SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
As E&E News reported on Friday, Pruitt announced a push for "additional science reform" at the EPA during a closed-door meeting at the right-wing Heritage Foundation this week. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr/cc)
In Latest 'Alarming' Attack on Science, Pruitt Reportedly Moving to Restrict Use of Research in EPA Policy
"This is insane. If EPA rules are not based on science, what are they based on?"
Mar 17, 2018
A deeply unpopular plan by one of the Republican Party's most fervent climate deniers to restrict the use of scientific research in government rule-making isn't even advancing in the GOP-controlled Congress, but EPA chief Scott Pruitt appears to be moving to adopt it as official agency policy.
"It's just another excuse for Pruitt to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
--Yogin Kothari, Union of Concerned ScientistsAs E&E News reported on Friday, Pruitt announced a push for "additional science reform" at the EPA during a closed-door meeting at the right-wing Heritage Foundation this week.
According to attendees and others who spoke to E&E News, this "reform" effort is expected to resemble Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Texas) legislative attempt to prohibit the EPA from using scientific data that isn't fully available to the public and "reproducible" in developing policy.
"The proposal may sound reasonable enough at first," explained The Intercept's Sharon Lerner in a summary of Smith's bill. "But because health research often contains confidential personal information that is illegal to share, the bill would prevent the EPA from using many of the best scientific studies. It would also prohibit using studies of one-time events, such as the Gulf oil spill or the effect of a partial ban of chlorpyrifos on children...because these events--and thus the studies of them--can't be repeated."
And while Smith's bill would restrict the EPA's ability to use certain kinds of crucial scientific research, it would "allow industry to keep much of its own inner workings and skewed research secret from the public, while delegitimizing studies done by researchers with no vested interest in their outcome."
Pruitt's reported plan to enshrine Smith's proposals in official EPA policy was met with alarm by scientists, former government officials, and environmentalists, who argued that it is yet another "dangerous" attempt to curtail the agency's ability to combat environmental degradation.
Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official who resigned last year in protest against Pruitt's fervent deregulatory agenda, characterized Smith's bill and Pruitt's apparent support for it as part of a deceptive effort to "paralyze rulemaking."
"It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen--in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Reacting to reports of Pruitt's plan on Friday, Yogin Kothari of the Union of Concerned Scientists called the expected move "alarming" and concluded: "It's just another excuse for Pruitt's EPA to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A deeply unpopular plan by one of the Republican Party's most fervent climate deniers to restrict the use of scientific research in government rule-making isn't even advancing in the GOP-controlled Congress, but EPA chief Scott Pruitt appears to be moving to adopt it as official agency policy.
"It's just another excuse for Pruitt to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
--Yogin Kothari, Union of Concerned ScientistsAs E&E News reported on Friday, Pruitt announced a push for "additional science reform" at the EPA during a closed-door meeting at the right-wing Heritage Foundation this week.
According to attendees and others who spoke to E&E News, this "reform" effort is expected to resemble Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Texas) legislative attempt to prohibit the EPA from using scientific data that isn't fully available to the public and "reproducible" in developing policy.
"The proposal may sound reasonable enough at first," explained The Intercept's Sharon Lerner in a summary of Smith's bill. "But because health research often contains confidential personal information that is illegal to share, the bill would prevent the EPA from using many of the best scientific studies. It would also prohibit using studies of one-time events, such as the Gulf oil spill or the effect of a partial ban of chlorpyrifos on children...because these events--and thus the studies of them--can't be repeated."
And while Smith's bill would restrict the EPA's ability to use certain kinds of crucial scientific research, it would "allow industry to keep much of its own inner workings and skewed research secret from the public, while delegitimizing studies done by researchers with no vested interest in their outcome."
Pruitt's reported plan to enshrine Smith's proposals in official EPA policy was met with alarm by scientists, former government officials, and environmentalists, who argued that it is yet another "dangerous" attempt to curtail the agency's ability to combat environmental degradation.
Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official who resigned last year in protest against Pruitt's fervent deregulatory agenda, characterized Smith's bill and Pruitt's apparent support for it as part of a deceptive effort to "paralyze rulemaking."
"It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen--in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Reacting to reports of Pruitt's plan on Friday, Yogin Kothari of the Union of Concerned Scientists called the expected move "alarming" and concluded: "It's just another excuse for Pruitt's EPA to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
A deeply unpopular plan by one of the Republican Party's most fervent climate deniers to restrict the use of scientific research in government rule-making isn't even advancing in the GOP-controlled Congress, but EPA chief Scott Pruitt appears to be moving to adopt it as official agency policy.
"It's just another excuse for Pruitt to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
--Yogin Kothari, Union of Concerned ScientistsAs E&E News reported on Friday, Pruitt announced a push for "additional science reform" at the EPA during a closed-door meeting at the right-wing Heritage Foundation this week.
According to attendees and others who spoke to E&E News, this "reform" effort is expected to resemble Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Texas) legislative attempt to prohibit the EPA from using scientific data that isn't fully available to the public and "reproducible" in developing policy.
"The proposal may sound reasonable enough at first," explained The Intercept's Sharon Lerner in a summary of Smith's bill. "But because health research often contains confidential personal information that is illegal to share, the bill would prevent the EPA from using many of the best scientific studies. It would also prohibit using studies of one-time events, such as the Gulf oil spill or the effect of a partial ban of chlorpyrifos on children...because these events--and thus the studies of them--can't be repeated."
And while Smith's bill would restrict the EPA's ability to use certain kinds of crucial scientific research, it would "allow industry to keep much of its own inner workings and skewed research secret from the public, while delegitimizing studies done by researchers with no vested interest in their outcome."
Pruitt's reported plan to enshrine Smith's proposals in official EPA policy was met with alarm by scientists, former government officials, and environmentalists, who argued that it is yet another "dangerous" attempt to curtail the agency's ability to combat environmental degradation.
Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official who resigned last year in protest against Pruitt's fervent deregulatory agenda, characterized Smith's bill and Pruitt's apparent support for it as part of a deceptive effort to "paralyze rulemaking."
"It's another obstacle that would make it so hard and so difficult to go forward with rulemaking that in the end, the only thing that would happen--in the best case you would greatly delay rulemaking; in the worst case you would just prevent it. It would be such an obstacle you couldn't overcome it."
Reacting to reports of Pruitt's plan on Friday, Yogin Kothari of the Union of Concerned Scientists called the expected move "alarming" and concluded: "It's just another excuse for Pruitt's EPA to really abrogate EPA's responsibility to protect human health and the environment."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy