tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/scott-pruitt-34386/articlesScott Pruitt – The Conversation2019-10-29T12:58:23Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1257792019-10-29T12:58:23Z2019-10-29T12:58:23ZThe EPA disbanded our clean air science panel. We met anyway – and found that particle pollution regulations aren’t protecting public health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298812/original/file-20191027-113944-khmjw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=53%2C0%2C5902%2C3931&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vehicles are a major source of particulate air pollution.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/air-pollution-vehicle-exhaust-pipe-on-1256313274?src=90GKTmBcJq9G3a68WJ1LDg-1-39">Deliris/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since 1980, emissions of six common air pollutants have <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary">decreased by 67%</a>, thanks largely to government regulation. At the same time, U.S. gross domestic product has increased by 165%. While some assert that regulation acts as <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-environmental-regulations-do-more-harm-or-good-presidential-candidates-disagree-55989">a drag on the economy</a>, this record indicates that environmental protection does not have to undercut economic growth. </p>
<p>I have <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=o8_V-4kAAAAJ&hl=en">studied air pollution and air quality</a> for over 30 years, and have been directly involved for a decade with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reviews of scientific findings on air pollution. This includes seven years of service on the agency’s <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/webcommittees/CASAC">Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee</a> and stints on 10 specialized panels focused on individual pollutants. </p>
<p>The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/table-historical-particulate-matter-pm-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs">national standard for regulating particulate matter</a> – tiny solid particles and droplets that measure <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM">a fraction of the width of a human hair</a> and penetrate deeply into the lungs when inhaled. Health effects of exposure to fine particulate air pollution include <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html">respiratory, cardiovascular and other diseases and premature death</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298811/original/file-20191027-113948-5xzcxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298811/original/file-20191027-113948-5xzcxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298811/original/file-20191027-113948-5xzcxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298811/original/file-20191027-113948-5xzcxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298811/original/file-20191027-113948-5xzcxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298811/original/file-20191027-113948-5xzcxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298811/original/file-20191027-113948-5xzcxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298811/original/file-20191027-113948-5xzcxd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Size comparisons for particulate air pollution.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/pm2.5_scale_graphic-color_2.jpg">EPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But on Oct. 10, 2018, I and other scientists on a panel that advised the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee on this issue learned that the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/acting-administrator-wheeler-announces-science-advisors-key-clean-air-act-committee">EPA abruptly disbanded our panel</a>. Now the particulate matter review is moving forward <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dismissed-science-advisors-will-convene-evaluate-air-pollution">without the scientific expertise and experience</a> that it needs. </p>
<p>To help fill this gap, we <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/meeting-independent-particulate-matter-review-panel">reconvened ourselves independently</a>, and have met over the past year to <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/086D8B853E0B63AE8525835F004DC679/$File/PMRP+Letter+to+CASAC+181210+Final+181210.pdf">produce scientific advice for EPA</a> aimed at protecting public health. The <a href="https://ucsusa.org/about">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>, a nonprofit group that advocates for the use of rigorous, independent science to solve global problems, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/the-epa-cut-science-out-of-air-pollution-standard-setting-were-putting-it-back">hosted our most recent meeting</a> on Oct. 10 and Oct. 11, 2019. We reported our conclusions directly to the EPA, and panel members donated their time and expertise.</p>
<p>In contrast, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has been restructured over the past several years with <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/acting-administrator-wheeler-announces-science-advisors-key-clean-air-act-committee">new appointees</a> who appear to be developing advice aimed at <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/wheeler-science-pruitt-epa-panel-be0a783aa55b/">pleasing the EPA administrator</a>.</p>
<h2>A serious threat to public health</h2>
<p>Fine particle air pollution comes from many sources, including burning <a href="https://theconversation.com/fine-particle-air-pollution-is-a-public-health-emergency-hiding-in-plain-sight-106030">fossil fuels</a>. Today more than 20 million Americans live in areas with <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/kbtc.html">high levels of fine particles</a>. </p>
<p>Average annual fine particulate levels in the U.S. fell by nearly 25% between 2009 and 2016, but this trend <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/773675407/spike-in-air-pollution-in-u-s">may be reversing</a>. Increasingly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617394114">frequent and severe wildfires</a>, such as those currently <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/28/us/california-fires-power-outages-monday/index.html">raging in California</a>, are one likely source. </p>
<p>A recent study found that fine particle levels <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w26381">rose 5.5% between 2016 and 2018</a> and estimated that this increase was associated with some 9,700 premature deaths in 2018 that would not have occurred otherwise. Our panel noted the recent uptick in fine particle levels in our <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf//81DF85B5460CC14F8525849B0043144B/$File/Independent+Particulate+Matter+Review+Panel+Letter+on+Draft+PA.pdf">latest report, released last week</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298476/original/file-20191024-31471-1bxwjml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=103%2C0%2C2679%2C1008&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298476/original/file-20191024-31471-1bxwjml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=103%2C0%2C2679%2C1008&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298476/original/file-20191024-31471-1bxwjml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298476/original/file-20191024-31471-1bxwjml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298476/original/file-20191024-31471-1bxwjml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=211&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298476/original/file-20191024-31471-1bxwjml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298476/original/file-20191024-31471-1bxwjml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298476/original/file-20191024-31471-1bxwjml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=265&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">National fine particulate matter concentrations for 2015 to 2017 (annual average, left, and daily average, right). Readings coded yellow approach current standards; those coded red exceed them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/draft_policy_assessment_for_pm_naaqs_09-05-2019.pdf">EPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Science-based standards</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7409">Clean Air Act</a> requires the EPA to conduct <a href="https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambient-air-quality-standards">regular reviews of national air quality standards</a>. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s job is to review the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7408">“latest scientific knowledge</a>” underpinning regulations for major air pollutants. If the science indicates that existing standards are not adequately protecting public health, the agency must revise them. </p>
<p>The committee has <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebCASAC/currentcharter?OpenDocument">seven members</a>, appointed by the EPA administrator. But air pollution standards draw on many scientific disciplines, including <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/EB862B233FBD0CDE85257DDA004FCB8C/$File/Determination%20memo-CASAC%20PM.pdf">air quality, epidemiology, toxicology, medicine, biostatistics, ecology, climate and risk assessment</a>. For decades, EPA has organized <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebProjectsbyTopicCASAC?OpenView">panels of additional experts</a> to help the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee review the latest research – until now. </p>
<p>Our nongovernmental panel has multiple experts in epidemiology, toxicology, medicine, exposure assessment, risk assessment, statistics, air quality measurement and modeling. <a href="https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/undeterred-dismissed-scientists-plod-through-air-quality-reviews">The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee doesn’t have an epidemiologist</a>, although epidemiology is a central discipline in analyzing health effects from exposure to fine particle pollution. </p>
<p>In fact, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fired-epa-scientists-release-air-pollution-report-they-say-agency-n1064456">the committee admitted this</a>, and asked the EPA in April 2019 to <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebReportsLastMonthCASAC/6CBCBBC3025E13B4852583D90047B352/%24File/EPA-CASAC-19-002+.pdf">reinstate our panel</a>. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/6CBCBBC3025E13B4852583D90047B352/$File/EPA-CASAC-19-002_Response.pdf">refused</a>. Instead he appointed a smaller group that is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/clean-air-scientists-fired-by-epa-to-reconvene-in-snub-to-trump">not allowed to deliberate with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee</a>. </p>
<h2>Breaking the review process</h2>
<p>EPA officials began undermining the scientific review process in 2017, when then-Administrator Scott Pruitt <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/final_draft_fac_memo-10.30.2017.pdf">wrote a memorandum</a> that <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/trump-s-epa-has-blocked-agency-grantees-serving-science-advisory-panels-here-what-it">bars scholars who hold EPA research grants</a> from serving on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. But often these are precisely the highly respected scientific leaders that the committee needs. </p>
<p>The federal government has long recognized that holding a research grant does not infringe on a scientist’s “<a href="https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/pdfs/OMB_Peer_Review_Bulletin_m05-03.pdf">ability to offer independent scientific advice</a>.” In contrast, Pruitt allowed <a href="https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-epa-pollution-study-20190321-story.html">people who received funding from regulated industries to serve on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee</a>.</p>
<p>On Oct. 10, 2018, Pruitt’s successor, Andrew Wheeler, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/acting-administrator-wheeler-announces-science-advisors-key-clean-air-act-committee">replaced five Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members</a>. The committee now includes one researcher, staff from one federal and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/14/epa-scraps-pair-air-pollution-science-panels/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c3510ace26e">four state agencies</a> and an <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/trumps-air-pollution-adviser-clean-air-saves-no-lives/">industry consultant</a>. Wheeler has also shortened the science review schedule and <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/6CBCBBC3025E13B4852583D90047B352/$File/EPA-CASAC-19-002_Response.pdf">dropped key assessment documents from the review</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zu5F_gNEgvQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Air quality in San Francisco deteriorates over 3 weeks in November 2018 as smoke from Northern California wildfires reaches the city.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ignoring the science</h2>
<p>Past Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reviews of national air quality standards took <a href="http://pubs.awma.org/flip/EM-Dec-2018/frey.pdf">three years on average</a>. They focused on <a href="http://pubs.awma.org/flip/EM-May-2015/frey.pdf">three major EPA staff reports</a> that 1) <a href="https://www.epa.gov/isa">summarized scientific findings on health effects</a>, 2) established the <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html">scientific basis for quantifying health risk</a> and 3) identified potential options for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/particulate-matter-pm-standards-policy-assessments-current-review-0">retaining, revising or rescinding current standards or setting a new ones</a>. These steps were <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pdfs/memo_process_for_reviewing_naaqs.pdf">carefully designed</a> to clearly establish the science before making judgments about policy.</p>
<p>Now, however, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s Integrated Science Assessment on particulate air pollution – the first step in the three-stage sequence – is still in draft form, and EPA is introducing policy issues before the science is settled. We expect that the agency will be sued for this and other procedural irregularities.</p>
<p>Our panel <a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/science-and-democracy/pm-panel-meeting-docs/ipmrp-agenda.pdf">met publicly</a> to carry out a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpodC23hJnQ">scientific review of EPA’s policy assessment</a>. We concluded that existing annual and 24-hour standards for fine particle air pollution <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf//81DF85B5460CC14F8525849B0043144B/$File/Independent+Particulate+Matter+Review+Panel+Letter+on+Draft+PA.pdf">are not protective of public health</a>. </p>
<p>Currently, federal regulations set an annual standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, or ug/m3. We recommend lowering this standard to a range of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/22/scientists-warn-fine-particle-pollution-standards-dont-protect-people">8-10 ug/m3</a>. Similarly, we recommend revising the existing 24-hour standard – which applies to short-term pollution spikes – from 35 ug/m3 to 25-30 ug/m3. </p>
<p>These scientific findings are based on consistent epidemiological evidence from multiple studies, at ambient concentrations below the levels of the current standards. The epidemiologic results are supported by results from toxicological and controlled human studies.</p>
<p>In contrast, when the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee met on Oct. 24 and Oct. 25, two of its six members supported tightening the relevant standards, but the other four concluded that <a href="https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-advisers-unable-to-agree-on-air-pollution-standard">existing standards are good enough</a>. This view ignores compelling new evidence, including the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1702747">largest-ever U.S. epidemiologic study</a> for fine particles, published in 2017. This study and others clearly show adverse health effects – including premature death – at exposure levels below current U.S. standards.</p>
<p>We believe the EPA should <a href="https://grist.org/article/these-fired-air-pollution-experts-just-did-the-job-the-epa-didnt-want-them-to-do/">follow the law</a>, which requires a thorough review of the science underpinning air pollution standards. A first step would be reappointing our panel to provide the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee with the expertise on particulate matter that it needs.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-rush-to-judgment-the-trump-administration-is-taking-science-out-of-air-quality-standards-106507">article</a> originally published on Nov. 26, 2018.</em></p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125779/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In the last two years, Dr. Frey has been the principal investigator of research grants and contracts at North Carolina State University sponsored by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency via the Health Effects Institute and Eastern Research Group, and the Urban Air Initiative. Dr. Frey’s research work at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, where he is an adjunct professor, is funded by the HSBC 150th Anniversary Charity Programme. Dr. Frey has also conducted work for the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department. Dr. Frey’s current affiliations include serving as a member of the Transportation and Air Quality (ADC20) Committee of the Transportation Research Board, and as a member of the Publications Committee and the Critical Review Committee of the Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) . He is also on the editorial board of the journal Atmospheric Environment and serving as a guest editor for the journals Atmospheric Environment and Science of the Total Environment. He is chair of the nongovernmental Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel.</span></em></p>Scientists who were appointed to advise the EPA on air pollution kept meeting independently after the agency dissolved their panel. They say current regulations aren’t strict enough.H. Christopher Frey, Glenn E. Futrell Distinguished University Professor of Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1065072018-11-26T11:38:04Z2018-11-26T11:38:04ZA rush to judgment: The Trump administration is taking science out of air quality standards<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246743/original/file-20181121-161638-1ve46pd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Industrial facilities like this oil refinery in Anacortes, Washington are significant air pollution sources.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andeavor_Anacortes_Refinery#/media/File:Anacortes_Refinery_31911.JPG">Walter Siegmund/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many critics of government regulation argue that it <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-environmental-regulations-do-more-harm-or-good-presidential-candidates-disagree-55989">reduces economic growth</a> by making it more expensive for businesses to operate. But there is a strong counterargument that <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-trump-misses-about-regulations-they-produce-benefits-as-well-as-costs-72470">a clean environment is consistent with long-term economic prosperity</a>. Here’s a compelling example: Since 1980, U.S. gross domestic product has grown by 165 percent, while emissions of six common air pollutants <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary">decreased by 67 percent</a> – thanks largely to government regulation.</p>
<p>Science is a critical foundation of effective regulation. I have <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=o8_V-4kAAAAJ&hl=en">studied air pollution and air quality</a> for over 30 years, and have been directly involved for a decade with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reviews of scientific findings on air pollution. This includes seven years of service on the agency’s <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/webcommittees/CASAC">Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee</a>, or CASAC, and stints on 10 specialized panels focused on individual pollutants. </p>
<p>In my view, the Trump administration’s focus on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/23/pruitt-promised-polluters-epa-will-value-their-profits-over-american-lives">short-term profit-taking</a> based on <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/year_in_review_3.5.18.pdf">regulatory rollback</a> fails to recognize the importance of science-based regulation. Alarmingly, a multi-pronged attack on science at EPA is threatening air quality standards that by law are required to protect public health. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246740/original/file-20181121-161644-1j8q4nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246740/original/file-20181121-161644-1j8q4nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246740/original/file-20181121-161644-1j8q4nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246740/original/file-20181121-161644-1j8q4nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246740/original/file-20181121-161644-1j8q4nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246740/original/file-20181121-161644-1j8q4nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246740/original/file-20181121-161644-1j8q4nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246740/original/file-20181121-161644-1j8q4nc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A boy in Fresno, California shows how he uses an inhaler to combat asthma, made worse by air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/California-Dirty-Air/5d5051fafa42499a83e8d80abe74c0aa/7/0">AP Photo/Scott Smith</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Two key pollutants under review</h2>
<p>Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to conduct <a href="https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambient-air-quality-standards">regular reviews of national air quality standards</a> for major pollutants, and to revise those standards if the latest science indicates that they are not adequately protecting public health. It is now reviewing standards for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution">ozone</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution">particulate matter</a> – the two most significant air pollution regulations on the books.</p>
<p>Emissions from cars, trucks and power plants react in sunlight to form excessive amounts of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-ozone-and-related-photochemical-oxidants">ozone in the lower atmosphere</a>. Fine particles are produced from many sources, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/fine-particle-air-pollution-is-a-public-health-emergency-hiding-in-plain-sight-106030">fossil fuel combustion</a>. </p>
<p>These pollutants harm the public generally and <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310244">at-risk groups</a> in particular, including children, the elderly, outdoor workers and people with asthma. Health impacts include <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html">respiratory, cardiovascular and other diseases and premature death</a>. Today more than 124 million Americans live in areas with <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jbtc.html">breathable ozone above health protective levels</a>, and over 23 million live in areas with <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/kbtc.html">high levels of fine particles</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246738/original/file-20181121-161624-1vbtcvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246738/original/file-20181121-161624-1vbtcvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246738/original/file-20181121-161624-1vbtcvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246738/original/file-20181121-161624-1vbtcvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246738/original/file-20181121-161624-1vbtcvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246738/original/file-20181121-161624-1vbtcvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246738/original/file-20181121-161624-1vbtcvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246738/original/file-20181121-161624-1vbtcvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Number of days for which ozone or fine particle pollution reached ‘code orange’ or above on the Air Quality Index (AQI) for selected U.S. cities. ‘Code orange’ is considered unhealthy for sensitive groups; ‘code red’ is unhealthy for everyone.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://gispub.epa.gov/OAR_OAQPS/SeasonReview2016/index.html?appid=c14363d1de994f06960c9d9b7ad84540">EPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Science-based standards</h2>
<p>The Clean Air Act requires EPA to carry out a periodic “thorough review” of the “latest scientific knowledge” underpinning regulations for major air pollutants. In this process, an “independent scientific review committee” must assess existing standards and recommend revised or new ones as appropriate. This is <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebCASAC/currentcharter?OpenDocument">CASAC’s job</a>.</p>
<p>The committee has seven members, appointed by the EPA administrator. But air pollution standards draw on many scientific disciplines, including <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-07-27/pdf/2018-16116.pdf">air quality, epidemiology, toxicology, medicine, biostatistics, ecology, climate and risk assessment</a>. This is more expertise than seven people can provide. Therefore, for four decades EPA has organized <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebProjectsbyTopicCASAC?OpenView">panels of additional experts</a> to help CASAC review the latest research. </p>
<p>This process properly established the science for health-protective air quality standards – until now. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GVBeY1jSG9Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Fine particulate air pollution slips past the body’s defenses to cause a range of ailments.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Replacing scientists on CASAC</h2>
<p>Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/final_draft_fac_memo-10.30.2017.pdf">wrote a memorandum in 2017</a> that changed the rules for appointments to CASAC. It directed that appointments should be based on geographic diversity and affiliation with state, local and tribal governments, and called for more member turnover. </p>
<p>Pruitt also barred scholars who had received EPA research grants from serving on the committee. But often these are precisely the highly respected scientific leaders that CASAC needs. The federal government has long recognized that holding a research grant does not infringe on a scientist’s “<a href="https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/pdfs/OMB_Peer_Review_Bulletin_m05-03.pdf">ability to offer independent scientific advice</a>.” In contrast, Pruitt allowed people who received funding from regulated industries to serve on CASAC.</p>
<p>On October 10, 2018, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler followed through on Pruitt’s directive by <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/acting-administrator-wheeler-announces-science-advisors-key-clean-air-act-committee">replacing five CASAC members</a>. The committee now includes one researcher, staff from one federal and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/14/epa-scraps-pair-air-pollution-science-panels/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c3510ace26e">four state agencies</a> and an <a href="https://www.revealnews.org/article/trumps-air-pollution-adviser-clean-air-saves-no-lives/">industry consultant</a>. It lacks scientific horsepower compared to prior years. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/image2018-05-09-173219.pdf">a separate memorandum</a> on May 9, 2018, Pruitt <a href="https://theconversation.com/scott-pruitts-approach-to-pollution-control-will-make-the-air-dirtier-and-americans-less-healthy-96501">attacked the foundation of the air quality standard review process</a>. Among other things, he called for shortening the time for CASAC’s work and commingling reviews of science and policy that were previously kept separate.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1034840605015384064"}"></div></p>
<h2>Rushing to judgment</h2>
<p>Until now, these reviews took an average of three years. They focused on <a href="http://pubs.awma.org/flip/EM-May-2015/frey.pdf">three major EPA staff reports</a> that summarized scientific findings on health effects, established the scientific basis for quantifying health risk, and identified potential options for retaining, revising or rescinding the current standard or setting a new one. These steps were <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pdfs/memo_process_for_reviewing_naaqs.pdf">carefully designed</a> to clearly establish the science before making judgments about policy.</p>
<p>EPA recently announced the schedule for its <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf//LookupWebProjectsCurrentCASAC/E18E92A94AF87D6C852582BB004CDF75/$File/O3-IRP-draft-Oct2018-ForRelease-Oct31-2018.pdf">next review of the ozone standard</a>. The agency wants CASAC’s input in one year, which will require the committee to assess policy options before finalizing the science and force it to hold fewer public meetings. I expect it to be a rushed process that inappropriately intermixes science and policy and elbows out the public.</p>
<p>In the last review of the ozone standard, completed in 2014, CASAC was supported by <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/5EFA320CCAD326E885257D030071531C/$File/EPA-CASAC-14-004+unsigned.pdf">an expert review panel that I chaired</a>. In addition to the seven members of CASAC, it included 13 nationally and internationally recognized experts from a wide range of relevant scientific disciplines. EPA <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-07-27/pdf/2018-16116.pdf">requested nominations for a new ozone review panel in July 2018</a>, but in October the agency told me and other candidates out of the blue that <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/367/Email_No_Ozone_Panel.pdf?1542901026">no panel would be formed</a>. </p>
<p>Moreover, although CASAC is also reviewing the particulate matter standard with a goal of finishing by 2020, <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/368/Email_No_PM_Panel.pdf?1542901217">EPA announced that it was disbanding</a> its existing <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/9920C7E70022CCF98525802000702022/$File/EPA-CASAC+2016-003+unsigned.pdf">Particulate Matter Review Panel</a> as well. Now the agency is asking new, inexperienced CASAC members to review the two most significant air pollution regulations simultaneously, without the necessary expertise and in record time. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246742/original/file-20181121-161618-15zvdrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246742/original/file-20181121-161618-15zvdrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246742/original/file-20181121-161618-15zvdrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246742/original/file-20181121-161618-15zvdrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246742/original/file-20181121-161618-15zvdrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246742/original/file-20181121-161618-15zvdrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246742/original/file-20181121-161618-15zvdrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246742/original/file-20181121-161618-15zvdrh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Trump has said he intends to nominate acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, as the agency’s permanent administrator.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Wheeler/3614a2f9d46644aab44d2781424bbd81/22/0">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rebooting the review process</h2>
<p>Studies show that air pollution still <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.081">kills thousands of Americans every year</a>. Given this toll, I do not believe CASAC or the public should accept changes that undermine the quality, credibility and integrity of the scientific basis for air quality standards. </p>
<p>CASAC members are not required to accept EPA’s unrealistic schedule and terms for the ozone and particulate matter reviews. They can call for forming an Ozone Review Panel and reinstating the Particulate Matter Review Panel. And acting Administrator Wheeler is not bound to follow Pruitt’s directives.</p>
<p>If Wheeler wants to revise the CASAC membership criteria and the process for reviewing air quality standards, I believe he should seek input from EPA staff, CASAC and the public. He will get some input on Dec. 12, when the committee holds a <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-11-06/pdf/2018-24266.pdf">public meeting to review the particulate matter science assessment</a>. And if EPA fails to restore science to its proper role, Wheeler is also likely to hear from Congress.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106507/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>H. Christopher Frey was Chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) from 2012 to 2015. He was a member of CASAC from 2008 to 2012. He was chair of the CASAC Lead Review Panel (2011-2013), CASAC Ozone Review Panel (2012-2014), and CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Review Panel (2013-2015). He served as a member of two CASAC PM Review Panels (2007 to 2010, 2015-2018), a Carbon Monoxide Review Panel (2008 to 2010), two Oxides of Nitrogen Review Panels (2008-2009; 2015-2017), two Sulfur Oxides Review Panels (2008-2009, 2015-2018), and a SOx/NOx Secondary Standard Review Panel (2009-2011). From 2012 to 2008, Dr. Frey was a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board.
