Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of ‘Forever Chemicals’

      by

      Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.Chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late Monday over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks.The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym PFAS, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans.The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the new standard, put in place in April, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.The E.P.A.’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said.PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country.Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the E.P.A.At a public address ahead of the filing on Monday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, defended the Biden administration’s stringent standards. “Everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said.At the same event, E.P.A. officials said the new standard was based on the best available science and was designed so that it “would be robust enough to withstand litigation.”The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. States and local governments have successfully sued some manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating drinking water supplies,President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law, passed in 2021, sets aside $9 billion to help communities address PFAS contamination. The E.P.A. said $1 billion of that money would be set aside to help states with initial testing and treatment. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump vows to ‘drill, baby, drill’ despite rally attendees wilting in extreme heat

      by

      Dozens of Donald Trump’s supporters have been requiring medical help at his rallies in the scorching US south-west but it seems lost on him that his plans to reverse climate policies and “drill, baby, drill” for fossil fuels will only worsen extreme weather, campaigners say.A total of 24 people at a Trump rally in Las Vegas on Sunday required medical attention due to the heat, according to the Clark county fire department, with six taken to hospital for treatment. The hospitalizations come after a further 11 people needed to be admitted to hospital for heat exhaustion as they waited for Trump to speak at a rally in Phoenix on Thursday.Trump himself noted the severe heat during his speech on Sunday, with the Las Vegas rally starting around noon when the temperature was about 90F (32C) and climbed to around 102F (38C). The rally was held in a park with little shade, although organizers provided water and cooling tents, and allowed attendees to hold shading umbrellas.“It’s 110, but it doesn’t feel it to me,” said Trump, who wore a suit jacket and signature red baseball cap. “I’m up here sweating like a dog. They don’t think about me. This is hard work.”Trump then said: “I don’t want anybody going on me. We need every voter. I don’t care about you. I just want your vote. I don’t care.” He later said he was joking about not caring about his own voters and complained the media would criticize him for this.Record-breaking heat enveloped much of the US south-west last week, with temperatures soaring beyond 110F (43C) in areas stretching from California to Arizona. Roughly half of Arizona and Nevada were under an excessive heat alert, even though the official start of summer is still a week away, with Las Vegas hitting 110F on Friday and Phoenix reaching 113F (45C).Scientists have found that heatwaves are moving more slowly and lasting longer due to the climate crisis, which is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies last year concluded that the searing heat experienced in Europe and the US would have been virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused global heating.Trump has vowed to accelerate oil and gas production, already at record levels, in the US, however, repeating the mantra “drill, baby, drill” at rallies. The former president and newly convicted felon aims to undo Joe Biden’s policies aimed at lowering carbon emissions, which he has called “insane”, and has directly sought $1bn in campaign donations from oil and gas executives in order to fulfill this agenda as president.“Donald Trump is openly telling people that he’s only out for himself,” said Alex Glass, a campaigner at Climate Power, a climate advocacy group. “He’s making promises to big oil executives who are fueling the climate crisis while people are passing out at his rallies from very real, very dangerous heatwaves that he says are caused by a hoax.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe dangers of worsening heatwaves did not give pause to Trump’s backers sweltering in Las Vegas, however. “This is a dry heat – this ain’t nothing for Las Vegas people,” said Michael McDonald, Nevada’s Republican party chair, who added that it “symbolizes for the rest of the United States we will walk through hell” to elect Trump.“You know what? It’s worth it,” Camille Lombardi, a 65-year-old retired nurse from Henderson, in suburban Las Vegas, who was seeing Trump in person for the first time, told AP. “Too bad it wasn’t indoors, but that’s OK.” More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Slap in the face’: outrage after New York governor halts congestion pricing

      by

      An 11th-hour decision to halt a plan to charge a fee for cars entering the heart of New York City has provoked outrage from environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers, potentially scuppering hopes of congestion pricing taking hold in any US city in the near future.New York City was, on 30 June, primed to be the first American city to toll drivers in its traffic-clogged centre, with cars entering Manhattan south of 60th Street set to be charged $15 a day in a plan heralded as a landmark moment in tackling air pollution, helping curb carbon emissions and providing a funding boost for New York’s sprawling yet beleaguered public transit system.Yet on Wednesday, New York’s governor Kathy Hochul said she had come to the “difficult decision that implementing the planned congestion pricing system risks too many unintended consequences”, adding that she had ordered her administration to “indefinitely pause” the system.Hochul cited concerns over the plan’s cost to low-income people who drive into Manhattan at a time of relatively high inflation, although a political calculation has also shaped the governor’s thinking, with suburban districts near to New York City rife with car-owning voters expected to be closely contested in November elections.But supporters of the plan say that New York has missed a crucial opportunity to follow cities around the world, such as London and Stockholm, that have managed to enact congestion pricing in a successful way, with lawsuits now expected to try to force through the scheme.“I’ve been in touch with a lot of urban planners and city officials around the country and I can’t remember these people being as furious as they have been in the last 24 hours,” said David Zipper, a transportation expert and senior fellow at the MIT Mobility Initiative.“New York is America’s biggest city, with the lowest levels of car ownership and highest share of transit ridership – you’d expect to see congestion pricing there first. Los Angeles and Boston were looking to New York, this could’ve spread nationwide, and yet Hochul has decided that low-income residents matter less than a few grumpy suburbanites. It’s deflating and it’s a slap in the face.”The decision is “disastrous to both the city and the broader economic region since the benefits of free-flowing traffic and faster commutes outweigh the costs”, said Rich Geddes, an infrastructure expect at Cornell University.“Some cite concerns about equity associated with congestion pricing, but traffic congestion itself disproportionately hurts the poor, with city buses and other public transportation stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.”Hochul herself was until recently a vocal backer of congestion pricing, which would’ve generated around $1bn a year in revenue destined for upgrades to the accessibility and signaling in New York’s creaking subway system, as well as a fleet of new electric buses.“Fewer cars means safer streets, cleaner air and more room to maneuver for pedestrians and bicyclists,” the governor said just two weeks ago. “In that way, expanded train service or an extra subway stop can actually change the trajectory of someone’s life. That’s powerful. That’s what cities are meant to do.”In December, at a rally in support of congestion pricing, Hochul said, somewhat ironically, that “leaders are called upon to envision a better future, be bold in the implementation and execution, and be undaunted by the opposition”.Transportation is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, although advocates for the plan have largely focused on its more immediate benefits – cutting air pollution that worsens conditions such as asthma in city residents, as well as freeing up space in New York’s famously clotted streets. Around 700,000 vehicles enter the lower half of Manhattan each day, often at a crawl – the average travel speed is now around 7mph, down from around 9mph 15 years ago.Around half of New York City households do not have a car, with 85% of commuters to Manhattan using the city’s network of subways, trains and buses to get there. It’s estimated that only 1.5% of all commuters under the plan would pay the full $15 fee.“We cannot allow a vocal minority of drivers who don’t qualify for exemptions and discounts to dictate our policy decisions,” said Jerry Nadler, a Democrat whose House of Representative district includes central Manhattan.The decision was celebrated by opponents, however, who have pointed to worries over congestion pricing’s financial impact as well as concerns that it would simply displace pollution to places near Manhattan, such as the Bronx.Some of the fiercest criticism of the plan came from neighboring New Jersey, with the state’s governor suing in an attempt to halt it. “Jersey families, their wallets and the environment won big,” said Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat who claimed that commuters from the state would be hardest hit. “As I always say, don’t mess with Jersey.”In New York, lawmakers are now faced with a budget hole in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which each day moves more people by subway alone than passengers on all flights across the entire US but will not be able to undertake planned upgrades if the $1bn not be replaced by a new payroll or business tax.There seems no immediate solution to this. Liz Krueger, a state senator and chair of the senate finance committee, said Hochul’s decision is “reckless” and a “staggering error”. She added: “The legislature certainly will not be rushing to raise taxes on hard-working New York City residents and small businesses.”Zipper said the episode should not feed into a “myth” that Americans have a unique love affair with cars compared to other countries. “It’s more like a forced marriage, which is to our detriment, because it prevents us from seeing how better urban life could be,” he said. “It’s frustrating.” More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican governors gather to attack Biden’s climate agenda

