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
The Sherburne County (Sherco) Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant owned by Xcel Energy and located in Becker, Minnesota, shown in 2016. (Photo: Tony Webster/Flickr/cc)
'Ideology Trumping Science': Independent Advisory Board Says Trump EPA Is Ignoring Scientific Evidence as It Shreds Regulations
Former members of the agency's Science Advisory Board say EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is "sidelining" the panel.
Dec 31, 2019
A federal panel of independent scientific experts says the EPA has flouted the panel's guidance in its efforts to roll back a number of Obama-era regulations, resulting in an agency push that will affect public health for millions of Americans without the consideration of environmental science.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) wrote in four draft reports published online Tuesday that the agency's published revisions to at least four regulations "conflict with established science," according to the Washington Post.
Although two-thirds of the SAB's current members are Trump appointees, Juliet Eilperin wrote in the Post, the panel "found serious flaws" in the proposed changes to rules governing pollution, gas mileage, and how regulations are written.
The revisions and regulatory rollbacks in question include:
- a reversal of a rule that limits the use of pesticides and other chemicals near waterways, which the SAB says "neglects established science" that has shown how contamination from such toxins can pollute drinking water
- a reduction in mileage targets for vehicles, which was decided based on "implausible" economic analyses
- the rollback of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which the EPA pushed after performing a flawed cost-benefit analysis, failing to consider the public health benefits and savings that would result from controlling mercury pollution
- the EPA's push to exclude certain scientific studies from policy-making, saying the change "could easily undercut the integrity of environmental laws, as it will allow systematic bias to be introduced."
H. Christopher Frey, an environmental engineering professor at North Carolina State University who served on the board for six years, told the Post that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is "sidelining the Scientific Advisory Board."
"He obviously has an ideological agenda of pursuing regulatory rollbacks, and the science is not always going to be consistent with that ideological agenda," Frey said.
The EPA's marginalizing of the board as it rolls back regulations "looks like ideology trumping science," tweeted Kathleen Rest, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The SAB's new reports about the EPA's rollbacks call into question "to what degree these suggested changes are fact-based as opposed to politically motivated," Steven Hamburg of the Environmental Defense Fund, who served on the board until last September, told the Post.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A federal panel of independent scientific experts says the EPA has flouted the panel's guidance in its efforts to roll back a number of Obama-era regulations, resulting in an agency push that will affect public health for millions of Americans without the consideration of environmental science.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) wrote in four draft reports published online Tuesday that the agency's published revisions to at least four regulations "conflict with established science," according to the Washington Post.
Although two-thirds of the SAB's current members are Trump appointees, Juliet Eilperin wrote in the Post, the panel "found serious flaws" in the proposed changes to rules governing pollution, gas mileage, and how regulations are written.
The revisions and regulatory rollbacks in question include:
- a reversal of a rule that limits the use of pesticides and other chemicals near waterways, which the SAB says "neglects established science" that has shown how contamination from such toxins can pollute drinking water
- a reduction in mileage targets for vehicles, which was decided based on "implausible" economic analyses
- the rollback of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which the EPA pushed after performing a flawed cost-benefit analysis, failing to consider the public health benefits and savings that would result from controlling mercury pollution
- the EPA's push to exclude certain scientific studies from policy-making, saying the change "could easily undercut the integrity of environmental laws, as it will allow systematic bias to be introduced."
H. Christopher Frey, an environmental engineering professor at North Carolina State University who served on the board for six years, told the Post that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is "sidelining the Scientific Advisory Board."
"He obviously has an ideological agenda of pursuing regulatory rollbacks, and the science is not always going to be consistent with that ideological agenda," Frey said.
The EPA's marginalizing of the board as it rolls back regulations "looks like ideology trumping science," tweeted Kathleen Rest, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The SAB's new reports about the EPA's rollbacks call into question "to what degree these suggested changes are fact-based as opposed to politically motivated," Steven Hamburg of the Environmental Defense Fund, who served on the board until last September, told the Post.
A federal panel of independent scientific experts says the EPA has flouted the panel's guidance in its efforts to roll back a number of Obama-era regulations, resulting in an agency push that will affect public health for millions of Americans without the consideration of environmental science.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) wrote in four draft reports published online Tuesday that the agency's published revisions to at least four regulations "conflict with established science," according to the Washington Post.
Although two-thirds of the SAB's current members are Trump appointees, Juliet Eilperin wrote in the Post, the panel "found serious flaws" in the proposed changes to rules governing pollution, gas mileage, and how regulations are written.
The revisions and regulatory rollbacks in question include:
- a reversal of a rule that limits the use of pesticides and other chemicals near waterways, which the SAB says "neglects established science" that has shown how contamination from such toxins can pollute drinking water
- a reduction in mileage targets for vehicles, which was decided based on "implausible" economic analyses
- the rollback of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which the EPA pushed after performing a flawed cost-benefit analysis, failing to consider the public health benefits and savings that would result from controlling mercury pollution
- the EPA's push to exclude certain scientific studies from policy-making, saying the change "could easily undercut the integrity of environmental laws, as it will allow systematic bias to be introduced."
H. Christopher Frey, an environmental engineering professor at North Carolina State University who served on the board for six years, told the Post that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is "sidelining the Scientific Advisory Board."
"He obviously has an ideological agenda of pursuing regulatory rollbacks, and the science is not always going to be consistent with that ideological agenda," Frey said.
The EPA's marginalizing of the board as it rolls back regulations "looks like ideology trumping science," tweeted Kathleen Rest, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The SAB's new reports about the EPA's rollbacks call into question "to what degree these suggested changes are fact-based as opposed to politically motivated," Steven Hamburg of the Environmental Defense Fund, who served on the board until last September, told the Post.
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.