At North Carolina State University, H. Christopher Frey currently has research funding from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Health Effects Institute. He is on the Board of Directors of the Air & Waste Management Association and a past president of the Society for Risk Analysis. Dr. Frey is also an adjunct professor in the Division of Environment and Sustainability at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
These are Dr. Frey’s personal views. They do not represent any official position of NCSU, HKUST, EPA, CASAC, SAB, or research sponsors.</span></em></p>An air pollution expert with years of experience advising federal regulators describes how the Trump administration is speeding up reviews and reducing scientific input.H. Christopher Frey, Glenn E. Futrell Distinguished University Professor of Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/991822018-09-14T10:32:53Z2018-09-14T10:32:53ZGround-level ozone continues to damage health, even at low levels<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236250/original/file-20180913-177935-k9nrjo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A study finds that higher ozone levels correlate with slower performance times for college endurance athletes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/athletics-people-running-on-track-field-749164510?src=pYMfbKU0Pn_dp5FLaLDMZA-1-51">Pavel1964</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ground-level ozone is one of six major pollutants regulated nationally under the Clean Air Act. It is not directly emitted, but instead forms in the atmosphere through reactions between other pollutants from cars, power plants and industrial sources. Breathing ozone irritates the airways and can worsen respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.</p>
<p>Regulation has reduced ozone levels across the United States over the past four decades, but exposure to ambient ozone still negatively impacts our health, well-being and productivity. In a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3667">recent article published in the journal Health Economics</a>, I found that harm from ozone extends well beyond the high exposure levels and sensitive groups that have traditionally been studied. In fact, I identify negative effects of ozone exposure on the performances of intercollegiate track and field athletes under the relatively clean conditions common in the United States today. </p>
<p>These findings suggest that ozone exposure may be imposing harm on people even when they don’t end up in the hospital, and that much of the U.S. public may still regularly suffer some degree of negative impact from ozone exposure.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"999726990012936193"}"></div></p>
<h2>Hazardous even at low levels</h2>
<p>Health researchers have long known that exposure to high levels of ozone is associated with acute negative health outcomes. These include <a href="http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/outdoor/air-pollution/ozone.html">premature death, compromised lung function and cardiovascular issues</a>. </p>
<p>More recent studies have found evidence that ozone also has negative effects at lower exposure levels. For instance, ozone exposures below regulated levels have been shown to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.17923">contribute to premature deaths</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3652">reduce productivity among outdoor agricultural workers</a>. It is also important to note that ozone exposure affects people’s health by inflaming their airways <a href="https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.161.6.9908102">even when functional effects are not measurable</a>. </p>
<p>Ground-level <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/basic-information-about-ozone">ozone is formed by complex interactions</a> of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight. As a result, ozone levels tend to be highest in summer months. My results are based on outdoor NCAA and NAIA track and field competitions which are held across the contiguous United States during the spring, when ozone levels tend to be below annual maximums. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236251/original/file-20180913-177950-7oh144.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236251/original/file-20180913-177950-7oh144.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236251/original/file-20180913-177950-7oh144.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236251/original/file-20180913-177950-7oh144.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236251/original/file-20180913-177950-7oh144.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236251/original/file-20180913-177950-7oh144.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236251/original/file-20180913-177950-7oh144.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236251/original/file-20180913-177950-7oh144.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ground-level ozone forms through reactions between other pollutants in the presence of sunlight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/ozone">Minnesota Pollution Control Agency</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Across the approximately 1,700 outdoor track and field meets that I analyzed, the average daily ozone concentration was only 33.47 parts per billion, which is well below ambient ozone levels regulated anywhere in the world. For instance, the current eight-hour average National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone in the United States is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/table-historical-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs">70 parts per billion</a>, and the current World Health Organization guideline is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.116-a302">approximately 51 parts per billion</a>.</p>
<p>But even at the low ozone levels in my study, and among a young and fit population of college athletes, I found consistent evidence that ozone had negative impacts on competitors in endurance events such as the 800 meter run, 3,000 meter steeplechase and 5,000 meter run. </p>
<h2>Higher ozone levels, slower race times</h2>
<p>Through the analysis of almost 700,000 competition outcomes in 277 different locations over nearly a decade (2005-2013) across the United States, I found that for every 10 parts per billion increase in ambient ozone levels, athlete performance was degraded by 0.4 percent across endurance events. This effect represents more than five percent of the average margin of victory in these races, and suggests that there was a 1.5 percent difference in average athletic performance between the 5th and 95th percentile ozone days in the data.</p>
<p>For a concrete example, consider performances in the 5,000 meter run event. The mean finishing time for men competing in this event was 15 minutes 54.7 seconds. But at meets with average ozone levels above 50 parts per billion, the mean finishing time was 16 minutes 26.0 seconds. The comparable times for women were 19 minutes 5.7 seconds across all ozone levels versus 19 minutes 58.5 seconds at the higher levels.</p>
<p>I found these negative impacts of ozone were larger for longer events in which athletes competed over more extended periods. However, I did not find larger effects for athletes who competed in multiple events. Nor did I observe effects in events which do not heavily tax aerobic capacity. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/THYoUULn_2U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Ozone in the stratosphere protects life on Earth from ultraviolet radiation, but at ground level it’s a toxic pollutant.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This makes sense because ozone exposure harms the airways and lungs, which are critical to performance in endurance events. They are less important in sprint events, in which muscles can rely primarily on stored energy reserves, or strength events such as the long jump or shot put, which test a single maximum exertion. While athletes in non-endurance events are undoubtedly harmed by ozone exposure, competitive outcomes in such events did not prove useful for studying the damage. </p>
<p>My findings point to risks for anyone spending time outdoors at current ozone levels. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly half of all U.S. jobs <a href="https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2017/article/outdoor-careers.htm">require outdoor work</a>. In 2004, <a href="https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2017/article/outdoor-careers.htm">nearly 27 million Americans</a> were employed in industry sectors in which at least some workers spent much of their workdays outdoors, such as construction, utilities and agriculture. The agency projects that this number will grow to <a href="https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2017/article/outdoor-careers.htm">nearly 31 million by 2024</a>, representing <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/occupational-employment-projections-to-2024.htm">nearly 20 percent of the U.S. workforce</a>. </p>
<h2>US standards under review</h2>
<p>The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambient-air-quality-standards">review and revise national ambient air quality standards</a> regularly to ensure that they protect public health and the environment. Such reviews led to stricter standards for ozone in <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/table-historical-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs">1997, 2008 and 2015</a>, lowering the regulatory threshold to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/table-historical-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs">80, 75 and 70 parts per billion respectively</a>. </p>
<p>The agency is currently preparing to carry out its next review of the ozone standard so that any updates can be <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-pruitt-signs-memo-reform-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-review">finalized by October 2020</a>. Earlier this year, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed changes to the review-and-update process that critics argue could <a href="https://theconversation.com/scott-pruitts-approach-to-pollution-control-will-make-the-air-dirtier-and-americans-less-healthy-96501">weaken standards and threaten public health</a>.</p>
<p>Deregulation advocates often emphasize the costs of complying with tightened regulations. For example, the EPA estimated that reducing the ozone standard from 75 to 70 ppb in 2015 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/20151001ria.pdf">would cost US$2.2 billion annually</a>. Importantly however, the agency also projected that this change would generate health benefits worth <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/20151001ria.pdf">between $4.1 and $8.0 billion annually</a>. </p>
<h2>A global health risk</h2>
<p>Today more than <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/hnsum.html">105 million Americans</a> live in one of the <a href="https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/hnsum.html">168 counties currently designated as part of ozone non-attainment areas</a> due to violations of the current national ozone standard. The situation is worse in many emerging economies, such as India and China, where rapid industrialization has led to high and increasing ozone levels. </p>
<p><iframe id="uVRTe" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/uVRTe/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Climate change is expected to contribute to increases in ozone levels by <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-research/air-quality-and-climate-change-research">warming the atmosphere</a> and extending the annual period of high ozone formation <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602563113">from summer into fall</a>. These possibilities, along with findings like mine showing ozone’s impacts even at low levels, underscore the continued importance of effective global monitoring and regulation of ozone and its precursor pollutants.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99182/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamie T. Mullins received funding from The Property and Environment Research Center.</span></em></p>US ozone pollution has fallen in recent decades, but exposure to low levels of ozone still has serious effects on human health and well-being.Jamie T. Mullins, Assistant Professor of Resource Economics, UMass AmherstLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/995482018-07-06T19:20:55Z2018-07-06T19:20:55ZWhat next for the EPA? Here’s what Reagan did<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226515/original/file-20180706-122268-eku5fq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., speaks about EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the state of the EPA during a protest on April 25, 2018, in Washington. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Pruitt/048cf6fb149a4c0c9443eaacd968b18e/4/0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scott Pruitt’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html">resignation as EPA administrator</a> caught many by surprise because President Donald Trump had repeatedly supported Pruitt’s efforts to dismantle environmental protections and the agency itself. But it is not without historical precedent. </p>
<p>During the first two years of President Ronald Reagan’s administration, both <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/03/10/burford-quits-as-epa-administrator/49ef0add-f834-4bef-8fd5-35f13d1f2abd/">EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/10/us/watt-quits-post-president-accepts-with-reluctance.html">Interior Secretary James Watt</a> were forced out due to scandals. The question now is who should replace Pruitt. </p>
<p>We teach environmental law and have extensive experience in implementing, enforcing and litigating environmental claims. In our view, Trump would be well advised to consider what President Reagan did. Realizing the importance of restoring public trust in EPA, President Reagan brought <a href="http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/01/18/new-oral-history-of-william-ruckelshaus-key-figure-in-environmental-policy-now-online/">William Ruckelshaus</a> back to EPA in 1983. Ruckelshaus had been the first administrator of the agency after it was created by President Richard Nixon in late 1970. He accomplished Reagan’s goal of restoring trust in the agency because he cared about being faithful to the environmental protection mission Congress had entrusted to it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226516/original/file-20180706-122280-1ubzaw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226516/original/file-20180706-122280-1ubzaw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226516/original/file-20180706-122280-1ubzaw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226516/original/file-20180706-122280-1ubzaw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226516/original/file-20180706-122280-1ubzaw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226516/original/file-20180706-122280-1ubzaw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226516/original/file-20180706-122280-1ubzaw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226516/original/file-20180706-122280-1ubzaw3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">William Ruckelshaus is sworn in as the EPA’s first administrator, appointed by President Richard Nixon, in 1973.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=ruckelshaus&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=624t8dt1ybyvxtrb94hrl24un#/media/File:William_Ruckelshaus_Swearing_In_as_EPA_Administrator.jpg">Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Republican environmental protection</h2>
<p>Ruckelshaus demonstrated that a conservative Republican administration can be a faithful environmental steward. Under Ruckelshaus, the EPA acted to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/epa-collaborations-stakeholders-protect-ozone-layer">protect the Earth’s ozone layer</a> from destruction by toxic chemicals. He launched the agency’s initiatives to <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective.html">phase out gasoline lead additives</a> and to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos">ban asbestos</a>. </p>
<p>Ruckelshaus’ appointment helped neutralize some of the environmental outrage that Gorsuch and Watt had engendered. Without a functional EPA, it would have been very hard for the GOP to state with any credibility in its <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25845">1984 platform</a> that Republicans supported “continued commitment to clean air and clean water,” and that “the health and well being of our citizens must be a high priority.” </p>
<p>Trump’s <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1436/dramatically-scale-back-epa/">hostility to the EPA</a> and his <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/trump-executive-order-climate-change-paris-climate-agreement-clean-power-plan-pruitt">devotion to wealthy fossil fuel interests</a> have been so intense that it would be shocking if he borrowed a page from Reagan’s successful playbook. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to abolish the agency <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/politics/epa-faces-bigger-tasks-smaller-budgets-and-louder-critics.html">“in almost every form</a>.” He has since abandoned this promise, while supporting Pruitt’s efforts to destroy EPA from within. </p>
<p>Now the agency is at a crossroads, and the president has a chance to change direction. Trump has consistently promised to bring back old jobs in old industries. But those jobs were not lost due to <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-zeal-to-peel-back-regulations-is-leading-us-to-another-era-of-robber-barons-84961">the regulations Trump professes to hate</a>, but rather due to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-ensure-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-is-made-in-the-usa-81385">larger, global economic forces</a>. </p>
<p>America’s environmental regulations have provided clean air and water while allowing our economy to prosper. As the global economy shifts from fossil fuels to greener energy, the EPA and its new administrator can play a significant role in promoting new jobs in new industries without sacrificing public health. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226518/original/file-20180706-122274-igq6q0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226518/original/file-20180706-122274-igq6q0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226518/original/file-20180706-122274-igq6q0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226518/original/file-20180706-122274-igq6q0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226518/original/file-20180706-122274-igq6q0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226518/original/file-20180706-122274-igq6q0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=575&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226518/original/file-20180706-122274-igq6q0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=575&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226518/original/file-20180706-122274-igq6q0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=575&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Between 1970 and 2016, combined emissions of six common air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act dropped by 73 percent. This progress occurred while the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles, and population and energy use increased.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2017/#growth_w_cleaner_air">USEPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Serving all Americans</h2>
<p>President Trump has designated EPA Deputy Administrator and former coal industry lobbyist <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/climate/epa-pruitt-deputy-wheeler-confirmation.html">Andrew Wheeler</a> to serve as acting head of the agency. Wheeler, and whoever Trump ultimately nominates to succeed Pruitt, should understand that they now serve all of the American people, not just former friends in the fossil fuel industry. </p>
<p>EPA’s mission is to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do">protect human health and the environment</a> for all. Its leader’s core duty is ensuring that the air we breathe and the water we drink are clean and pure in all U.S. communities, from Flint, Michigan, to the Gulf Coast. This mission cannot be accomplished if the agency’s exclusive focus is on repealing regulations rather than making them smarter.</p>
<p>The EPA has an amazingly talented workforce of scientists, economists, lawyers, public health specialists and engineers. We hope that the new administrator will respect their work and invest in them. They can improve environmental protection by ensuring that regulations are coordinated, based on science and reflective of new technologies and methods. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226520/original/file-20180706-122262-134vrk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226520/original/file-20180706-122262-134vrk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226520/original/file-20180706-122262-134vrk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226520/original/file-20180706-122262-134vrk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226520/original/file-20180706-122262-134vrk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226520/original/file-20180706-122262-134vrk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226520/original/file-20180706-122262-134vrk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/226520/original/file-20180706-122262-134vrk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The EPA’s Office of Research and Development is conducting projects that address environmental and human health problems and challenges faced by state agencies in 14 states.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/innovation/2017-regional-state-innovation-projects">USEPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Reasonable policies</h2>
<p>During his presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to give <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/trump-states-rights-education-sanctuary-drilling-492784">more authority to state officials</a>. Yet Pruitt seemed determined to favor only states that sought to relax environmental protections. States that established tighter regulations than the federally required minimum received pushback. For example, earlier this year Pruitt threatened to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-california-gets-to-write-its-own-auto-emissions-standards-5-questions-answered-94379">revoke California’s long-standing authority under the Clean Air Act</a> to set stricter vehicle emission standards than those imposed by the federal government.</p>
<p>For an administration supposedly committed to empowering states, it would be the height of hypocrisy – and of questionable legality – for the EPA’s new administrator to try to force such states to roll back their standards. Instead, Pruitt’s successor should instruct EPA staff to assist states by sharing their expertise and by providing states with much-needed financial assistance.</p>
<p>Pruitt relished announcing regulatory rollbacks with great fanfare, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-slams-brakes-on-obamas-climate-plan-but-theres-still-a-long-road-ahead-75252">repealing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan</a> to control greenhouse gas emissions. But like it or not, the EPA has a legal obligation to control greenhouse gases, and its new administrator will have to decide how to do so. </p>
<p>A growing number of Republicans accept climate science and <a href="https://www.clcouncil.org/media/TheConservativeCaseforCarbonDividends.pdf">endorse a carbon tax</a>, long favored by economists, though such a policy would require new legislation. And <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/08/08/a-senate-rebukes-trump/">many Republicans understand</a> the need to diversify our energy supply. The new administrator should devote more effort to these challenges and less time to staging flashy press events with fossil fuel interests.</p>
<p>With Pruitt’s departure, President Trump has an opportunity for the kind of environmental reset that President Reagan so skillfully executed. Now that he has abandoned calls to abolish the agency, we believe Trump needs to appoint an agency head who will make it work more effectively to improve all Americans’ lives and health. After all, healthier individuals make for a healthier workforce. </p>
<p>Rather than demonizing the EPA, we think the next administrator can succeed by directing EPA staff experts to connect with citizens in every part of the country and improve environmental protections while promoting a healthy economy and a prosperous future. The United States cannot be a great nation without a clean environment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99548/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seema Kakade worked as an attorney at the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2005 to 2017.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Percival does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After two years of turmoil at the EPA in the 1980s, President Reagan hit the reset button, choosing a Republican who supported environmental protection to head the agency.Seema Kakade, Assistant Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Clinic, University of MarylandRobert Percival, Professor of Environmental Law, University of MarylandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/980422018-06-18T10:42:42Z2018-06-18T10:42:42ZWhy a minor change to how EPA makes rules could radically reduce environmental protection<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223373/original/file-20180615-85819-162dk5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tighter emissions standards create costs for truck manufacturers yet provide health benefits for society. How should they be weighed?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/soft-focus-smoke-truck-exhaust-393114067?src=73_t_FBFY50B8e7__gkuYg-1-0">Lesterman</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html">Reagan administration</a>, federal agencies have been required to produce cost-benefit analyses of their major regulations. These assessments are designed to ensure that regulators are pursuing actions that make society better off. </p>