      by

      Republican governors gathered in the fossil-fuel rich state of Louisiana on Monday to rail against the Biden administration’s climate agenda and lay out plans to “unleash American energy”, alarming community advocates and climate experts.“President Biden has done nothing but attack American energy,” said the Louisiana governor Jeff Landry, who led the Wednesday press conference.Landry was joined by by Republican governors from Alaska, Georgia, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Virginia.Hours before the presser, the group sent a joint letter to Biden requesting pro fossil-fuel rules and regulations, including an “end [to] regulatory overreach that unnecessarily restricts domestic energy production”, speeding the approval of federal drilling permits, and ending the pause on new liquefied natural gas export licenses. The letter does not mention that US oil and gas production has soared under President Biden, reaching record levels in 2023.The meeting was held at the Chalmette oil refinery, which a September Environmental Protection Agency report found was out of compliance with federal benzene regulations. In 2020, fires at the facility caused releases of sulphur dioxide, sending foul odors across the region.The event was convened by the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee, which, documents show, has accepted funding from the US’s largest fossil-fuel trade organization, the American Petroleum Institute.The group is the policy arm of the corporate-backed Republican Governors Association (RGA), the main campaign arm tasked with electing Republican executives across the country, which has taken funding from Chevron, Exxon, Koch Industries and other fossil-fuel companies, and also has financial links to Leonard Leo, a key figure behind the conservative effort to move the judiciary to the right.At the press conference, the governors said pro-fossil fuel policies would benefit ordinary Americans. Governor Mike Dunleavy of Alaska said: “What we’re talking about here is … developing an energy policy for the single mom with three kids.”And Louisiana’s Landry said that “if the federal government took its foot off of the neck of American energy, we could absolutely lower the costs of everyday goods” – suggesting boosting oil and gas would lower inflation.But experts say boosting extraction in the US would not depress gas prices because fuel prices are set globally.Fossil fuel expansion would also be a “death sentence” for frontline communities worst affected by toxic industrial pollution, said the environmental justice activist Sharon Lavigne.“He is not for human lives,” Lavigne, who founded the local grassroots organization Rise St James, said of Landry.Since taking office earlier this year, Landry has appointed oil, gas and coal executives to Louisiana’s environmental posts, while targeting the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a broader reorganization plan. He has repeatedly claimed to be fighting for “energy independence” – a term he repeated on Monday. Yet the US remains net exporter of oil and gas, meaning the nation already produces more energy than it consumes.Jackson Voss, who works on climate policy for the Louisiana-based environmental group Alliance for Affordable Energy, also noted the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries contribute more to toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions than any other industry in Louisiana. The state also brings in less than 10% of its revenue from oil and gas.“Oil and gas benefits a great deal from Louisiana, through subsidies, through deregulation, through its attorney general challenging national policy,” he said. “But in terms of the benefits of getting back to Louisiana? I’d say they’re fairly minimal.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s $1bn pitch to oil bosses ‘the definition of corruption’, top Democrat says

