources by LPHI. At its outset, the GRHOP recognized that sustainably addressing health disparities, including recognition of the impact of environmental and social justice, was central to improving the resilience of communities faced with further natural and technological disasters.

Beitsch, Leslie M. MD, JD; Goldstein, Bernard D. MD; Buckner, Ayanna V. MD, MPH Author Information

Threats to foster fossil-fuel utilization over sustainable alternatives, abandonment of reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions, and narrowing of the definition of waters subject to EPA regulation raise serious concerns about the environment and human health.

Buckner, Ayanna V. MD, MPH; Goldstein, Bernard D. MD; Beitsch, Leslie M. MD, JD Author Information

Developing effective approaches to increasingly complex global environmental challenges requires understanding and respect for underlying policy differences within and among nations. The defense of property rights against perceived intrusion by governmental authorities has been noted as an environmental policy issue related to specific laws and regulations in the United States, and as a basis for opposition to sustainability. We assessed the extent to which the defense of property rights and opposition to sustainability has become part of mainstream US policy deliberations by evaluating its inclusion within positions of candidates for the presidential nomination of the Republican and Democratic parties and by review of party platforms. We performed a similar review of the positions and platforms of right wing. EU political parties and of positions taken on the Brexit issue. Increasing concern about property rights, including using it as a basis to oppose and overturn sustainability initiatives, was found among the US right wing. This concern was tied to rights granted in the US Constitution and concern about governmental intrusion. In contrast, interference for environmental reasons in the rights of landowners to manage their property does not appear to be a concern of the EU right wing, nor was this issue raised by supporters of Brexit. Although just one of many factors, differences in concern about property rights should be recognized as contributing to EU/US differences in environmental policy.