<p>In my experience working on the White House economic team in the Clinton and Obama administrations, I found cost-benefit analysis provides a solid foundation for understanding the impacts of regulatory proposals. It also generates thoughtful discussion of ways to design rules to maximize net benefits to the public. </p>
<p>On June 7, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed changing the agency’s approach to this process in ways that sound sensible, but in fact are a radical departure from how government agencies have operated for decades.</p>
<p>As the agency frames it, the goal is to provide “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-cost-benefit-analysis-reform">clarity and real-world accuracy with respect to the impact of the Agency’s decisions on the economy and the regulated community</a>.” But I see Pruitt’s proposals as an opaque effort to undermine cost-benefit analysis of environmental rules, and thus to justify rolling back regulations.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223376/original/file-20180615-85840-19v7y6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223376/original/file-20180615-85840-19v7y6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223376/original/file-20180615-85840-19v7y6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223376/original/file-20180615-85840-19v7y6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223376/original/file-20180615-85840-19v7y6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223376/original/file-20180615-85840-19v7y6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223376/original/file-20180615-85840-19v7y6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223376/original/file-20180615-85840-19v7y6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protesters with Environment America park fuel-efficient vehicles outside the Environmental Protection Agency, as Administrator Scott Pruitt holds a news conference on his decision to scrap Obama administration fuel standards, April 3, 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Fuel-Standards/0ba773b86c5948e088319560a1c1f91e/4/0">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The importance of co-benefits</h2>
<p>Have you ever done something for more than one reason? An action that you justified because it “kills two birds with one stone”? When a regulation leads to improvements that it was not designed to produce, government agencies call the unexpected payoffs “co-benefits.” </p>
<p>For example, the Clean Air Act’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acid-rain-program">Acid Rain Program</a> was designed to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution from electric power plants, a key ingredient in acid rain. Some utilities complied by installing devices called <a href="https://www.duke-energy.com/our-company/environment/air-quality/sulfur-dioxide-scrubbers">scrubbers</a> to capture sulfur dioxide emissions from plant exhaust.</p>
<p>The scrubbers also reduced fine particulate matter, which is linked with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year-78874">wide range of health effects</a> that can cause premature deaths and illnesses. This represented a huge co-benefit – one that economists have estimated to be worth <a href="https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.1.103">US$50 billion to $100 billion </a> yearly. </p>
<p>Historically, federal agencies have given co-benefits full weight in regulatory impact analysis because they help to show how Americans would be better off under the policy for multiple reasons. Pruitt wants to change this policy.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223378/original/file-20180615-85863-on962t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223378/original/file-20180615-85863-on962t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223378/original/file-20180615-85863-on962t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223378/original/file-20180615-85863-on962t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223378/original/file-20180615-85863-on962t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223378/original/file-20180615-85863-on962t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223378/original/file-20180615-85863-on962t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223378/original/file-20180615-85863-on962t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">According to an EPA analysis, amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990 that tightened emissions standards will produce benefits through 2020 that exceed their costs by a factor of more than 30 to one.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-second-prospective-study">USEPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Eliminating co-benefits from rule-making</h2>
<p>Pruitt’s proposal solicits public comment on <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/cost_and_benefit_consideration_anprm_pre-pub.pdf">how to weigh co-benefits from pollution reductions</a>. While this request may appear neutral, it reflects an interest in trying to minimize or eliminate consideration of co-benefits. </p>
<p>Why would EPA’s administrator seek to reduce estimated benefits of regulations? As I see it, the agency faces a regulatory conundrum. President Trump issued an <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-02-03/pdf/2017-02451.pdf">executive order</a> in 2017, focused on the costs of regulations that required agencies to eliminate two rules for every new rule they issue. Since regulations have <a href="http://theconversation.com/what-trump-misses-about-regulations-they-produce-benefits-as-well-as-costs-72470">benefits as well as costs</a>, if an existing rule delivers more benefits than costs, then striking it would impose net harm on the public. </p>
<p>For example, Pruitt is seeking to roll back three Obama administration air pollution initiatives: the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/electric-utility-generating-units-repealing-clean-power-plan-0">Clean Power Plan</a>, which limits greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and combined carbon emission and fuel economy standards for <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-04-13/pdf/2018-07364.pdf">light-duty vehicles</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-repeal-emission-requirements-glider">heavy-duty vehicles</a>. Halting these rules would save money for some electric utilities and vehicle manufacturers, but would also greatly increase air pollution.</p>
<p>Specifically, one <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.7351">recent analysis</a> estimates that eliminating these rules would increase premature deaths from inhaling fine particulate matter by more than 80,000 over a decade. In today’s dollars, and using the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-valuation#whatvalue">current value EPA employs to monetize mortality risk reduction</a>, public health costs from reversing these three rules amount to nearly $75 billion per year – far more than any potential benefits to industry.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Hj7p-NygwDc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Harvard University professor Douglas Dockery explains the impacts of air pollution on health and the public benefits of pollution controls.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even for an administration with a <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-zeal-to-peel-back-regulations-is-leading-us-to-another-era-of-robber-barons-84961">strong deregulatory tilt</a>, such a step would raise political red flags. It also would run afoul of another <a href="https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf">executive order</a> that has governed regulatory review in Democratic and Republican administrations since 1993, and requires agencies to issue rules if their benefits justify the costs. The Obama administration concluded that each of these air pollution regulations passed that test.</p>
<p>But what if the EPA can find a way to ignore major categories of benefits, such as zeroing out estimated co-benefits from reducing premature deaths? Then regulatory rollback could appear to pass a cost-benefit test on paper, even if it makes the American people worse off in the real world. </p>
<p>Pruitt has already taken other steps in this direction. Notably, the EPA has reduced its estimate of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/curbing-climate-change-has-a-dollar-value-heres-how-and-why-we-measure-it-70882">damages from climate change</a> from <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf">$42 per ton of carbon pollution at the end of the Obama administration</a> to as low as <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/ria_proposed-cpp-repeal_2017-10_0.pdf">$1 per ton now</a>. This makes the social benefit of actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the Clean Power Plan, look much smaller than they actually are.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223383/original/file-20180615-85822-1q7em7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223383/original/file-20180615-85822-1q7em7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223383/original/file-20180615-85822-1q7em7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223383/original/file-20180615-85822-1q7em7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223383/original/file-20180615-85822-1q7em7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223383/original/file-20180615-85822-1q7em7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223383/original/file-20180615-85822-1q7em7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223383/original/file-20180615-85822-1q7em7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA Administrator William Reilly, left, watches as President George H.W. Bush signs the Clean Air Act Amendments, November 15, 1990.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_HW_Bush_William_Reilly_1990b.jpg">USEPA archive/Carol T. Powers</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Gaming the numbers</h2>
<p>The late Nobel laureate <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1992/becker-facts.html">Gary Becker</a>, who often called for <a href="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/09/market-failure-compared-to-government-failure-becker.html">limited government intervention in the economy</a>, once wrote that “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/468107">cost-benefit analysis may also be useful for undermining misleading claims of self-interested political pressure groups.</a>.” By this he meant that rigorous, transparent assessment of a regulation’s social benefits and costs makes it politically hard for special interests such as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/us/scott-pruitt-coal-joseph-craft.html">coal industry</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/epa-staff-say-the-trump-administration-is-changing-their-mission-from-protecting-human-health-and-the-environment-to-protecting-industry-96256">hijack the rule-making process</a>. </p>
<p>Some conservative critics argue that under the Obama administration, the EPA gamed cost-benefit analysis to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-benefit-reform-at-the-epa-1528326402">justify overregulation</a> by introducing what they describe as speculative “social costs” and “social benefits.” But this approach is not new or imprecise. When regulators do cost-benefit analysis, they are calculating the net change in “social welfare” that a regulation is expected to produce. This term comes from the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf">White House guidance</a> to agencies for conducting such analysis. Economists define social welfare as social benefits minus social costs.</p>
<p>The EPA used this process during the Reagan administration to show that the public would benefit from reducing lead in gasoline. Under President George H.W. Bush, the EPA’s cost-benefit analysis supported phasing out chlorofluorocarbons that were destroying the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-earths-ozone-layer-still-at-risk-5-questions-answered-91470">ozone layer</a>. Cost-benefit analysis has also supported hundreds of other EPA regulations over more than 30 years. </p>
<p>Indeed, transparent analysis of the social benefits and costs of regulations helps to hold regulators accountable. But if agencies put their thumbs on the scale by excluding major public health benefits, they will weaken the legitimacy of regulatory policy and make the American people worse off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98042/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph Aldy receives funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Administrative Conference of the United States. He is affiliated with Resources for the Future, the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. </span></em></p>EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has proposed steps that would reduce economic benefits to society from new regulations. An economist who worked for Presidents Clinton and Obama calls this a strategy to justify deregulation.Joseph Aldy, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/962562018-06-06T10:38:36Z2018-06-06T10:38:36ZEPA staff say the Trump administration is changing their mission from protecting human health and the environment to protecting industry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221390/original/file-20180601-142089-8qtu0z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protesters at a rally on the state of the EPA organized by the American Federation of Government Employees union, April 25, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Congress-EPA/b5e0696b386e4d2f980147aa29dc0936/1/0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Environmental Protection Agency made news recently for <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/epa-criticized-blocking-reporters-chemicals-summit/story?id=55362966">excluding reporters</a> from a “summit” meeting on chemical contamination in drinking water. Episodes like this are symptoms of a larger problem: an ongoing, broad-scale takeover of the agency by industries it regulates.</p>
<p>We are social scientists with interests in <a href="https://web.northeastern.edu/philbrown/">environmental health</a>, <a href="https://sociology.ucsc.edu/faculty/singleton.php?&singleton=true&cruz_id=lidillon">environmental justice</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Km-wos8AAAAJ&hl=en">inequality and democracy</a>. We recently published a <a href="https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304360">study</a>, conducted under the auspices of the <a href="https://envirodatagov.org/">Environmental Data and Governance Initiative</a> and based on interviews with 45 current and retired EPA employees, which concludes that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Trump administration have steered the agency to the verge of what scholars call “regulatory capture.”</p>
<p>By this we mean that they are aggressively reorganizing the EPA to promote interests of regulated industries, at the expense of its official mission to “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do">protect human health and the environment</a>.” </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"862745467679121408"}"></div></p>
<h2>How close is too close?</h2>
<p>The notion of “regulatory capture” has a <a href="https://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Novak%20Revisionist%20History%20of%20Regulatory%20Capture%20(1.13).pdf">long record</a> in U.S. social science research. It helps explain the 2008 financial crisis and the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In both cases, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/business/economy/04fed.html">lax federal oversight</a> and the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-offshore-oil-drilling-plans-ignore-the-lessons-of-bp-deepwater-horizon-89570">over-reliance on key industries</a> were widely viewed as contributing to the disasters.</p>
<p>How can you tell whether an agency has been captured? According to Harvard’s David Moss and Daniel Carpenter, it occurs when an agency’s actions are “directed away from the public interest and toward the interest of the regulated industry” by “intent and action of industries and their <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TV3BAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=carpenter+moss+regulatory+capture&ots=WEmWNylgry&sig=ltzHmMNpDvgG4r49vP6Eyfsr28I#v=onepage&q=carpenter%20moss%20regulatory%20capture&f=false">allies</a>.” In other words, the farmer doesn’t just tolerate foxes lurking around the hen house – he recruits them to guard it.</p>
<h2>Serving industry</h2>
<p>From the start of his tenure at EPA, Pruitt has championed interests of regulated industries such as petrochemicals and coal mining, while <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/scott-pruitt-epa-speech-graded-annotated-scholars-560822">rarely discussing the value of environmental and health protections</a>. “Regulators exist,” he asserts, “to give <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/02/21/EPA-Chief-s-Magical-Thinking-Push-Energy-Production-and-Protect-Planet">certainty to those that they regulate</a>,” and should be committed to “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-back-basics-agenda-pennsylvania-coal-mine">enhanc(ing) economic growth</a>.” </p>
<p>In our view, Pruitt’s efforts to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-epa-chief-pruitt-regulations-climate-change.html">undo, delay or otherwise block</a> at least 30 existing rules reorient EPA rule-making “away from the public interest and toward the interest of the regulated industry.” Our interviewees overwhelmingly agreed that these rollbacks undermine their own “<a href="https://100days.envirodatagov.org/epa-under-siege/#id.j9t4gd7drrit">pretty strong sense of mission</a> … protecting the health of the environment,” as one current EPA staffer told us.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221401/original/file-20180601-142086-1smwn8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221401/original/file-20180601-142086-1smwn8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221401/original/file-20180601-142086-1smwn8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221401/original/file-20180601-142086-1smwn8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221401/original/file-20180601-142086-1smwn8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221401/original/file-20180601-142086-1smwn8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221401/original/file-20180601-142086-1smwn8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221401/original/file-20180601-142086-1smwn8q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Historical trends in EPA’s budget show a spike during the Carter administration, followed by sharp cuts under President Reagan and an infusion of economic stimulus money in 2009. President Trump has proposed sharp cuts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://100days.envirodatagov.org/epa-under-siege/">EDGI</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many of these targeted rules have well-documented public benefits, which Pruitt’s proposals – assuming they withstand legal challenges – would erode. For example, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scott-pruitt-pushes-back-on-finding-that-would-restrict-pesticides-use-to-protect-fish/2018/02/02/274db0a6-0798-11e8-94e8-e8b8600ade23_story.html?utm_term=.a3764ec4dff4">rejecting a proposed ban on the insecticide chlorpyrifos</a> would leave farm workers and children at risk of developmental delays and autism spectrum disorders. Revoking the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pull-of-energy-markets-and-legal-challenges-will-blunt-plans-to-roll-back-epa-carbon-rules-85561">Clean Power Plan</a> for coal-fired power plants, and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-autos/epa-to-relax-fuel-efficiency-standards-for-autos-idUSKCN1H91OD">weakening proposed fuel efficiency standards</a>, would sacrifice <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/endangermentfinding_health.pdf">health benefits</a> associated with cutting greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>A key question is whether regulated industries had an active hand in these initiatives. Here, again, the answer is yes.</p>
<h2>Nuzzling up to industry</h2>
<p>Pruitt’s EPA is staffed with senior officials who have close industry ties. For example, Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler is a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/politics/andrew-wheeler-environmental-protection-agency-scott-pruitt-congress/index.html">former coal industry lobbyist</a>. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/trump-epa-chemicals-regulations.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=25DC9804FE9401223F1CF7AD42F0F77F&gwt=pay">Nancy Beck</a>, deputy assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, was formerly an executive at the American Chemistry Council. And Senior Deputy General Counsel <a href="https://www.bna.com/petroleum-institute-lawyer-n73014461210/">Erik Baptist</a> was previously senior counsel at the American Petroleum Institute.</p>
<p>Documents <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2018/05/pruitt-exposed-sierra-club-secures-24000-pages-epa-emails-call-logs-and">obtained through the Freedom of Information Act</a> show Pruitt has met with representatives of regulated industries <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-industry/embattled-epa-chiefs-calendar-shows-industry-had-his-ear-idUSKCN1HD2G0">25 times more often</a> than with environmental advocates. His staff <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/climate/epa-pruitt-emails-secrecy.html">carefully shields him</a> from encounters with groups that they consider “unfriendly.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221403/original/file-20180601-142102-tuhohe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221403/original/file-20180601-142102-tuhohe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221403/original/file-20180601-142102-tuhohe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221403/original/file-20180601-142102-tuhohe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221403/original/file-20180601-142102-tuhohe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221403/original/file-20180601-142102-tuhohe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221403/original/file-20180601-142102-tuhohe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221403/original/file-20180601-142102-tuhohe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">After an early reduction under the Reagan administration, EPA’s staffing increased, then plateaued. The Trump administration has proposed sharp cuts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://100days.envirodatagov.org/epa-under-siege/">EDGI</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The former head of EPA’s Office of Policy, Samantha Dravis, who left the agency in April 2018, had 90 <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/05/16/scott-pruitt-epa-industry-lobbyists/">scheduled meetings</a> with energy, manufacturing and other industrial interests between March 2017 and January 2018. During the same period she met with one public interest organization.</p>
<p>Circumstantial evidence suggests that corporate lobbying is directly influencing major policy decisions. For example, just before rejecting the chlorpyrifos ban, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-epa-pesticide-dow-20170627-story.html">Pruitt met</a> with the CEO of Dow Chemical, which manufactures the pesticide. </p>
<p>Overturning Obama’s Clean Power Plan and withdrawing from the Paris climate accord were recommended by coal magnate Robert Murray in his “<a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/a-coal-executives-action-plan-for-trump-is-made-public/">Action Plan for the Administration</a>.” Emails released under the Freedom of Information Act show detailed correspondence between Pruitt and industry lobbyists about EPA talking points. They also document Pruitt’s <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/emails-reveal-epa-approach-to-climate-policy-under-pruitts-leadership/">many visits with corporate officials</a> as he formulated his attack on the Clean Power Plan.</p>
<h2>Muting other voices</h2>
<p>Pruitt and his staff also have sought to sideline potentially countervailing interests and influences, starting with EPA career staff. In one of our interviews, an EPA employee described a meeting between Pruitt, the home-building industry and agency career staff. Pruitt showed up late, led the industry representatives into another room for a group photo, then trooped back into the meeting room to scold his own EPA employees for not listening to them.</p>
<p>Threatened by proposed <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/02/12/trump-budget-seeks-23-percent-cut-at-epa-would-eliminate-dozens-of-programs/?utm_term=.d6a1cd582950">budget cuts</a>, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067223">buyouts</a> and <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/epa-employees-rally-against-scott-pruitt-9e237b10b7d2/">retribution</a> against <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/climate/epa-scott-pruitt-pasquale-perrotta.html">disloyal staff and leakers</a>, career EPA employees have been made “<a href="https://100days.envirodatagov.org/epa-under-siege/#id.uskou7t41o67">afraid … so nobody pushes back, nobody says anything</a>,” according to one of our sources.</p>