      by

      Donald Trump’s brazen pitch to 20 fossil-fuel heads for $1bn to aid his presidential campaign in return for promises of lucrative tax and regulatory favors is the “definition of corruption”, a top Democrat investigating the issue has said.“It certainly meets the definition of corruption as the founding fathers would have used the term,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said in an interview about Trump’s audacious $1bn request for big checks to top fossil-fuel executives that took place in April at his Mar-a-Lago club.Whitehouse added: “The quid pro quo – so called – is so very evident … I can’t think of anything that matches this either in terms of the size of the bribe requested, or the brazenness of the linkages.”Whitehouse and his fellow Democrat Ron Wyden have launched a joint inquiry, as chairs of the Senate budget and finance panels respectively, into Trump’s quid-pro-quo-style fundraising, which already seems to have helped spur tens of millions in checks for a Trump Super Pac from oil and gas leaders at a 22 May Houston event.The two senators have written to eight big-oil chief executives and the head of the industry’s lobbying group seeking details about the Mar-a- Lago meeting, as has representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the oversight and accountability committee, who has begun a parallel investigation into the pay-to-play schemes that Trump touted to big oil leaders.Amplifying those concerns, former Federal Election Commission general counsel Larry Noble said that Trump’s unusually aggressive money pitch “violates the letter and spirit” of campaign-finance laws, and a veteran Republican consultant called it “blatant pay to play”.In a separate fossil-fuel inquiry, Raskin and Whitehouse released a joint report in April into long-running big-oil disinformation campaigns to undercut the enormous threats posed by global warming, which Trump has falsely labelled a “hoax”, and last week urged the justice department to investigate big-oil tactics to deceive the public.Trump boasts a lengthy record of rejecting scientific evidence about the links between fossil-fuel usage and climate change: he has pushed a litany of bogus climate claims, including that windmills cause cancer and that electric cars are “bad” for the environment, while promising to end tax breaks for EVs if he wins this fall.Further, in a major rebuke to environmental advocates and international efforts to curb global warming, Trump in 2017 announced the US was pulling out of the Paris agreement to limit climate change, a much-criticized move that Joe Biden reversed.Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra and his deep animosity toward alternative energy sources have been part of his fundraising pitches to oil and gas moguls, triggering alarm about the dangers of another Trump presidency.“The totality of … Trump, the fossil-fuel industry and a [conservative thinktank] Heritage Foundation blueprint advocate will put a dagger through efforts to avoid catastrophic warming,” said Joe Romm, a senior research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.“Trump promises to undo every constraint on global warming. Trump has pushed more lies and disinformation about climate change than anyone ever has.”Other climate scholars say Trump’s climate denialism is the culmination of years of fossil-fuel propaganda.“Trump is an apotheosis of decades of denial, not only on the part of the fossil-fuel industry, but also by other industry allies, including now-certain billionaires, to deny the reality of the harms of unregulated, or very poorly regulated, capitalism,” said Naomi Oreskes, the co-author of Merchants of Doubt and a Harvard historian of science. “Donald Trump is the reductio ad absurdum of this rewriting of history, culminating in the big lie that he won the 2020 election.”Trump’s strong embrace of climate-change denialism and his pro-big-oil policies were underscored by his aggressive $1bn pitch at Mar-a-Lago, which drew CEOs from giants such as Chevron and ExxonMobil, and the fracking multibillionaire Harold Hamm, the founder of Continental Resources, as the Washington Post first reported.Hamm, an early Trump backer in 2016 and 2020 who took months before helping Trump’s current presidential bid, joined with two other industry CEOs to host a Super Pac bash in Houston that reportedly raised $40m on 22 May from attendees who paid at least $250,000 each to hear Trump promise more fracking and more pipelines if he wins.Trump’s full-court press for fossil-fuel funds and political backing was palpable at an industry conference in North Dakota earlier in May, where Hamm surprised attendees by announcing Trump would join them via a video which featured bogus claims about the health of energy companies and the economy.“Under ‘Crooked Joe Biden’, the American energy industry is under siege, it’s under crisis. [Biden] has made clear that he wants to abolish your industry and, with it, destroy our economy and send us into a new dark age of blackouts, poverty and de-industrialization,” said Trump.View image in fullscreenThe spotlight on Trump’s ardent pursuit of oil and gas donations comes after Biden championed major new regulatory, tax and spending measures to reduce global warming in a sharp break with Trump policies past and present.Ironically, even as Biden succeeded in accelerating spending for green energy, and imposed new regulations on fracking on US lands and a moratorium on natural gas exports, oil and gas production in the US reached new highs in 2023 and major companies notched healthy profits.Still, the oil and gas industry has been ponying up funds for Trump’s campaign faster than it did in 2020, according to the nonpartisan OpenSecrets group, which tracks money in politics.The oil and gas industry has donated $7.3m to Trump’s campaign thus far, or more than three times the amount it gave at this point in 2020, OpenSecrets data shows.Further, some industry titans have donated six- and seven-figure checks to a Trump Super Pac. Texas oilman and multibillionaire Tim Dunn gave $5m to Trump’s Make America Great Again Pac this year, and Hamm kicked in at least $200,000 last fall.Campaign-finance watchdogs and some Republican veterans are dismayed by Trump’s fundraising tactics.“Trump views everything as a transaction, so I’m not surprised,” said ex-GOP representative Dave Trott. “Any other politician who made these statements would be deemed dead on arrival because they’d be viewed as corrupt.”Campaign-finance experts see other dangers in Trump’s heavy-handed fundraising appeals, which he links to favors.“When wealthy special interests, like the oil and gas industry, have special access to candidates, and mechanisms to give them enough money to control their policy choices, everyday voters suffer,” said Shanna Ports, the Campaign Legal Center’s senior legal counsel for campaign finance.“Trump’s request to oil executives is a troubling illustration of the quid pro quo corruption and pay-to-play-style politics that federal campaign laws are meant to prevent. Federal law includes strict contribution limits and bans corporate contributions precisely so candidates do not trade policy favors for campaign cash.”Ports stressed that “candidates are forbidden from soliciting contributions that would break these laws – a prohibition that Trump may have violated”.Likewise, Noble, the former Federal Election Commission general counsel, said Trump’s appeals for massive donations from oil and gas bigwigs [are] “pretty blatantly offering policy favors in exchange for large contributions”.Little wonder, then, that top Senate and House Democrats are inquiring into whether Trump’s bald $1bn ask of big oil moguls broke campaign finance laws, as well as big oil’s long track record of spreading disinformation about global warming.In Whitehouse and Raskin’s joint letter to the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, urging the DoJ to investigate big oil’s history of climate change disinformation, they drew parallels with the tobacco industry’s years of disinformation about the dangers smoking poses to human health.“The DoJ is well situated to pursue further investigation and take any appropriate legal action, as it has in similar cases involving the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries,” they wrote.Looking ahead to the November election, climate change experts predict another Trump presidency would decimate efforts to curb global warming.“If Trump is elected and does what he has been saying and the fossil fuel industry wants, that would be the ruin of the United States and the world,” Romm, of the University of Pennsylvania, warned.“Trump wants to roll back” the ambitious climate change steps and spending that the Biden administration has initiated, Romm added, saying: “We have dawdled a very long time on climate change. We need very sharp reductions. We can’t afford four years focused on raising emissions.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Electricity From Coal Is Pricey. Should Consumers Have to Pay?