<p>As a result, enforcement has fallen dramatically. During Trump’s first 6 months in office, the EPA <a href="https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/reports/environmental-enforcement-under-trump/">collected 60 percent less money in civil penalties</a> from polluters than it had under Presidents Obama or George W. Bush in the same period. The agency has also <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/epa-enforcement-actions-hit-10-year-low-2017-n846151">opened fewer civil and criminal cases</a>.</p>
<p>Early in his tenure Pruitt replaced many members of EPA’s <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/epa-unveils-new-industry-friendlier-science-advisory-boards">Science Advisory Board and Board of Scientific Counselors</a> in a move intended to give representatives from industry and state governments more influence. He also established a new policy that prevents EPA-funded scientists from serving on these boards, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060082657">but allows industry-funded scientists to serve</a>.</p>
<p>And on April 24, 2018, Pruitt issued a new <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-epas-secret-science-proposal-alarms-public-health-experts-96000">rule</a> that limits what kind of scientific research the agency can rely on in writing environmental regulation. This step was <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060081997">advocated</a> by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221404/original/file-20180601-142086-1df63xc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221404/original/file-20180601-142086-1df63xc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221404/original/file-20180601-142086-1df63xc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221404/original/file-20180601-142086-1df63xc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221404/original/file-20180601-142086-1df63xc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221404/original/file-20180601-142086-1df63xc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221404/original/file-20180601-142086-1df63xc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/221404/original/file-20180601-142086-1df63xc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks to a group of coal miners in Sycamore, Pa., April 13, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Pruitt-EPA-Coal-Mine/4cbf23e184f642318e72b3beea81c0d6/17/0">AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>This is not the first time that a strongly anti-regulatory administration has tried to redirect EPA. In our interviews, longtime EPA staffers recalled <a href="https://100days.envirodatagov.org/epa-under-siege/">similar pressure</a> under President Reagan, led by his first administrator, Anne Gorsuch. </p>
<p>Gorsuch also slashed budgets, cut back on enforcement and “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/?utm_term=.26bd7b8c6084">treated a lot of people in the agency as the enemy</a>,” in the words of her successor, William Ruckelshaus. She was forced to resign in 1983 amid congressional investigations into EPA misbehavior, including <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/10/us/rita-lavelle-gets-6-month-term-and-is-fined-10000-for-perjury.html">corruptive favoritism and its cover-up at the Superfund program</a>. </p>
<p>EPA veterans of those years emphasized the importance of Democratic majorities in Congress, which initiated the investigations, and sustained media coverage of EPA’s unfolding scandals. They remembered this phase as an oppressive time, but noted that pro-industry actions by political appointees failed to suffuse the entire bureaucracy. Instead, career staffers resisted by developing subtle, “underground” ways of supporting each other and sharing information internally and with Congress and the media. </p>
<p>Similarly, the media are spotlighting Pruitt’s policy actions and <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/scott-pruitt-epa-ethics-spending/">ethical scandals</a> today. EPA staffers who have left the agency are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-24/pruitt-proposes-limits-to-scientific-research-used-by-epa-staff">speaking out against Pruitt’s policies</a>. State attorneys general and the court system have <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/11/16113348/trump-environmental-agenda-crashing-into-courts">also thwarted some of Pruitt’s efforts</a>. And EPA’s Science Advisory Board – including members appointed by Pruitt – recently <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052018/epa-science-advisory-board-review-pruitt-climate-change-clean-power-plan-auto-standards-secret-science-policy">voted almost unanimously</a> to do a full review of the scientific justification for many of Pruitt’s most controversial proposals.</p>
<p>Still, with the Trump administration <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-zeal-to-peel-back-regulations-is-leading-us-to-another-era-of-robber-barons-84961">tilted hard against regulation</a> and Republicans controlling Congress, the greatest challenge to regulatory capture at the EPA will be the 2018 and 2020 elections.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96256/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Government agencies are supposed to listen to the industries they regulate, but what if they tune out everyone else? Scholars call this regulatory capture, and some staffers see it happening at EPA.Chris Sellers, Professor of History and Director of the Center for the Study of Inequalities, Social Justice, and Policy, Stony Brook University (The State University of New York)Lindsey Dillon, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa CruzPhil Brown, University Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Health Sciences, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/954072018-05-30T10:36:37Z2018-05-30T10:36:37ZScott Pruitt’s desk is more impressive than yours<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220839/original/file-20180529-80645-1at18f9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scott Pruitt signing an official order at the Resolute Desk in President Trump’s office.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-03/2017-pruittsigning2.jpg">EPA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Allegations of misconduct during Scott Pruitt’s tenure as head of the Environmental Protection Agency share a common theme: ambitious displays of power and authority. </p>
<p>Whether it’s his insistence on flying <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/us/politics/scott-pruitt-security-furniture.html">first class or on private jets</a> or his request to use <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-pruitt-asked-to-use-sirens-in-dc-traffic-and-was-told-no-for-non-emergency/">emergency sirens to avoid Washington, D.C., traffic</a>, Pruitt’s actions show that he is not afraid to make a display of the power he wields. </p>
<p>These allegations of misconduct outside the office are matched by
action taken by Pruitt inside the office: his attempt to purchase two expensive desks, one of them bulletproof, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/us/politics/scott-pruitt-security-furniture.html">valued together at US$70,000</a>. </p>
<p>The purchase of these desks was stopped by staff. But one of the replacement desks Pruitt selected instead has been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/us/politics/scott-pruitt-security-furniture.html">compared</a> to the Oval Office’s grand and presidential <a href="https://www.whitehousehistory.org/photos/treasures-of-the-white-house-resolute-desk">Resolute Desk</a>, which has been used by almost every president since Britain’s Queen Victoria gave it as a gift to Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880. </p>
<p>The selection of such an imposing desk is no accident. Instead, it is consistent with his other actions in that it represents a display of power that Pruitt uses to send a specific message to all who enter his office: I am important and powerful.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eA-OBmYAAAAJ&hl=en">As a professor of management</a> researching <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681314001463">organizational politics</a> and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/job.2240">abusive supervision</a>, I often explain that politics is a constant of organizational life. Workplaces are full of political power plays and attempts to influence others. </p>
<h2>Desks as symbol</h2>
<p>Desks are one of the most common symbols of power in society. </p>
<p>Starting at a young age, children are taught that the person behind the large desk at the front of the classroom is the one who holds the power. Just like the employees they will grow to be, children sit behind desks that are smaller and more utilitarian than their teacher’s. As people age into the workplace, the characters may change – the teacher or principal becomes our manager – but the scenery stays the same. The desk remains. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220844/original/file-20180529-80620-1zs2j5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220844/original/file-20180529-80620-1zs2j5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220844/original/file-20180529-80620-1zs2j5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220844/original/file-20180529-80620-1zs2j5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220844/original/file-20180529-80620-1zs2j5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220844/original/file-20180529-80620-1zs2j5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220844/original/file-20180529-80620-1zs2j5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The person behind the large desk is the one who holds the power.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>How employees, managers and outsiders experience the physical spaces in a workplace or office is greatly influenced by the <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.1984.4277654">physical structure</a> of the building and the use of <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.1984.4277654">symbolic artifacts</a>. Buildings can send messages and affect behavior through their design. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Successful-Office-Workspace-1982-01-01-Paperback/dp/B012YXPKGE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1525179438&sr=8-2&keywords=the+successful+office+becker+1982">Client-centered offices</a>, where managers expect to meet with clients and others, are considered to be 99 percent image, according to Franklin Becker, professor emeritus of design and environment analysis at Cornell University. </p>
<p>Similarly, if managers want to be recognized or even revered as powerful and important, they will need to match this desired message both concretely and symbolically. This can be accomplished with the installation of a formal desk that signals to the follower the rank or position of the owner. </p>
<p>It should be noted that socially savvy managers <a href="http://www.crforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Political-Skill-in-Organizations.pdf">consciously shape the image they present to their employees</a>. Conversely, it is possible for less astute managers to be quite unaware of the signals they are sending to employees through the choices they make in their office. </p>
<p>A large desk can increase the physical separation between manager and others, thereby supporting the symbolic or hierarchical distance between the two. Thus, desks can be used to reinforce the legitimacy and authority of a manager. </p>
<h2>Desks as power</h2>
<p>The office desk and the space it occupies is governed by social customs that dictate certain behaviors.</p>
<p>For example, subordinates do not cross behind the desk unless invited, objects on the desk are not touched without asking, and important information is passed over the desk to the manager. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220850/original/file-20180529-80658-2hnedc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220850/original/file-20180529-80658-2hnedc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220850/original/file-20180529-80658-2hnedc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220850/original/file-20180529-80658-2hnedc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220850/original/file-20180529-80658-2hnedc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220850/original/file-20180529-80658-2hnedc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220850/original/file-20180529-80658-2hnedc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Powerful people come out from behind their powerful desks to be less intimidating. Here, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois meets with a constituent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/photos/washington-dc-meetings-may-2014">Office of Sen. Dick Durbin</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Early research on physical spaces found that face-to-face seating – which is inevitable when a manager is behind a desk – is generally used for <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/title/personal-space-the-behavioral-basis-of-design/oclc/4099">adversarial interactions</a>.</p>
<p>Professional persuasiveness coach Shari Alexander recommends that if <a href="https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228595">managers want to reinforce their formal position</a>, they should stay behind the desk. However, if managers want to connect with their workers on a more personal level, they need to step away from their desk. </p>
<p>William Whyte, <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/title/organization-man/oclc/500387673&referer=brief_results">an organizational analyst and author, wrote</a> that even the “neophyte organizational member quickly realizes that furnishings are usually synonymous with rank in the hierarchy.”</p>
<p>Certainly, if individuals were to tour an empty office building with the signs removed from office doors, they would be able to identify the offices belonging to senior managers simply by their contents.</p>
<p>Pruitt’s actions thus far are consistent with the image he conveys via his choice of desk: power, importance and authority. His office is his sanctuary, the place where he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/16/scott-pruitts-43000-soundproof-phone-booth-violated-spending-laws-federal-watchdog-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.620517ab0ad3">shares his secrets</a>, wants to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-pruitts-security-team-bulletproof-car-and-furniture-2018-4">feel safe</a>, and likely takes comfort in knowing he is the master of his domain. </p>
<p>However, his actions thus far make clear that he certainly finds comfort in ensuring that all who stand before his desk, just on the edge of the carpet, know that he is the master of their domain as well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95407/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charn McAllister does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A desk is a place to work. But it can also be a symbol of prestige and power, as EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has demonstrated in his choice of expensive and ostentatious desks for his office.Charn McAllister, Assistant Professor of Management and Organizational Development, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/965012018-05-18T10:42:02Z2018-05-18T10:42:02ZScott Pruitt’s approach to pollution control will make the air dirtier and Americans less healthy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219253/original/file-20180516-155594-1jfv9hf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Smog alert in Cleveland, Ohio, July 20, 1973.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CLEVELAND_SKYLINE_IN_THE_SMOG_OF_JULY_20,_1973,_DAY_OF_POLLUTION_ALERT_-_NARA_-_550190.jpg">USEPA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/16/at-senate-hearing-scott-pruitts-spending-and-ethics-once-again-take-center-stage/?utm_term=.3e297103298e">ethical lapses and extravagant spending habits</a> have distracted the public from what he is doing to roll back important environmental protections.</p>
<p>Pruitt helped persuade President Donald Trump to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-decision-to-leave-paris-accord-hurts-the-us-and-the-world-78707">withdraw from the Paris climate accord</a>, making the United States the only country in the world to reject the pact. At Trump’s urging, Pruitt has moved to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-pull-of-energy-markets-and-legal-challenges-will-blunt-plans-to-roll-back-epa-carbon-rules-85561">repeal the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan</a> and EPA rules clarifying federal jurisdiction to <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-scott-pruitt-have-a-solid-case-for-repealing-the-clean-water-rule-80240">protect wetlands</a>. </p>
<p>He also plans to scrap national <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-fuel-economy-standards-for-cars-and-trucks-have-worked-94529">fuel economy standards</a> the auto industry once embraced. And he sought to suspend regulation of methane leaks from new oil and gas wells, but was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/climate/court-blocks-epa-effort-to-suspend-obama-era-methane-rule.html">overruled by a federal court</a>.</p>
<p>And Pruitt’s agenda extends far beyond simply rolling back Obama administration initiatives. In a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/image2018-05-09-173219.pdf">memo</a> to EPA staff on May 9, 2018, Pruitt ordered significant changes in the process for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/naaqs">setting air quality standards</a> under the Clean Air Act, in the name of “cooperative federalism and the rule of law.”</p>
<p>These standards are the heart of what has been the most successful environmental law in history. According to the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-second-prospective-study">EPA’s own estimates</a>, the Clean Air Act saves thousands of lives every year and generates net benefits to society that are vastly larger than the costs of complying with it. </p>
<p>But the law is now under attack from the very agency charged with implementing it. Pruitt seeks to undermine the scientific basis for the EPA’s national air quality standards by changing who advises the EPA, restricting the data they can use, and requiring them to shift their focus away from protecting public health.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219254/original/file-20180516-155579-ha759c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219254/original/file-20180516-155579-ha759c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219254/original/file-20180516-155579-ha759c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219254/original/file-20180516-155579-ha759c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219254/original/file-20180516-155579-ha759c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219254/original/file-20180516-155579-ha759c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219254/original/file-20180516-155579-ha759c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219254/original/file-20180516-155579-ha759c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA’s estimated benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990-2020. About 85 percent of benefits are attributable to avoided premature deaths associated with reductions in particle pollution.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/benefits-and-costs-clean-air-act-1990-2020-second-prospective-study">USEPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Science-based regulation</h2>
<p>The Clean Air Act has reduced air pollution so effectively that even Pruitt <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3404467-Pruitt-EPA-Confirmation-Hearing-Transcript.html">acknowledges its success</a>. U.S. air quality standards are the reason why our air is not like China’s, where air pollution kills an estimated <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135749">1.6 million people each year</a>. </p>
<p>The Clean Air Act has succeeded because it requires air quality standards to be based solely on what science shows is necessary to protect public health. The law directs the EPA administrator to consult with “an independent scientific review committee” known as the <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/CASAC">Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee</a> (CASAC). This committee summarizes what science shows about the impact of various levels of air pollution on public health and welfare. </p>
<p>Based on this scientific information, the EPA is required to set national air quality standards for six key air pollutants that will protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety.” These standards are required to be updated every five years to reflect the latest scientific information. </p>
<p>The EPA is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-pruitt-signs-memo-reform-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-review">scheduled</a> to complete reviews of standards for ozone and particulate matter by the end of 2020. According to the American Lung Association, <a href="http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/2018-state-of-the-air.html">more than 4 in 10 Americans</a> still live in areas with unhealthy levels of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution">ozone</a> or <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution">particle pollution</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219255/original/file-20180516-155573-1eifbxr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219255/original/file-20180516-155573-1eifbxr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219255/original/file-20180516-155573-1eifbxr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219255/original/file-20180516-155573-1eifbxr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219255/original/file-20180516-155573-1eifbxr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219255/original/file-20180516-155573-1eifbxr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219255/original/file-20180516-155573-1eifbxr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219255/original/file-20180516-155573-1eifbxr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Since 1980, combined emissions of six common air pollutants have dropped by 67 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles and population and energy use increased.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary">USEPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pruitt’s memo expands CASAC’s charge to include advice on any adverse “economic” or “energy effects” of emission control measures – even though the law does not allow such factors to be considered during the standard-setting process. In <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1257.ZS.html">Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.</a> in 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that the text of the Clean Air Act “unambiguously bars cost considerations from the [standard]-setting process.” </p>
<p>In that case, industry litigants sought to persuade the court that air quality standards should be based on cost-benefit analyses. But the court, in an opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, unanimously rejected that argument, stating: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[C]ost of implementation … is both so indirectly related to public health and so full of potential for canceling the conclusions drawn from direct health effects that it would surely have been expressly mentioned in [the law] if Congress meant it to be considered.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The court declared that if it could be proved “that the EPA is secretly considering the costs of attainment without telling anyone,” this would be grounds for striking down the standards “because the Administrator had not followed the law.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219262/original/file-20180516-155616-1b5j1el.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219262/original/file-20180516-155616-1b5j1el.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219262/original/file-20180516-155616-1b5j1el.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219262/original/file-20180516-155616-1b5j1el.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219262/original/file-20180516-155616-1b5j1el.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219262/original/file-20180516-155616-1b5j1el.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219262/original/file-20180516-155616-1b5j1el.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219262/original/file-20180516-155616-1b5j1el.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Counties that currently fail to meet standards for at least one of six air major pollutants.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-map-download">USEPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Weakening existing standards</h2>
<p>Pruitt’s memo pays lip service to the notion that compliance costs are not relevant to standard-setting, while requesting “robust feedback” on adverse effects of implementing air quality standards. He also wants CASAC to emphasize scientific uncertainty and research on naturally occurring air pollution, harkening back to President Reagan’s famous claim that “<a href="https://www.upi.com/Archives/1980/10/10/Environmentalists-Ronald-Reagan-is-just-plain-wrong/9036339998400/">trees cause more pollution than automobiles</a>.” </p>
<p>Even if Pruitt follows the law, his memo’s emphasis on compliance costs, uncertainty and “background” levels of air pollution suggests that he is laying the groundwork for undermining existing air quality standards. </p>
<p>Toward this end, Pruitt wants to make significant changes to the EPA’s sources of scientific advice. His memo emphasizes that new members of CASAC review panels must be selected in accordance with his October 31, 2017 <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/trump-s-epa-has-blocked-agency-grantees-serving-science-advisory-panels-here-what-it">directive</a>, disqualifying experts who receive research funding from EPA – but not experts employed or funded by industry groups. </p>
<p>Pruitt’s action responds to an April 12, 2018 <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-administrator-environmental-protection-agency/">memorandum</a> from President Trump directing EPA to speed up permitting of air pollution sources, and to grant states more flexibility in meeting air quality standards. But if the administration truly was serious about speeding up implementation of the act, it would not be <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/fy-2019-epa-bib.pdf">proposing</a> to slash the EPA’s FY 2019 budget from $8 billion to $6.1 billion and shrink the agency’s work force from 15,400 to 12,250. </p>
<p>When Congress last amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, it did so by overwhelming bipartisan majorities of 89-11 in the Senate and a voice vote without objection in the House. These amendments strengthened air pollution control measures while creating an innovative <a href="https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acid-rain-program">market-based emissions trading program</a> that experts <a href="https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/so2-brief_digital4_final.pdf">widely view as a success</a>.</p>
<p>President Trump has abandoned his campaign promise to abolish the EPA, but his EPA administrator is on a slash and burn expedition to roll back crucial environmental protections. This effort reflects profound distrust of the science that underpins U.S. environmental policies and profound disregard for millions of Americans who still live in areas with unhealthy air.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96501/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Percival does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to change the grounds for setting US air pollution targets. An environmental lawyer explains why Pruitt’s approach misreads the law and could roll back decades of gains.Robert Percival, Professor of Environmental Law, University of MarylandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/960002018-05-18T10:40:45Z2018-05-18T10:40:45ZWhy the EPA’s ‘secret science’ proposal alarms public health experts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219249/original/file-20180516-155607-1wp5dea.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The landmark Harvard Six Cities study found a strong link between air pollution and health risks.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/air-air-pollution-chimney-city-221000/">Pixabay</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Later this month, the EPA could finalize a controversial <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-rule-strengthen-science-used-epa-regulations">rule</a> to limit what scientific research the agency can use in writing environmental regulations.</p>
<p>I write as an academic who has been involved in air pollution issues for over 50 years and a former EPA assistant administrator for research and development, a political appointment position, under President Reagan. To understand why this proposed change is so controversial in the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/25/scientists-denounce-pruitts-effort-to-block-secret-science-at-epa/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3c7a499ca50a">scientific community</a>, including the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epas-own-advisory-board-questions-secret-science-plan/">EPA’s own Science Advisory Board</a>, one needs to understand a landmark study in the history of air pollution control and science policy. </p>
<p>Done by Harvard researchers, the 1993 <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401">Six Cities study</a> identified <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution">fine particulate pollution</a> that goes deeply into the lungs, largely produced from fossil fuel combustion, as being harmful to health. This core finding, along with other studies, led to new standards that <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/six-cities-air-pollution-study-turns-20/">saved thousands of lives</a>. </p>
<p>But under the current proposal, data from that study could not be used to inform EPA policy because the underlying data <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=db2a5070-6bf7-45d7-8f28-e42a6348e2ef">was not made publicly available</a>. </p>
<p>Attacking the Harvard Six Cities study as “secret science” has been central to a long and fierce onslaught in the much broader battle over the role of science in protecting the environment. This attack is now poised for success under <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/pruitt-makes-epa-science-board-more-industry-friendly-n817276">industry-friendly</a> EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.</p>
<h2>Industry pushback</h2>
<p>When the EPA was formed in 1970, among its major challenges was controlling smoke from coal-fired power plants and industries as demanded by the Clean Air Act. The CAA requires that science, not economics, determines enforceable outdoor standards. </p>
<p>The gold standard for epidemiology, or the study of diseases and its causes, is the double-blind randomized control trial. In these trials half of an affected volunteer group is given the potential therapy and the other half a placebo – and neither the researcher nor the patient knows which until the code is broken. </p>
<p>But that is an impossible standard for environmental epidemiology. Imagine the outcry if scientists were to secretly expose half of a community to a pollutant. </p>
<p>Instead, public health researchers look at differences in pollution exposure among individuals or communities, such as the extent of pollutant sources. And we do our best to account for potentially confounding factors, such as cigarette smoking. Validation of findings occurs through addressing the same question in different ways by different researchers. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s move to eliminate so-called ‘secret science’ has long been sought by conservatives.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/32342717143/in/photolist-Rh1T1c-RWf4U9-V4Xcrs-RenG4j-Rh1BKT-Rh25qB-ERurNv-25rELGh-Ssp19S-SspigN-Sw4d8r-Shfo7o-Reo2JG-Shfryd-ShfmbE-ShftRE-r9heYS-8vGwz2-Rh23mB-SspkYb-Sspgdj-Sspozo-RenHeq-T3o2LB-qu4gpp-rqKgqb-V7JDmR-roxxSu-U5LrWz-8sDtvi-8sGwmo-ShEL5N-25rERTQ-JpzTw5-QTaihm-eac2U8-8sGsxU-GTigPc-JpzRTW-JpzUFu-8sDqtn-JpzRJC-QTafPW-bRXWVF-nbGnqM-U5LqiV-r7wfNP-rqQygP-U2Uuy1-r9oDqD">Gage Skidmore</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Six Cities study found a clear correlation between pollutant levels and pertinent <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/six-cities-air-pollution-study-turns-20/">adverse health effects</a>, including a higher risk of mortality. </p>
<p>In response, representatives from <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/09/06/landmark-harvard-study-health-effects-air-pollution-target-house-gop-subpoena/2K0jhfbJsZcfXqcQHc4jzL/story.html">different industries</a> attempted to get the raw data and derail new regulations. Similarly today, Pruitt’s allies, including those in industry, say that making data publicly available ensures that scientific studies can be reproduced, and thus that <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-rule-strengthen-science-used-epa-regulations">any regulations based on that science are justified</a>. </p>
<p>Then as now, many scientific investigators viewed these efforts as a way to pore over the complex data sets so as to find minor blemishes that could be falsely magnified into scars. The result would force these academic scientists to spend much of the rest of their careers defending this one study. </p>
<p>The Harvard researchers refused to release the confidential data on about 8,000 people in six cities to representatives from industry. In an <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/f12-six-cities-environmental-health-air-pollution/">interview</a>, one of the lead authors of the study, Frank Speizer, expressed concern over “biased groups” having access to the data which could set a precedent that “will undermine future research by academic institutions.” </p>
<h2>Special board</h2>
<p>Left out of industry’s current narrative is that the raw data were turned over to the Health Effects Institute. HEI is an independent research organization funded equally by the EPA and the American automobile industry. Their <a href="https://www.healtheffects.org/publication/reanalysis-harvard-six-cities-study-and-american-cancer-society-study-particulate-air">thorough reanalysis</a> of this and the even larger American Cancer Society study concluded: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Overall, the reanalyses assured the quality of the original data, replicated the original results, and tested those results against alternative risk models and analytic approaches without substantively altering the original findings of an association between indicators of particulate matter air pollution and mortality.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Most importantly, many <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1702747">subsequent studies</a> in the U.S. and internationally provide a coherent body of information that confirmed the core findings of the Six Cities study.</p>
<p>But industry continued its attack. In 1999 Congress passed the <a href="http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Shelby_Amendment">Shelby Amendment</a>. It requires that data from all federally funded studies be made publicly available subject to the FOIA Act. </p>
<p>A 2013 Congressional Research Service <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42983.pdf">analysis</a> showed that this provision has not been used regularly. Yet it has been used to challenge existing regulations: Recently, industry spuriously <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060080501">claimed</a> that data obtained by FOIA invalidates a study that supported the causation of leukemia by formaldehyde.</p>
<h2>Other options for Pruitt</h2>
<p>Success in selling their assertion of secrecy and of bias has led to the current Republican-led House to pass what I would consider anti-science bills. One would require raw data be made available for studies on which regulation is based, which would greatly reduce the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/329671-the-honest-act-is-actually-dishonest-and-will-hurt-the">number of studies</a> <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1430.pdf">used by the EPA</a>. The other would change EPA advisory processes to <a href="https://theconversation.com/im-suing-scott-pruitts-broken-epa-heres-how-to-fix-it-94089">limit involvement by knowledgeable academics</a>. When these bills failed in the Senate, Pruitt moved to institute them administratively.</p>
<p>Administrator Pruitt has other avenues to address his concerns. He could fund further research on the subject of particulate health effects. He could develop an HEI-like independent organization that mixed EPA funding with funding from the fossil fuel industries to fund such research. He could ask the National Academies of Sciences, or set up his own expert committee, to review the specific issues presented by the Harvard or similar studies or to evaluate whether EPA regulatory actions would be improved by changing its advisory process or by requiring raw data for the underlying science. He could work toward nominating a new assistant administrator for research and development with a mandate to pursue these scientific and organizational issues.</p>
<p>Instead, Pruitt is moving to rid the EPA of the science needed for effective regulation. He has particularly focused on academic scientists, who are more independent and whose careers are at risk if they get the science wrong, in favor of those industry consultants who get further industry funding if they can cleverly find blemishes and magnify them into scars.</p>
<p>This attack on American science has shrewdly used the alleged shortcomings of the Six Cities study to cloak its goals. Its potential impact goes well beyond the EPA’s regulatory effectiveness to the underlying role of science in American society.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96000/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bernard Goldstein receives funding from none at present.
In my long career in environmental health, beginning in 1966, I have received many grants and programs and have been a government official (1966-68; 1983-85). But there has been no relevant activities in recent years.</span></em></p>The EPA intends to limit what scientific studies can inform policy – a change long sought by industry. A long-time public health researcher explains the single study at the root of the controversy.Bernard Goldstein, Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Occupational Health, University of PittsburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/963312018-05-14T10:37:35Z2018-05-14T10:37:35ZWhy bullshit hurts democracy more than lies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218620/original/file-20180511-5968-sj8816.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Why is bullshit so harmful?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/taedc/33902847462/in/photolist-9J32t1-RWF1nm-QA4Pmn-EVRvT4-Cg9Asb-DJqHCS-QRFEvA-RUzwzE-FdEFM1-VuEa84-RUzwSU-S5zCNA-TDSXoN-QPa71B-Rujukz-RujtfD-SJjpeH-SJjnCB-RujstD-RujsEF-KnPHDF-RsjRbr-Rujt2c-SJjp3F-T7B9Gf-HXrCgT-RUzwGU-S5zCCL-LNEZ9A-B8meH3">Ted Eytan</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the inauguration of Donald Trump as president, members of his administration have made many statements best described as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.393e408c5bfd">misleading</a>. During the administration’s first week, then-press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that Trump’s inauguration was <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/transcript-press-secretary-sean-spicer-media-233979">the most well attended ever</a>. More recently, Scott Pruitt claimed falsely to have received <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/385054-dem-inspector-general-disputed-pruitts-claims-of-death-threats">death threats</a> as a result of his tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency. President Trump himself has frequently been accused of telling falsehoods – including, on the campaign trail, the claim that <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-repeats-pants-fire-claim-unemployment/">35 percent of Americans are unemployed</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218623/original/file-20180511-34009-1fqcr69.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Trump with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What is extraordinary about these statements is not that that they are false; it is that they are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/category/donald-trump/?utm_term=.9259edc4bfb6">so obviously false</a>. The function of these statements, it seems, is not to describe real events or facts. It is instead to do something more complex: to mark the political identity of the one telling the falsehood, or to express or elicit a particular emotion. The philosopher <a href="https://philosophy.princeton.edu/content/harry-frankfurt">Harry Frankfurt</a> uses the idea of <a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html">bullshit</a> as a way of understanding what’s distinctive about this sort of deception. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Mm14TeMAAAAJ&hl=en">political philosopher</a>, whose work involves trying to understand how democratic communities negotiate complex topics, I am dismayed by the extent to which bullshit is <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Post_truth.html?id=0A6mAQAACAAJ">a part of modern life</a>. And what bothers me the most is the fact that the bullshitter may do even more damage than the liar to our ability to reach across the political aisle.</p>
<h2>Bullshit does not need facts</h2>
<p>Democracy requires us to work together, despite our disagreements about values. This is easiest when we agree about a great many other things – including what evidence for and against our chosen policies would look like. </p>
<p>You and I might disagree about a tax, say; we disagree about what that tax would do and about whether it is fair. But we both acknowledge that eventually there will <em>be</em> evidence about what that tax does and that this evidence will be available to both of us. </p>
<p>The case I have made about that tax may well be undermined by some new fact. Biologist <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html">Thomas Huxley</a> noted this in connection with science: A beautiful hypothesis may be <a href="http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/quote-week-thomas-henry-huxley-0">slain by an “ugly fact.”</a> </p>
<p>The same is true, though, for democratic deliberation. I accept that if my predictions about the tax prove wrong, that counts against my argument. Facts matter, even if they are unwelcome ones. </p>
<p>If we are allowed to bullshit without consequence, though, we lose sight of the possibility of unwelcome facts. We can instead rely upon whatever facts offer us the most reassurance.</p>
<h2>Why this hurts society</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218621/original/file-20180511-34038-1ob702e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the absence of a shared standard for evidence, bullshit prevents us from engaging with others.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mgifford/32459387985/in/photolist-9J32t1-RWF1nm-QA4Pmn-EVRvT4-Cg9Asb-DJqHCS-QRFEvA-RUzwzE-FdEFM1-VuEa84-RUzwSU-S5zCNA-TDSXoN-QPa71B-Rujukz-RujtfD-SJjpeH-SJjnCB-RujstD-RujsEF-KnPHDF-RsjRbr-Rujt2c-SJjp3F-T7B9Gf-HXrCgT-RUzwGU-S5zCCL-LNEZ9A-B8meH3">Mike Gifford</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This bullshit, in my view, affects democratic disagreement – but it also affects how we understand the people with whom we are disagreeing. </p>
<p>When there is no shared standard for evidence, then people who disagree with us are not really making claims about a shared world of evidence. They are doing something else entirely; they are declaring their political allegiance or moral worldview. </p>
<p>Take, for instance, President Trump’s claim that he witnessed thousands of American Muslims cheering the fall of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The claim has been <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/?utm_term=.ad7826168eae">thoroughly debunked</a>. President Trump has, nonetheless, frequently repeated the claim – and has relied upon a handful of supporters who also <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=dADxBwgCF5MC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=Celebrating+Arabs+and+Grateful+Terrorists:+Rumor+and+the+Politics+of+Plausibility#v=onepage&q=Celebrating%20Arabs%20and%20Grateful%20Terrorists%3A%20Rumor%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Plausibility&f=false">claim to have witnessed</a> an event that did not, in fact, occur. </p>
<p>The false assertion here serves primarily to indicate a moral worldview, in which Muslims are suspect Americans. President Trump, in defending his comments, begins with the assumption of disloyalty: the question to be asked, he insisted, is <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-9-11-cheering-claims-im-not-going-take-it-n470876">why “wouldn’t” such cheering have taken place?</a></p>
<p>Facts, in short, can be adjusted, until they match up with our chosen view of the world. This has the bad effect, though, of transforming all political disputes into disagreements about moral worldview. This sort of disagreement, though, has historically been the source of <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/SHKTLO.pdf">our most violent and intractable conflicts.</a> </p>
<p>When our disagreements aren’t about facts, but our identities and our moral commitments, it is more difficult for us to come together with the mutual respect required by democratic deliberation. As philosopher <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/rousseau_jean_jacques.shtml">Jean-Jacques Rousseau</a> pithily put it, it is impossible for us to <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_04.htm">live at peace with those we regard as damned</a>.</p>
<p>It is small wonder that we are now more likely to discriminate <a href="https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf">on the basis of party affiliation than on racial identity</a>. Political identity is increasingly starting to take on a tribal element, <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/in-seattle-is-it-now-taboo-to-be-friends-with-a-republican/">in which our opponents have nothing to teach us</a>. </p>
<p>The liar, in knowingly denying the truth, at least acknowledges that the truth is special. The bullshitter denies that fact – and it is a denial that makes the process of democratic deliberation more difficult.</p>
<h2>Speaking back to bullshit</h2>
<p>These thoughts are worrying – and it is reasonable to ask what how we might respond. </p>
<p>One natural response is to learn how to identify bullshit. My colleagues <a href="http://www.jevinwest.org/">Jevin West</a> and <a href="http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/">Carl Bergstrom</a> have developed a class on <a href="http://callingbullshit.org">precisely this topic</a>. The syllabus of this class has now been taught at over <a href="https://ischool.uw.edu/news/2017/10/calling-bullshit-makes-impact-schools-across-country">60 colleges and high schools</a>. </p>
<p>Another natural response is to become mindful of our own complicity with bullshit and to find means by which we might avoid rebroadcasting it in our <a href="https://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-to-deal-with-all-the-bullshit-on-social-media-1803779903">social media use</a>. </p>
<p>Neither of these responses, of course, is entirely adequate, given the insidious and seductive power of bullshit. These small tools, though, may be all we have, and the success of American democracy may depend upon our using them well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96331/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Blake receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.</span></em></p>The bullshitter may do even more damage than the liar in politics.Michael Blake, Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy, and Governance, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/961612018-05-10T10:48:47Z2018-05-10T10:48:47ZTrump’s deregulatory record doesn’t include much actual deregulation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218359/original/file-20180509-34009-t1mee9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cutting red tape is a high priority, but the execution hasn't always led to results.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump/3931664f4baa417da1e391972a111416/2/0">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One year ago, the Trump administration’s <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/trump-war-on-regulations/">deregulatory push</a> was in full swing. The administration was preparing a proposed rule to <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056742">repeal</a> the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) regulation, and to delay and <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060080679">repeal the restriction of methane emissions</a> from oil and gas extraction on public lands. </p>
<p>Surely these well-publicized deregulatory initiatives which the Trump administration has made a big show of taking credit for have taken effect by now. </p>
<p>Well, not exactly. The WOTUS proposal has not been finalized, and the methane extraction rule is tied up in a <a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/05/03/document_gw_03.pdf">thicket of court cases</a>. </p>
<p>President Trump’s record on deregulation has gotten a great deal of attention. He <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-delivering-deregulation/">brags about it regularly</a>. It is often placed alongside the tax cuts passed by Congress when his <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/366429-trumps-top-10-accomplishments-of-2017">chief accomplishments</a> are recounted. To listen to the president (or the media), one would think that thousands of regulations were repealed. </p>
<p>But as the WOTUS and Bureau of Land Management extraction rules indicate, the actual extent of deregulation is much more limited. At the same time, other moves to dismantle the “administrative state” have quietly been more effective. </p>
<h2>No more easy routes</h2>
<p>Early in the Trump administration, Congress used the Congressional Review Act, a statute that allows the Senate to bypass the filibuster to repeal recently issued regulations. <a href="https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs1866/f/downloads/CRA%20Tracker%204-18-2018%20%28Resolution%20Number%29.pdf">By May 17, 2017</a>, Congress had repealed 14 Obama regulations using the CRA in a wide array of policy areas. They would add one more regulation from the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau by the end of 2017. </p>