      by

      Environmental groups are making a new economic argument against coal, the heaviest polluting fossil fuel. Some regulators are listening.For decades, environmentalists fought power plants that burn coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, by highlighting their pollution: soot, mercury and the carbon dioxide that is dangerously heating the planet.But increasingly, opponents have been making an economic argument, telling regulators that electricity produced by coal is more expensive for consumers than power generated by solar, wind and other renewable sources.And that’s been a winning strategy recently in two states where regulators forbade utilities from recouping their losses from coal-fired plants by passing those costs to ratepayers. The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, two leading environmental groups, are hoping that if utilities are forced to absorb all the costs of burning coal, it could speed the closures of uneconomical plants.The groups are focused on utilities that generate electricity from coal and also distribute it. Those utilities have historically been allowed to pass their operating losses to customers, leaving them with costly electric bills while the plants emitted carbon dioxide that could have been avoided with a different fuel source, according to the environmental groups.About 75 percent of the nation’s roughly 200 coal-fired power plants are owned by utilities that control both generation and distribution.In 2023, utilities across the United States incurred about $3 billion in losses by running coal-fired power plants when it was cheaper to buy power from lower-cost, less polluting sources, according to RMI, a nonprofit research organization focused on clean energy. About 96 percent of those losses were incurred by plants that controlled both power generation and distribution, the organization said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Greece Is Betting Big on Liquefied Natural Gas From the U.S.