<p>But these repeals are largely the work of Congress and frequent punching bag for President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. And now, most Obama-era regulations are off limits for the CRA (although Congress has explored <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/383751-senate-votes-to-repeal-cfpb-auto-loan-guidance">expanding its use</a>). That leaves President Trump and his administration to rely on the typical route for writing and revising regulations – the executive branch – if they want to repeal any more of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/obamas-use-of-regulation-to-make-environmental-policy-not-unusual-and-not-illegal-42875">thousands of regulations issued during the Obama administration</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218360/original/file-20180509-34038-zf8tc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In seeking to roll back fuel economy standards and other regulations, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s staff hasn’t shown the same attention to the rule-making process as his predecessor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/32342717143/in/photolist-Rh1T1c-RWf4U9-V4Xcrs-RenG4j-Rh1BKT-Rh25qB-ERurNv-25rELGh-Ssp19S-SspigN-Sw4d8r-Shfo7o-Reo2JG-Shfryd-ShfmbE-ShftRE-r9heYS-8vGwz2-Rh23mB-SspkYb-Sspgdj-Sspozo-RenHeq-T3o2LB-qu4gpp-rqKgqb-V7JDmR-roxxSu-U5LrWz-8sDtvi-8sGwmo-ShEL5N-25rERTQ-JpzTw5-QTaihm-eac2U8-8sGsxU-GTigPc-JpzRTW-JpzUFu-8sDqtn-JpzRJC-QTafPW-bRXWVF-nbGnqM-U5LqiV-r7wfNP-rqQygP-U2Uuy1-r9oDqD">Gage Skidmore</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Making announcements about a desire to repeal regulations is easy. President Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-delivering-deregulation/">did so in December</a> (although his claim that 22 regulations had been repealed for every new regulation was <a href="https://www.theregreview.org/2018/01/29/lets-be-real-trumps-first-year-regulation/">vastly exaggerated</a>). Actually repealing significant regulations is much harder, as the administration is finding out.</p>
<p>An agency must start by developing a proposal to repeal a regulation. This must often be accompanied by a detailed economic analysis of the repeal. The proposal and the analysis are then sent to the Office of Management and Budget for a review. When that review is complete, the proposal is published in the Federal Register for public comment. Agencies must review the public comments, respond to them, make any changes they feel necessary to their proposal and analysis, and then resubmit it to OMB before publishing a final rule. Finally, the rule is subject to litigation.</p>
<p>To navigate this process takes time and expertise. President Trump and his Cabinet members, particularly <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/scott-pruitt-34386">Scott Pruitt at the EPA</a>, have instead tried to rush through the many steps of this process. This has meant that the last step, the litigation over regulatory repeals, has proven particularly problematic for the administration. At the EPA, courts have struck down delays or repeals of regulations <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-rollbacks.html">six times already</a>. This pattern holds across the government.</p>
<h2>Another kind of damage</h2>
<p>Part of the problem for the Trump administration is that while they have been hasty in trying to repeal regulations, the Obama administration was <a href="https://theconversation.com/promises-promises-how-legally-durable-are-obamas-climate-pledges-51786">thorough in promulgating them</a>. Over the course of eight years, Obama appointees solicited comments on their proposals, did detailed economic analyses, and built strong cases for many of their regulations. For example, the former EPA administration compiled a 1,217-page analysis done over years to buttress its fuel economy rules, while the current administration <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060077987">generated a 38-page document</a> dominated by auto industry comments to justify reviewing and rescinding them.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218361/original/file-20180509-184630-1b8cg34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Repealing existing regulations requires the work of government staffers who know the processes but a number of agencies, including the EPA, have lost many significant employees.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Pruitt/048cf6fb149a4c0c9443eaacd968b18e/1/0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In order to repeal these regulations, the Trump administration will have to convince courts that there are sound legal reasons to ignore all of this work. The statute that governs the creation of regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, requires agencies to demonstrate that they are not arbitrary and capricious.</p>
<p>To do so, the Trump administration will have to rely on the expertise that lies within the federal bureaucracy. But President Trump and his appointees have <a href="https://www.axios.com/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency-trump-unhappy-8507d121-946a-410d-922c-60d7de92355f.html">regularly denigrated those whose help they now require</a>. As a result, many of the most talented people at the agencies have left public service. At the EPA alone, more than <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/epa-employees-leaving-under-pruitt-11b36a220062/">700 employees have left during this administration</a>. </p>
<p>This means not only has the administration failed thus far to repeal many regulations beyond those overturned by Congress using the CRA, but their prospects for doing so in other cases are not strong. These cases include the WOTUS regulation, the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon emissions from power plants, and the recently announced plans to roll back emission standards for automobiles and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/climate/epa-cafe-auto-pollution-rollback.html">take on California over their auto emission requirements</a>. </p>
<p>Stephen Bannon <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPFpTergAGQ">listed the deconstruction of the administrative state</a> as a goal of the Trump administration. The repeal of regulations is often trumpeted as the most important sign that Trump is <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2017/12/20/president-trumps-successes-have-been-underreported-gary-varvel-column-nation-now/968842001/">succeeding</a>. But while the administration is failing at the piece of deconstruction they are talking about most loudly, there are signs that they are succeeding in other ways.</p>
<p>The first is the enforcement of existing regulations. While the Trump administration has ramped up enforcement of immigration regulations, it has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/10/us/politics/pollution-epa-regulations.html">ratcheted down enforcement of environment and worker safety requirements</a>. This selective pattern of <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/law-enforcement-trump-article-1.3879201">enforcing regulations</a> sends signals to firms that they don’t need to worry about complying with the law when it comes to the environment or public health.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, there has been an exodus of employees from the federal government which will likely have a corrosive long-term effect. Replacing talented public servants is not something that can be done overnight, even by a new administration dedicated to doing so. Training these new government employees will take even longer. As government becomes less effective because of the talent drain, faith in government diminishes further and a cycle of cynicism about public service is made worse.</p>
<p>The Trump administration has <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/723199/how-trump-launched-biggest-regulatory-rollback-american-history">declared war on the regulatory state</a>. But the things the administration is reluctant to take credit for, notably not enforcing the law and driving out talented public servants, are likely to have a much larger impact than its largely nonexistent regulatory repeals.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96161/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Shapiro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A review of Trump’s stated war on regulations doesn’t find many successful repeals. But it is hurting regulatory enforcement in quieter ways.Stuart Shapiro, Associate Professor and Director, Public Policy Program, Rutgers UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/957272018-05-08T10:43:53Z2018-05-08T10:43:53ZThe EPA says burning wood to generate power is ‘carbon-neutral.’ Is that true?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217826/original/file-20180506-166877-1gprizs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Enviva's wood pellet plant in Ahoskie, NC. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://marlboroproductions.com/">Marlboro Productions</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt recently told a group of forestry executives and students that from now on the U.S. government would consider burning wood to generate electricity, commonly <a href="http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/biomass.html/">known as forest</a> or <a href="https://www.fs.fed.us/woodybiomass/whatis.shtml">woody biomass</a>, to be “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-pruitt-promotes-environmental-stewardship-forestry-leaders-and-students">carbon neutral</a>.”</p>
<p>The executives, who had gathered at an Earth Day celebration in Georgia, greeted the news <a href="http://gfagrow.org/georgia-forestry-association-applauds-epa-administrator-for-recognizing-carbon-benefits-of-woody-biomass/">with enthusiasm</a>. But I did not. </p>
<p>Biomass does not introduce new carbon into the system, as its supporters point out. Yet it does <a href="http://www.pfpi.net/carbon-emissions">transfer carbon from forests to the atmosphere</a>, where it traps heat and contributes to climate change.</p>
<p>As a scientist and the <a href="http://fletcher.tufts.edu/Resilience/Team/Moomaw">coordinating lead author of the</a> <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/drafts/SRREN-FOD-Ch01.pdf">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on renewable energy</a>, I have concluded from extensive scientific studies that converting forests into fuel is not carbon neutral. I have also been working with many other scientists to <a href="http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/LetterFromScientistsToEuParliament_ForestBiomass_January_2018.pdf">inform governments</a> about the potential for forests to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and the climate perils of burning wood and forestry waste at an industrial scale for electric power.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217813/original/file-20180505-166887-qpyp14.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wood pellets like this one are burned to generate heat or power.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Forests-As-Fuel/1a43a15375db4f858dd620941fa29ee1/1/0">AP Photo/John Flesher</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Turning forests into fuel</h2>
<p>Energy can be renewable. Or sustainable. Or carbon neutral. Or some combination. These terms are often used interchangeably, but they mean quite different things. Wind power and solar energy clearly have all three attributes. What about bioenergy – the heat released from burning wood and other plants?</p>
<p>Trees can eventually grow to replace those that were felled to produce wood pellets that are burned to produce electricity. That makes biomass very slowly renewable, if the replacement trees actually do grow enough to absorb all the carbon dioxide previously discharged.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nrdc.org/resources/our-forests-arent-fuel">Environmentalists generally oppose forest biomass</a> because it contributes to climate change while disrupting important ecosystems and the biodiversity they support. They also object to this source of energy because it appears that burning biomass <a href="http://fern.org/report/biomassandhealth">releases pollutants that endanger public health</a>. </p>
<p>The scientists who <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280076738_IPCC_AR5_WG3_Chapter_11_Agriculture_Forestry_and_Other_Land_Use_AFOLU">study climate change</a>, the global carbon cycle and forest ecology tend to <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6382/1328?rss=1">reject the notion of biomass carbon neutrality</a>. Some forest economists and <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2286237">forestry scientists</a>, however, support the notion of carbon neutrality, depending on the circumstances.</p>
<h2>Carbon accounting</h2>
<p>To settle this debate, many of my colleagues and I believe it is essential to accurately account for all the emissions from burning wood for electric power. This is more than an academic exercise as biomass already produces significant emissions and industry observers foresee a nearly <a href="https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/How2GuideforBioenergyRoadmapDevelopmentandImplementation.pdf">seven-fold increase in its use by 2050</a> from 2013 levels.</p>
<p>Forests can, at least theoretically, be managed sustainably as long as annual harvesting doesn’t exceed annual growth rates. Suppliers claim to use <a href="http://www.envivabiomass.com/sustainability/track-and-trace/enviva-responsible-wood-supply-program/">residues from timber harvesting, thinnings – trees growing too close to other trees to thrive – and sawdust</a> for this purpose. However, <a href="http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/">large-scale biomass has led to clear-cutting and the harvesting of whole trees</a>. </p>
<p>Also, experts see the carbon neutrality of forest biomass differently depending on the time frames they consider, and on their assumptions regarding the likelihood that saplings planted to replace burned trees grow sufficiently to offset all of the associated carbon emissions. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217828/original/file-20180506-166910-1aj56pj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trees at the Georgia Biomass pellet facility in Waycross.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://marlboroproductions.com/">Marlboro Productions</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Carbon neutrality supporters</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/bioenergy-basics">Bioenergy supporters</a> say it’s possible for replacement trees to eventually remove all the carbon emitted through biomass from the atmosphere.</p>
<p>But this would require growing trees and forests that are bigger than the ones already harvested and burned for fuel. In addition to the emissions from combustion, carbon is released from forest soils when trees are felled. And it takes <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-urgency-of-curbing-pollution-from-ships-explained-94797">large amounts of energy to prepare wood pellets and transport them</a> to where they are burned.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6gaftYQ_56Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The UK’s Drax power station is among the largest to shift from coal to wood.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some bioenergy advocates claim that the carbon dioxide emitted when utilities and industry burn wood for energy is removed instantaneously by other growing trees located elsewhere. As long as forests globally are removing more carbon dioxide than is being released from harvesting and burning them, they assert that bioenergy is carbon neutral until combustion emissions exceed the removal rate by live trees.</p>
<p>However, there do not appear to be any quantitative studies to support this concept.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217825/original/file-20180506-166906-hn6eox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are rapidly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://scied.ucar.edu/imagecontent/carbon-cycle-diagram-doe-numbers">Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Biomass critics</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/pruitt-forests-burning-energy.html">scientists and other energy experts</a> who argue that burning wood isn’t carbon-neutral – <a href="https://www.theclimategroup.org/person/bill-moomaw">including me</a> – point out that bioenergy releases as much or <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280076738_IPCC_AR5_WG3_Chapter_11_Agriculture_Forestry_and_Other_Land_Use_AFOLU">more carbon dioxide per unit of thermal energy than coal or natural gas</a>. </p>
<p><iframe id="Hos2s" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Hos2s/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>People are adding nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as natural systems can remove every year. If <a href="https://scied.ucar.edu/imagecontent/carbon-cycle-diagram-doe-numbers">forests and soils</a> were not continuously doing their job of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, concentrations would grow annually by 75 percent more than they do.</p>
<p>Like most bioenergy critics, I point out that this debate hinges on the choice of baselines for how and when one measures the net carbon impact of biomass emissions. Put another way, you can’t count trees – and the carbon they would remove – before they grow. </p>
<p>And if the utilities now using biomass were to deploy solar energy instead, more carbon would remain stored in forests and less would be released into the atmosphere.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217865/original/file-20180506-166874-48amok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An area in North Carolina, after trees were harvested to produce wood pellets.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://marlboroproductions.com/">Marlboro Productions</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Growing trees takes time</h2>
<p>Then there is the issue of time. Wood burns within minutes, releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. But studies have determined that <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512/meta">it takes about a century to remove the previously emitted carbon dioxide</a> even if typical forest trees are replaced.</p>
<p>Many bioenergy advocates acknowledge that fact. They argue that a 100-year span is a reasonable time frame for achieving carbon neutrality, but <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558952/">over the following 50 years, some tree species can double in size</a> to store twice as much carbon. Furthermore, according to scientific consensus, the world must begin reducing emissions by 2020 to meet the <a href="http://sciencenordic.com/can-we-really-limit-global-warming-%E2%80%9Cwell-below%E2%80%9D-two-degrees-centigrade">Paris climate agreement’s</a> goals to stave off disastrous global warming. </p>
<p>But waiting for full-replacement forest growth is a best-case scenario. The <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13280-015-0747-4">forestry industry</a> usually harvests trees for timber, pulp and other products before they grow to their full potential. And there is no assurance that saplings planted to replace trees cut for biomass will grow enough to meet carbon removal goals before being lost to <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19697">fire, pests, drought or wind</a> – or that the land where they are planted won’t be converted to <a href="http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/deforestation/deforestation_causes/forest_conversion/">agriculture, housing, office parks or parking lots</a>.</p>
<p>Even using forest residues from harvesting, and thinnings from forest management <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/13/1720064115">aren’t carbon-neutral</a>. Only expanding forests and lengthening times between harvests reduce emissions.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217755/original/file-20180504-166903-1qro6ls.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The author and tree expert Robert Leverett walking among 150-year-old trees in Connecticut’s McLean Wildlife Refuge.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Connor Hogan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Besides, the consequences of a changed climate, such as flooded coastal cities, irreversibly melted glaciers and sea ice, species extinction and more severe weather events like hurricanes is what really matters – not net carbon emissions. <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/02/13/11-takeaways-draft-un-report-1-5c-global-warming-limit/">Eventual carbon neutrality does not assure climate neutrality</a>. And even if tree regrowth were to counteract the carbon released through biomass, it would take decades. But the world needs to stall emissions growth now. </p>
<p>And of course if that wood had not been burned, the vast majority of those surviving trees would have removed and stored <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/13/1720064115">carbon dioxide emitted from burning coal</a> and other fossil fuels.</p>
<h2>Government support</h2>
<p>Yet many governments are making forest biomass a mainstay of their renewable energy policies, especially in the European Union – which declared all forms of <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114993-europes-green-energy-policy-is-a-disaster-for-the-environment/">bioenergy to be carbon-neutral</a> in 2009. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.edie.net/news/10/Biomass--carbon-neutrality--debate-continues-to-divide-opinions/">U.K. is replacing all of its coal-fired power plants</a> with new facilities that burn wood pellets that are <a href="http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news/biomass-report/">largely imported from southern states</a> like North Carolina and Mississippi. </p>
<p><iframe id="Qf3BY" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Qf3BY/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Producing electricity by burning wood now <a href="https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/">costs more than wind or solar power</a>, making biomass <a href="http://econofact.org/can-u-s-and-u-k-forest-bioenergy-subsidies-have-adverse-climate-consequences">only economically viable with large subsidies</a>. It takes a significant <a href="https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/our-work/forests-climate/">environmental toll on local land, water and biodiversity</a> while generating as much <a href="http://www.pfpi.net/air-pollution-2">air pollution</a> as coal, or even more, for some pollutants.</p>
<p>The evidence demonstrates that burning biomass worsens climate change. By contrast, protecting and restoring forests increases the removal and long-term storage of carbon from the atmosphere, a highly effective means for slowing global warming.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95727/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Moomaw receives funding from Rockefeller Brothers Fund. He is affiliated with Woods Hole Research Center (Board Chair), The Climate Group (Board Chair North America), The Nature Conservancy. (Board member Massachusetts chapter) </span></em></p>Deriving fuel from trees costs more than wind and solar power and it emits more carbon than coal. There are many heated debates about this kind of energy, known as forest or woody biomass.William Moomaw, Professor Emeritus of International Environmental Policy, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/947112018-04-10T10:37:17Z2018-04-10T10:37:17ZThe Trump administration, slanted science and the environment: 4 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213949/original/file-20180409-114128-i6codq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">March for Science in Portland, Oregon, April 22, 2017.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/March_for_Science%2C_PDX%2C_2017_-_29.jpg">Another Believer</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists and environmental advocates will be speaking out this month about the Trump administration and what they view as its abuses of science. This year’s <a href="https://www.marchforscience.com/advocacy">March for Science</a> on Saturday, April 14, has a goal of holding leaders accountable for “developing and enacting evidence-based policy.” </p>
<p><a href="https://www.earthday.org/">Earth Day</a>, which falls on Sunday, April 22 this year, is approaching its 50th anniversary and has become a global event. Although many Earth Day events will focus on issues – such as this year’s theme, plastic pollution – the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back environmental regulation will also loom large. </p>
<p>These articles from our archives provide some examples to support charges that the Trump administration is politicizing science on climate change and other environmental issues to drive an anti-regulatory agenda.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"983383417076224000"}"></div></p>
<h2>1. Restricting information</h2>
<p>Across many federal agencies, information about climate change and policies to address it has been removed from the internet or archived in hard-to-access locations. Terms like “climate change” have been removed from agency websites, and others have been renamed. For example, the Department of Energy’s Clean Energy Investment Center is now simply the Energy Investor Center.</p>
<p>Morgan Currie, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University’s Digital Civil Society Lab, and Britt S. Paris, a Ph.D. student in information studies at UCLA, acknowledge that public information on government activities changes to reflect the policy directives of different administrations. But <a href="https://theconversation.com/buried-altered-silenced-4-ways-government-climate-information-has-changed-since-trump-took-office-92323">as they note</a>, climate change is still occurring, whether it is reported or not:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“In our view, burying climate science diminishes our democracy. It denies the average citizen the information necessary to make informed decisions, and fuels the flames of rhetoric that denies consensus-based science.”</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213954/original/file-20180409-114128-hvv2th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213954/original/file-20180409-114128-hvv2th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213954/original/file-20180409-114128-hvv2th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213954/original/file-20180409-114128-hvv2th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213954/original/file-20180409-114128-hvv2th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213954/original/file-20180409-114128-hvv2th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213954/original/file-20180409-114128-hvv2th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213954/original/file-20180409-114128-hvv2th.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=567&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Donald Trump shakes hands with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt after speaking about the U.S. role in the Paris climate change accord, June 1, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Climate-Change-Science-Says/04bb5bc7c0c1478085a171294fe36c6f/130/0">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Stacking advisory panels</h2>
<p>Many scientists provide advice without pay to federal agencies on issues within their areas of expertise. But the Trump administration has downgraded or eliminated independent scientific input on a number of key issues. </p>
<p>For example, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has barred scientists receiving agency grants from serving on EPA advisory committees, and has <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/epa-unveils-new-industry-friendlier-science-advisory-boards">replaced</a> a number of academic board members with representative of industries and state governments. </p>
<p>Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has created a new advisory board on <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/zinke-creates-new-outdoor-recreation-panel-made-up-entirely-of-industry-advisers/2018/03/26/04f3e960-2f9a-11e8-8688-e053ba58f1e4_story.html?utm_term=.93b40b1aa48a">recreation</a> that is heavily weighted toward industry and another on <a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/15/trump-wildlife-protection-board-trophy-hunters/">international wildlife protection</a> made up mainly of trophy hunters. </p>
<p>Past administrations that tried to stack advisory boards ultimately <a href="https://theconversation.com/history-shows-that-stacking-federal-science-advisory-committees-doesnt-work-80590">failed to achieve their goals</a>, according to Donald Boesch, a professor of marine science at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science who has served on many federal advisory committees. Other scientists, not affiliated with the administration, will call out biased conclusions and unsupported recommendations from these slanted panels, Boesch predicts:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Consequently, policies and regulations based on the panels’ recommendations will be less likely to withstand public or political scrutiny and be more open to legal challenges than if they were based on more balanced input.”</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213956/original/file-20180409-114128-e31et0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213956/original/file-20180409-114128-e31et0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213956/original/file-20180409-114128-e31et0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213956/original/file-20180409-114128-e31et0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213956/original/file-20180409-114128-e31et0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213956/original/file-20180409-114128-e31et0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213956/original/file-20180409-114128-e31et0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213956/original/file-20180409-114128-e31et0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, flanked by U.S. Sen. Todd Young and U.S. Rep. Jackie Walorski, announces his new ‘Made in America Recreation Advisory Committee,’ July 18, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/WDWnmr">DOI</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Manufacturing controversy</h2>
<p>Although his proposal was ultimately <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/climate/pruitt-red-team-climate-debate-kelly.html">rejected</a> by the White House, EPA administrator Pruitt campaigned energetically in 2017 for a “red team-blue team” review of current climate science. Such an exercise, Pruitt asserted, would provide fresh perspective.</p>
<p>Critics viewed this idea as an attempt to undercut a widely supported consensus that human actions are changing Earth’s climate, by putting climate deniers on an equal footing with mainstream experts. </p>
<p>Red team-blue team exercises center on “the spirit of challenge by an antagonist,” explains University of Michigan climate scientist Richard Rood, who has participated in these types of reviews. Rather than shedding light on serious scientific questions, Rood <a href="https://theconversation.com/red-team-blue-team-debating-climate-science-should-not-be-a-cage-match-80663">describes Pruitt’s proposal</a> as a performance designed to advance a political agenda: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Such spectacle will be based on emotional appeal and will rely on manipulating the message about the role that uncertainty plays in scientific investigation. The goal will be the amplification and persistence of public doubt – a goal that would be undoubtedly achieved.”</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dauzaFv2baY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change, March 10, 2017.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Distorting scientific findings</h2>
<p>Many statements about climate change by Trump administration officials have questioned whether climate change is occurring or have downplayed the need to take action. Most recently, in late March 2018, EPA staffers received a list of “talking points” about climate change that instructed them to emphasize uncertainty when discussing the issue with local communities and Native American tribes.</p>
<p>For example, one point <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-climate-adaptation_us_5abbb5e3e4b04a59a31387d7?ux">stated</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Joe Arvai, a professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan who served on EPA’s Chartered Science Advisory Board from 2011 to 2017, <a href="https://theconversation.com/im-suing-scott-pruitts-broken-epa-heres-how-to-fix-it-94089">calls this framing an exaggeration</a> of uncertainties around the human causes of climate change. “In effect, Pruitt is asking EPA staffers to lie,” Arvai contends. </p>
<p>In another area – the health impacts of exposure to pollutants and toxics – Pruitt has proposed to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/climate/epa-scientific-transparency-honest-act.html">change EPA policy</a> so that the agency would only consider scientific research if underlying raw data can be made public for external scientists and organizations to review. Pruitt says this approach will increase transparency, but Arvai argues otherwise: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[I]n reality, this rule would mean that critical public health studies could no longer be used to inform EPA policy because some of the data are protected by doctor-patient or researcher-participant confidentiality.”</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The March for Science on April 14 and Earth Day on April 22 are likely to generate big crowds demonstrating against Trump administration policies. Here are some issues they’ll be marching about.Jennifer Weeks, Senior Environment + Cities Editor, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/943792018-04-06T10:46:21Z2018-04-06T10:46:21ZWhy California gets to write its own auto emissions standards: 5 questions answered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213470/original/file-20180405-189830-1st08cd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Rush hour on the Hollywood Freeway, Los Angeles, September 9, 2016.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Los-Angeles-Mayor/178af7a4248c43d78e61ee64950ea57f/324/0">AP Photo/Richard Vogel</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: On April 2, 2018, the Trump administration froze the fuel efficiency standards for cars and light-duty trucks, following the EPA’s finding earlier this year that tailpipe emissions standards negotiated by the Obama administration for motor vehicles built between 2022 and 2025 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-ghg-emissions-standards-cars-and-light-trucks-should-be">were set “too high.”</a>. The EPA also revoked California’s historic ability to adopt standards that are more ambitious than the federal government’s. UCLA legal scholars Nicholas Bryner and Meredith Hankins explain why California has this authority – and what may happen if the EPA tries to curb it.</em></p>
<h2>1. Where does California get this special authority?</h2>
<p>The Clean Air Act empowers the EPA to regulate air pollution from motor vehicles. To promote uniformity, the law generally bars states from regulating car emissions. </p>
<p>But when the Clean Air Act was passed, California was already developing innovative laws and standards to address its unique air pollution problems. So Congress carved out an exemption. As long as California’s standards protect public health and welfare at least as strictly as federal law, and are necessary “to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions,” the law <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7543">requires</a> the EPA to grant California a waiver so it can continue to apply its own regulations. California has received <a href="https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-california-waivers-and-authorizations#notices">numerous waivers</a> as it has worked to reduce vehicle emissions by enacting ever more stringent standards since the 1960s.</p>
<p>Other states can’t set their own standards, but they can opt to follow California’s motor vehicle emission regulations. Currently, <a href="https://database.aceee.org/state/tailpipe-emission-standards">12 states and the District of Columbia</a> have adopted California’s standards.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213472/original/file-20180405-189813-27gz1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213472/original/file-20180405-189813-27gz1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213472/original/file-20180405-189813-27gz1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213472/original/file-20180405-189813-27gz1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213472/original/file-20180405-189813-27gz1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213472/original/file-20180405-189813-27gz1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213472/original/file-20180405-189813-27gz1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213472/original/file-20180405-189813-27gz1i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gov. Ronald Reagan signs legislation establishing the California Air Resources Board to address the state’s air pollution, August 30, 1967.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history">CA ARB</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. What are the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” that California’s regulations are designed to address?</h2>
<p>In the 1950s scientists <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00966665.1953.10467586">recognized</a> that the unique combination of enclosed topography, a rapidly growing population and a warm climate in the Los Angeles air basin was a recipe for dangerous smog. Dutch chemist <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/hsawards/a_lesson_from_the_smog_capital_of_world.pdf">Arie Jan Haagen-Smit</a> discovered in 1952 that worsening Los Angeles smog episodes were caused by photochemical reactions between California’s sunshine and nitrogen oxides and unburned hydrocarbons in motor vehicle exhaust. </p>
<p>California’s Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board issued <a href="https://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm">regulations</a> mandating use of the nation’s first vehicle emissions control technology in 1961, and developed the nation’s first vehicle emissions standards in 1966. Two years later the EPA adopted standards identical to California’s for model year 1968 cars. UCLA Law scholar Ann Carlson calls this pattern, in which California innovates and federal regulators piggyback on the state’s demonstrated success, “<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1115556">iterative federalism</a>.” This process has continued for decades. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k2Ra8PRtXSU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">California’s severe air pollution problems have made it a pioneer in air quality research.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. California has <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-blazing-a-low-carbon-path-pay-off-for-california-72168">set ambitious goals</a> for slowing climate change. Is that part of this dispute with the EPA?</h2>
<p>Yes. Transportation is now the <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/digest/transportation-replaces-power-in-u-s-as-top-source-of-co2-emissions">largest source</a> of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. The tailpipe standards that the Obama EPA put in place were designed to limit GHG emissions from cars by improving average fuel efficiency. </p>
<p>These standards were developed jointly by the EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and California, which have overlapping legal authority to regulate cars. EPA and California have the responsibility to control motor vehicle emissions of air pollutants, including GHGs. DOT is in charge of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/32902">regulating fuel economy</a>.</p>
<p>Congress began regulating fuel economy in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s. DOT sets the Corporate Average Fuel Economy <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy">(CAFE) standard</a> that each auto manufacturer must meet. Under this program, average fuel economy in the United States improved in the late 1970s but <a href="https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100TGLC.pdf">stagnated</a> from the 1980s to the early 2000s as customers shifted to purchasing larger vehicles, including SUVs, minivans and trucks.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5IaQM/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="450"></iframe>
<p>In 2007 Congress responded with a new law that required DOT to set a standard of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and the “maximum feasible average fuel economy” after that. That same year, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html">ruled</a> that the Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to regulate GHG emissions from cars.</p>
<p>The Obama administration’s tailpipe standard brought these overlapping mandates together. EPA’s regulation sets how much carbon dioxide can be emitted per mile, which matches with DOT’s increased standard for average fuel economy. It also includes a “midterm review” to assess progress. Administrator Scott Pruitt’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-04/documents/mte-final-determination-notice-2018-04-02.pdf">new EPA review</a>, released on April 2, overturned the Obama administration’s midterm review and concluded that the 2022 to 2025 standard was not feasible.</p>
<p>The EPA now <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-ghg-emissions-standards-cars-and-light-trucks-should-be">argues</a> that earlier assumptions behind the rule were “optimistic” and can’t be met. However, its review almost entirely ignored the purpose of the standards and the costs of continuing to emit GHGs at high levels. Although the document is 38 pages long, the word “climate” never appears, and “carbon” appears only once.</p>
<p>The EPA’s decision does not yet have any legal impact. It leaves the current standards in place until the EPA and DOT decide on a less-stringent replacement. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213476/original/file-20180405-189821-6qv7x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213476/original/file-20180405-189821-6qv7x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213476/original/file-20180405-189821-6qv7x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213476/original/file-20180405-189821-6qv7x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213476/original/file-20180405-189821-6qv7x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213476/original/file-20180405-189821-6qv7x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213476/original/file-20180405-189821-6qv7x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213476/original/file-20180405-189821-6qv7x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from transportation exceeded those from electric power generation in 2016 for the first time since the 1970s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29612">USEIA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Can the Trump administration take away California’s authority to set stricter targets?</h2>
<p>The EPA has never attempted to revoke an existing waiver. In 2007, under George W. Bush, the agency <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/20epa-web.html">denied</a> California’s request for a waiver to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions. California sued, but the EPA reversed course under President Obama and granted the state a waiver before the case was resolved. </p>
<p>California’s <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-09/pdf/2013-00181.pdf">current waiver</a> was approved in 2013 as a part of a “<a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard">grand bargain</a>” between California, federal agencies and automakers. It covers the state’s Advanced Clean Cars program and includes standards to reduce conventional air pollutants like carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, as well as the GHG standards jointly developed with the EPA and DOT.</p>
<p>The Trump administration is threatening to revoke this waiver when it decouples the national GHG vehicle standards from California’s standards. EPA Administrator Pruitt has <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-ghg-emissions-standards-cars-and-light-trucks-should-be">said</a> that the agency is re-examining the waiver, and that “cooperative federalism doesn’t mean that one state can dictate standards for the rest of the country.” In our view, this statement mischaracterizes how the Clean Air Act works. Other states have voluntarily chosen to follow California’s rules because they see benefits in reducing air pollution. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"980896503249092608"}"></div></p>
<h2>5. How would California respond if the EPA revokes its waiver?</h2>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/JerryBrownGov/status/980894214903836672">Gov. Jerry Brown</a>, <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-epa%E2%80%99s-assault-federal-greenhouse-gas-emission-standards">Attorney General Xavier Becerra</a> and <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-chair-issues-response-epa-press-release-weakening-vehicle-standards">California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols</a> have all made clear that the state will push back. It’s almost certain that any attempt to revoke or weaken California’s waiver will immediately be challenged in court – and that this would be a <a href="http://legal-planet.org/2018/03/16/will-pruitt-join-sessions-in-expanding-the-attack-on-california/">major legal battle</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Air pollution could be the next battleground between California and the Trump administration, which is reviewing the Golden State’s special legal authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.Nicholas Bryner, Assistant Professor of Law, Louisiana State University Meredith Hankins, Shapiro Fellow in Environmental Law and Policy, University of California, Los AngelesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/945292018-04-06T10:44:28Z2018-04-06T10:44:28ZGovernment fuel economy standards for cars and trucks have worked<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213431/original/file-20180405-189821-4h8c16.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Customers line up to buy gasoline in San Jose, California, on March 15, 1974, during an Arab oil embargo. The crisis spurred enactment of the first U.S. vehicle fuel economy standards.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Recession-Watch/a2f5775e99684a0299a9819932bd1af6/51/0">AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>U.S. cars are twice as fuel-efficient today as they were 40 years ago. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are a major reason why.</p>
<p>These standards are in the news because the Trump administration plans to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-epas-u-turn-on-auto-efficiency-rules-gives-china-the-upper-hand-93840">scale back increases</a> scheduled under President Barack Obama that require automakers to double fuel economy by 2025. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt now <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-ghg-emissions-standards-cars-and-light-trucks-should-be">says</a> that this standard is too high.</p>
<p>This announcement has rightfully sparked debate – not just about narrow costs and benefits of fuel economy standards, but also over the U.S. role in shaping a global industry that faces a trio of radical transformations via <a href="https://theconversation.com/range-anxiety-todays-electric-cars-can-cover-vast-majority-of-daily-u-s-driving-needs-63909">electrification</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/driverless-cars-are-already-here-but-the-roads-arent-ready-for-them-93456">self-driving cars</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-uber-or-not-why-car-ownership-may-no-longer-be-a-good-deal-83558">ride-sharing</a>.</p>
<p>How have CAFE standards shaped the U.S. auto market? While they are an imperfect tool, these regulations have pushed automakers to greatly increase vehicle fuel economy – and have saved consumers millions of dollars.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213430/original/file-20180405-189830-127qudu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213430/original/file-20180405-189830-127qudu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213430/original/file-20180405-189830-127qudu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213430/original/file-20180405-189830-127qudu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213430/original/file-20180405-189830-127qudu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213430/original/file-20180405-189830-127qudu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213430/original/file-20180405-189830-127qudu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213430/original/file-20180405-189830-127qudu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mandatory fuel economy label design adopted in 2011 for gasoline-powered vehicles.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Gas_26mpg_500px.jpg">NHTSA/EPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Saving money and cutting pollution</h2>
<p>Before Congress mandated the first CAFE standards in 1975, the average American car got about <a href="https://www.epa.gov/fuel-economy-trends/highlights-co2-and-fuel-economy-trends">13.5 miles per gallon</a>. By 2016, fuel economy had roughly doubled to 25 miles per gallon.</p>
<p>To get a sense of what that means, if Americans kept driving exactly as much as they do today but operated pre-CAFE gas guzzlers, the average U.S. household would spend nearly US$2,000 more on gasoline each year. And annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would jump by 1 billion tons. Economists <a href="https://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BECS/Valuing-Climate-Damages/index.htm">debate</a> how much <a href="https://theconversation.com/curbing-climate-change-has-a-dollar-value-heres-how-and-why-we-measure-it-70882">damage</a> these emissions cause, but conventional estimates peg the cost at $37 billion per year.</p>
<p>Does CAFE deserve credit? Yes, at least partly. Historically, the average fuel economy of vehicles in the U.S. has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/req021">closely tracked</a> the minimum required by law. Fuel economy was stagnant before CAFE, then increased rapidly in lockstep with the law as CAFE standards phased in over 15 years. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/5IaQM/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="450"></iframe>
<p>When the standard sat unchanged in the 1990s, average fuel economy flatlined. Technological progress continued, but instead of designing cars that exceeded CAFE standards, auto makers made cars that were <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.7.3368">bigger</a> and faster and just met the minimum efficiency required by law. This pattern only shifted in the early 2000s, when high gasoline prices drove fuel economy gains even while CAFE was flat. </p>
<p>There are better ways to improve fuel economy. Many economists like <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iwuJ9uwAAAAJ&hl=en">me</a> would like to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095220">replace CAFE standards</a> with a <a href="https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/raise-the-gas-tax/">gasoline tax</a>, or at least pair them with policies that target congestion and accidents. For now, however, as lawmakers debate scaling back CAFE standards, they should remember the important role these regulations have played.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94529/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James M. Sallee has received funding from the Sloan Foundation for research related to fuel economy standards. </span></em></p>Since the federal government started setting fuel economy standards, US-built cars have doubled their fuel efficiency, saving money for consumers and reducing pollution.James M. Sallee, Assistant Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/940892018-04-04T10:45:07Z2018-04-04T10:45:07ZI’m suing Scott Pruitt’s broken EPA - here’s how to fix it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213146/original/file-20180404-189807-m3aiz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's signature moves has been to put the brakes on stringent fuel economy rules. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Fuel-Standards/09a164daf2bd485dbec1bdc24902d8a9/7/0">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2017, just a few days after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, a <a href="https://gaetz.house.gov/about">freshman GOP lawmaker</a> with only a few days on the job of his own, proposed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text?format=txt">House Resolution 861</a>. Its language was ominous: “The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”</p>