      by

      When a withering financial crisis forced Greece to rethink its economy a decade ago, it bet big on green power​. Since then, Greece’s energy transition has been so swift “it almost feels utopian​,”​ one Greek environmentalist said.​Mountainous ridgelines and arid islands ​are covered in wind turbines and solar panels​ that ​today provide nearly two-thirds of the nation’s electricity.​​​But ​now Greece​ is deliberately pivoting back toward fossil fuels, just not to burn at home. This time it’s betting that it can become one of Europe’s main suppliers of natural gas, with much of it shipped from the United States.Both Greek and European Union subsidies have funded new pipelines that crisscross the country and connect to a brand-new import terminal that will send gas to a broad swath of Central and Eastern Europe for decades to come.The investments in Greece are part of a deluge of investments into natural gas around the world, with significant consequences for climate change. In coming years, nearly a trillion and a half dollars will go into constructing pipelines and terminals, according to Global Energy Monitor. Twenty percent of that spending is in Europe.The world’s pivot to gas speaks to a kind of hedging that increasingly defines global climate negotiations: While nations have agreed on the necessity to transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible, almost all major economic powers are promoting gas as a “transition fuel.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Damages From PFAS Lawsuits Could Surpass Asbestos, Industry Lawyers Warn

      by

      At an industry presentation about dangerous “forever chemicals,” lawyers predicted a wave of lawsuits that could dwarf asbestos litigation, audio from the event revealed.The defense lawyer minced no words as he addressed a room full of plastic-industry executives. Prepare for a wave of lawsuits​ with​ potentially “astronomical” costs​. Speaking at a conference earlier this year, the lawyer, Brian Gross, said the coming litigation could “dwarf anything related to asbestos,” one of the most sprawling corporate-liability battles in United States history.Mr. Gross was referring to PFAS, the “forever chemicals” that have emerged as one of the major pollution issues of our time. Used for decades in countless everyday objects — cosmetics, takeout containers, frying pans — PFAS have been linked to serious health risks including cancer. Last month the federal government said several types of PFAS must be removed from the drinking water of hundreds of millions of Americans.“Do what you can, while you can, before you get sued,” Mr. Gross said at the February session, according to a recording of the event made by a participant and examined by The New York Times. “Review any marketing materials or other communications that you’ve had with your customers, with your suppliers, see whether there’s anything in those documents that’s problematic to your defense,” he said. “Weed out people and find the right witness to represent your company.”A spokesman for Mr. Gross’s employer, MG+M The Law Firm, which defends companies in high-stakes litigation, didn’t respond to questions about Mr. Gross’s remarks and said he was unavailable to discuss them.A wide swathe of the chemicals, plastics and related industries are gearing up to fight a surge in litigation related to PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of nearly 15,000 versatile synthetic chemicals linked to serious health problems.PFAS chemicals, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have been detected almost everywhere scientists have looked: in drinking water, in rain falling over the Great Lakes, even in Antarctic snow. They are thought to be present in the blood of nearly every American. Researchers have linked exposure to PFAS to testicular and kidney cancers, developmental delays in children, decreased fertility, liver damage and thyroid disease. The man-made chemicals are so long-lasting that scientists haven’t been able to reliably identify how long it might take for them to break down.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More