<p>I was in my sixth year on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board when H.R.861 was introduced. When I called senior EPA colleagues to assess the threat, I was assured that it would never happen; the nation’s environmental laws, and the agency that makes and enforces them, could not be killed in two years by a 10-word resolution written by a rookie congressman.</p>
<p>Then along came Scott Pruitt.</p>
<p>Since taking over as administrator, Pruitt has overseen the nominations and appointments of a diverse array of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/03/17/593546626/former-coal-lobbyist-on-tap-for-no-2-spot-at-epa">lobbyists</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/trump-epa-chemicals-regulations.html">corporate insiders</a> while at the same time letting <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/?utm_term=.5011fff0c310">key vacancies</a> languish. He has put the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/10/us/politics/pollution-epa-regulations.html">brakes on enforcement</a>, slowed or suspended progressive <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/climate/epa-cafe-auto-pollution-rollback.html?mabReward=ART_CTM6&recid=12kaby15XIZA34TkZR5cJmE32qL&recp=1&moduleDetail=recommendations-1&action=click&contentCollection=Climate&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article">regulatory actions</a> initiated by his predecessors, and defended draconian <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/15/epa-head-defends-white-houses-plan-for-massive-cuts-to-his-agency/?utm_term=.3d62f3422ca1">budget cuts</a> proposed by the White House. </p>
<p>He has also <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/145631/scott-pruitts-plot-sabotage-science-epa">gutted</a> the agency’s science advisory boards, one of which I proudly served on. Pruitt’s <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/lawsuits-filed-against-epa-directive-972c3a79978e/">directive</a> to “reform” the EPA’s science advisory boards, which I believe is both <a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/11/03/scott-pruitts-attack-on-scientists-serving-on-advisory-boards-is-illegal/">unethical and illegal</a>, led me to join a group of scientists who are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/12/21/in-defense-of-science-researchers-sue-epa-over-move-to-overhaul-advisory-boards/?utm_term=.da780ec6ca47">suing</a> the agency. </p>
<p>From where I sit as both a scientist and former EPA adviser, the motivation behind Scott Pruitt’s actions is as clear as day: He isn’t reforming the agency; he’s trying to kill it. </p>
<p>The good news for the EPA is that a <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/14/most-americans-favor-stricter-environmental-laws-and-regulations/">majority of Americans</a> support its fundamental mission to protect the environment and public health. And, judging by recent reports, bipartisan calls for Scott Pruitt to resign are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/04/03/us/politics/03reuters-usa-trump-pruitt.html">growing louder</a>. But for the EPA to really rebound after Pruitt’s repeated assaults, the agency will need to address some of its legitimate shortcomings.</p>
<h2>Toxic and risky</h2>
<p>I’ve been <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=w4h1TyMAAAAJ&hl=en">dedicated</a> to environmental science since college, and I have devoted a large chunk of my academic career to government service since shortly after George W. Bush was elected president. </p>
<p>My <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/F3DB1F5C6EF90EE1852575C500589157/$File/EPA-SAB-09-012-unsigned.pdf">first job</a> advising the EPA came in 2003 under Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican. I rejoined the EPA in 2011 when Lisa Jackson, a Democrat, was appointed to lead the agency. In spite of divergent agency priorities under different administrators, there were three constants that held the agency together: a respect for science, genuine concern for environmental and public health, and career EPA staff who served as a buffer during political transitions. All three are under attack by Scott Pruitt.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213147/original/file-20180404-189813-gvsypy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213147/original/file-20180404-189813-gvsypy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213147/original/file-20180404-189813-gvsypy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213147/original/file-20180404-189813-gvsypy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213147/original/file-20180404-189813-gvsypy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213147/original/file-20180404-189813-gvsypy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213147/original/file-20180404-189813-gvsypy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213147/original/file-20180404-189813-gvsypy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Emails show that EPA administrator Scott Pruitt personally monitored efforts last year to excise much of the information about climate change from the agency’s website.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/EPA-Pruitt-Climate-Change/59a286b5915d4f148c99850881ac55d1/54/0">EPA via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He has floated proposals that have not only ignored widely accepted and peer-reviewed science, they have been toxic to morale at the EPA. Last summer, for example, Pruitt – who for years has <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/02/scott-pruitt-epa-evolution-theory-abortion-gay-marriage-433284">questioned</a> established climate science – proposed a series of polarizing “<a href="https://theconversation.com/red-team-blue-team-debating-climate-science-should-not-be-a-cage-match-80663">red team/blue team</a>” debates aimed at unraveling the public consensus – and years of hard work by EPA staff – on climate change. </p>
<p>Just last month, Pruitt <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/daily-caller-scott-pruitt-will-end-epas-use-secret-science-justify-regulations">vowed</a> to enact new rules limiting what pseudo scientists like <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steven_J._Milloy">Steve Milloy</a> have deceptively called “secret science”. On the surface, such a rule sounds like a good idea; <em>who, in their right mind would want secret science?</em> But, in reality, this rule would mean that critical public health studies <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/climate/epa-scientific-transparency-honest-act.html">could no longer be used</a> to inform EPA policy because some of the data are protected doctor-patient or researcher-participant confidentiality.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213148/original/file-20180404-189795-11i0dy0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213148/original/file-20180404-189795-11i0dy0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213148/original/file-20180404-189795-11i0dy0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213148/original/file-20180404-189795-11i0dy0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213148/original/file-20180404-189795-11i0dy0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213148/original/file-20180404-189795-11i0dy0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213148/original/file-20180404-189795-11i0dy0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213148/original/file-20180404-189795-11i0dy0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA administrator Scott Pruitt (far right) has been an unabashed supporter of the fossil fuel interests, industries that the agency regulates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump/85319c5d0416421d8704b7c668f7fdc2/3/0">AP Photo/Susan Walsh</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Also last month, Priutt issued a series of talking points to agency staff instructing them to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/28/epa-staffers-get-talking-points-downplaying-human-role-in-climate-change/?utm_term=.7b8a8572573b">exaggerate</a> uncertainties about the human causes of climate change. In effect, Pruitt is asking EPA staffers to lie.</p>
<p>As a result of these – and <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/29/16684952/epa-scott-pruitt-director-regulations">other</a> – actions, career civil servants are leaving the agency in droves, further hastening EPA’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/climate/epa-buyouts-pruitt.html">brain drain</a>.</p>
<h2>Detached from reality</h2>
<p>In spite of the chaos and controversy that’s swarming around Scott Pruitt’s EPA, those of us who care about the agency have to be honest with ourselves and admit that the agency isn’t entirely free of responsibility for the situation it finds itself in. </p>
<p>Going back several administrations, the EPA has done little to harden itself against the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulations-jobs/513563/">criticism</a> that it’s detached from the social and economic realities faced by many Americans. This, in turn, has opened the agency to repeated attacks from those who <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-would-epa-deregulation-help-industry">incorrectly</a> <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#3f341e6f21ad">believe</a> that protecting livelihoods and businesses means repealing “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-previews-president-trumps-executive-order-energy-independence">job killing</a>” environmental regulations. It’s rhetoric like this that created an opening at the head of the EPA for a conservative activist like Scott Pruitt.</p>
<p>When the time comes, resuscitating the EPA will be an urgent – but <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/?utm_term=.4f5b3128b24e">not unprecedented</a> – task for new leaders in government. The easiest part of the job will be replacing Scott Pruitt, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/climate/scott-pruitt-political-ambitions.html">if he’s still around</a>, with an administrator who doesn’t have <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/02/scott-pruitts-dirty-politics">disdain for EPA’s mission</a> and who doesn’t <a href="https://grist.org/briefly/what-is-scott-pruitt-so-afraid-of/">mistrust</a> its employees. Another easy step will be to initiate a thorough house cleaning. Pruitt appointees who would like us to believe that certain <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/chemical-industry-insider-now-a-top-epa-hazards-watchdog/">chemicals</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/epa-agriculture-industry.html">pesticides</a> aren’t toxic must go. Appointees whose integrity is <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/epa-waivers-for-lobbyists-2f94a9c50127/">compromised</a> by conflicts of interest must also be fired.</p>
<h2>Balancing environmental, social and economic concerns</h2>
<p>The hardest part of the job will be reinventing an agency that is in dire need of reinvention. The EPA’s dual-purpose mission of protecting the environment from people and protecting people from a damaged environment must remain intact. But, the way in which the EPA balances environmental protection with the hopes and needs of ordinary Americans must change in the same way that the rest of us who work in the environmental sciences have had to change. </p>
<p>In my job, we don’t just talk about “the environment” anymore; we talk instead about the need for making trade-offs across environmental, social and economic goals. In other words, we talk about <a href="https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300">sustainability</a>.</p>
<p>Step one is to establish better relationships with the communities the EPA serves. The risks that a reinvented EPA will be responsible for managing – from the environmental and and public health impacts of climate change to polluted water systems in cities like Flint – must be <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/5138/understanding-risk-informing-decisions-in-a-democratic-society">jointly defined</a> by EPA staff and the citizens who pay their salaries. Likewise, how the magnitude of these risks is measured must be based on science and, importantly, people’s values.</p>
<p>I can already hear strident environmentalists bristling at the suggestion of letting public values decide. But they needn’t be afraid: Public values <em>already</em> decide. How we think about environmental health is based entirely on our values. </p>
<p>What we deem to be a “healthy environment” is a constructed, values-based judgment; what we really mean is, <em>healthy enough</em> so that we can feel comfortable with how much of the environment we’re prepared to give up in return for other things — social and economic — that we also value but for different reasons.</p>
<p>A reinvented EPA must also forge stronger partnerships with business: <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/249901-hundreds-of-businesses-promote-climate-rule-to-governors">Corporate America needs the EPA</a> as much as the EPA needs corporate America. Consumers are demanding more leadership from companies when it comes to sustainability, and they are <a href="http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/marketing_comms/libby_maccarthy/new_report_reveals_86_americans_expect_companies_take">punishing companies</a> – by withholding their money – that don’t deliver on this new social contract. </p>
<p>In my <a href="https://erb.umich.edu/people/joe-arvai/">experience</a> working at the intersection of sustainability and business, I’ve been repeatedly told by executives that it’s much easier for them to justify leaving potential earnings on the table in the name of environmental and social progress when they are compelled to do so by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/energy-environment/oil-companies-climate-change-un.html">regulation</a>. Here’s where better partnerships between companies and a revamped EPA can help. Corporate America and the EPA must work together over the long term to craft sensible and, importantly, <em>adaptable</em> regulations that are responsive to changing environmental, social, and economic conditions.</p>
<p>Taken together, the American people will benefit from a reinvented EPA because the agency will do a better job of responding to their needs and concerns. Businesses will benefit because they’ll be better able to plan for the shocks brought by new regulations. And, the EPA will benefit because it will have powerful new allies – companies and more supportive voters – to help it achieve its mission. </p>
<p>All of this will mean less helter-skelter at an agency that’s essential for American progress. And, importantly, it will mean that we’ll never again see the perceived need for another Scott Pruitt.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94089/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Between 2011 and 2017, Joe Arvai was a member of the U.S. EPA's Chartered Science Advisory Board. He is now among a group of scientists that is suing the agency over Scott Pruitt's actions.</span></em></p>An academic suing the EPA over its decision to bar certain scientists from serving on advisory boards says the EPA needs to address legitimate criticisms to rebuild after Pruitt.Joe Árvai, Max McGraw Professor of Sustainable Enterprise, and Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/855612017-10-13T04:20:02Z2017-10-13T04:20:02ZThe pull of energy markets – and legal challenges – will blunt plans to roll back EPA carbon rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190046/original/file-20171012-31431-onx4wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Grid operators set the prices for energy markets and are structured to take the lowest prices – a disadvantage for coal and nuclear power.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Oct. 10, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-another-step-advance-president-trumps-america-first-strategy-proposes-repeal">formally announced</a> a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, regulation intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. </p>
<p>This follows a <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/09/f37/Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20.pdf">directive</a> only a week earlier by Energy Secretary Rick Perry for the the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to start a process to essentially <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-rick-perrys-proposed-subsidies-for-coal-fail-economics-101-83339">subsidize coal and nuclear power plants</a>. </p>
<p>At first blush, these developments give the impression that the U.S. power sector is about to take a dramatic turn, and these decisions do indeed represent a significant shift in U.S. policy. But major changes on the ground are unlikely to happen overnight, or perhaps even in the next several years, for many reasons. Topping the list are legal challenges and simply the way competitive energy markets work.</p>
<h2>Headwinds from natural gas, wind and solar</h2>
<p>Legally, the Clean Power Plan repeal is already facing a challenge. The same day as its demise was announced, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-leads-coalition-states-and-localities-opposing-pres-trumps-efforts">responded</a> that he would lead a coalition of states and localities in a lawsuit defending the Clean Power Plan. </p>
<p>Unless the Trump administration replaces the Clean Power Plan with something that addresses greenhouse emissions adequately, its decision is legally vulnerable. The Supreme Court decision in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html">Massachusetts v. EPA</a> provided the basis of the Obama administration’s regulation of greenhouse gases. Specifically, after this case, the EPA made a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare, which the Trump administration has not challenged. The proposed rule repealing the Clean Power Plan indicates an intention to replace it with other regulation, and a key legal question will be whether that regulation is sufficient to protect health and safety. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fracking and horizontal drilling have led to a surge in natural gas production and lower prices. As more pipelines are built, natural gas prices will stay relatively low, making coal less competitive economically.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/consumersenergy/14165904839/in/photolist-nzMXYB-f9XtJb-f9XtBQ-7RD78C-dSQcMY-a9XrWQ-f9HdQe-7dEkxt-f9Hegr-8CkHjD-7dEo14-dVnWU3-fHUtKS-8CoPyY-8CowNy-8CkKJr-agV71g-9cH8WD-TryTTF-iKuXA-ft8LqW-bDowqJ-csti-bSif82-7dEriD-8GkQ2Q-8CkwX6-8XvPAN-8CkfN4-8CoUn3-9hFV2R-TryTLr-5HuX9v-8CkGKK-dVnX4W-f9nGXa-aERkpH-p97uwY-bg6vWP-h4MVHS-8CoUe7-8CkjYr-f9Xtn3-akoKs4-qJXYNr-bSifg8-6sc6Aa-dyYdw8-fbBChB-f9HdVH">Consumers Energy</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even if the repeal and any subsequent regulation survive legal challenges, the development of the <a href="https://www.cfr.org/report/shale-gas-and-tight-oil-boom">shale gas industry</a> has caused market shifts that seem <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-may-dismantle-the-epa-clean-power-plan-but-its-targets-look-resilient-68460">unlikely to be reversed</a>. Prior to the unconventional oil and gas boom, natural gas prices were notoriously volatile, making power plant developers wary to invest in gas-fired infrastructure. But <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-solar-and-wind-really-killing-coal-nuclear-and-grid-reliability-76741">now natural gas is commonly used</a> for “baseload” plants – those that continuously supply electricity to meet constant demand – as well as peaker plants that supply additional power when demand rises. </p>
<p>This market shift is why nearly all new power plants recently built in the United States are gas-fired. Further enhancing the stability of these markets is the recent expansion of natural gas pipelines carrying gas from productive areas like the Marcellus and Barnett regions to power plants around the country. This means that it’s likely that coal-fired power plants will continue to face economic challenges. </p>
<p>At the same time, midwestern and western wind energy – and solar in places like the Southwest – now <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060063283">outcompete coal and nuclear in energy markets</a>. While the Trump administration regulations aim to support coal and nuclear power development, these market forces remain powerful.</p>
<h2>Cheapest energy sources first</h2>
<p>The way that U.S. energy markets operate – supported by more than two decades of policies supporting competition – further constrains the impact of the repeal and other Trump administration policies. </p>
<p>Two-thirds of power supplied in the United States flows through transmission lines controlled by regional entities called regional transmission organizations. These entities control both the flow of power through long-distance transmission lines and the markets for energy. They run marketplaces where power plant operators bid to supply the amount of power needed throughout the day. Regional transmission organizations first draw on the cheapest sources of power until they have fulfilled all demand for power. Changes to these existing market practices would require major revisions to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission policies. </p>
<p>For example, given the complex computer systems currently used by regional transmission organizations to match demand with the cheapest available power supply, the DOE proposal to favor more-expensive coal and nuclear in these markets would be exceedingly difficult to implement. It would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish a price for each individual coal and nuclear power plant that was not set by market forces, which runs contrary to how markets operate now. This is partly why past efforts to favor certain power plants over others in these markets – for example, efforts to prioritize plants based on their environmental attributes – have largely not materialized.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Energy Secretary Rick Perry testifies Oct. 12 at the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the department’s plan to provide payments to coal and nuclear power plants, a break from years of policies designed to use least expensive sources of energy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The repeal’s impact will be further blunted by the many entities that have pledged to meet or exceed the Obama administration’s targets under the Paris Agreement. For example, more than 2,300 states, cities, businesses and universities have signed the <a href="https://www.wearestillin.com/">We Are Still In Pledge</a>, and many have already substantially expanded their low-carbon energy portfolio. Although a number of key states will certainly pursue different pathways than they would have under the Clean Power Plan, many states are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/10/climate/clean-power-plan-emissions-your-state.html">on target to exceed the goals</a> that would have been set for them. </p>
<p>From its Paris Agreement withdrawal to this latest decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration continues to unwind the Obama administration’s regulatory efforts on climate change. We in no way want to understate the significance of this policy shift. But looking at the larger context shows how a number of factors will constrain the amount of change these regulatory shifts will likely bring.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85561/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hari Osofsky receives grant funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy. She also consults with the Children's Investment Fund Foundation to evaluate an grant that it made to ClientEarth to support climate change litigation in Europe. None of these entities would benefit from this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah Wiseman sometimes consults for the Environmental Defense Fund. This entity would not benefit from this article. </span></em></p>Two moves by the Trump administration signal a dramatic shift in energy policy to favor coal and nuclear, but markets forces and legal challenges mean changes could take years.Hari Osofsky, Dean, Distinguished Professor of Law, Professor of International Affairs, Professor of Geography, Penn StateHannah Wiseman, Attorneys' Title Professor, College of Law, Florida State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/849612017-10-11T23:19:16Z2017-10-11T23:19:16ZTrump administration’s zeal to peel back regulations is leading us to another era of robber barons<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189824/original/file-20171011-9757-wrwcbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is an unabashed ally of the fossil fuels – industry his agency is supposed to regulate. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump administration has a clear economic objective: deregulate. Loosening regulations on industries, the White House believes, will lead to faster growth and more jobs. This is the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord">stated reason</a> for pulling the U.S. from the international climate accord, and the <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4081574/Repeal-of-Carbon-Pollution-Emission-Guidelines.pdf">economic justification</a> for seeking to rescind the EPA Clean Power Plan that limits carbon emissions from plants. </p>
<p>But an examination of history shows that government regulations are not always harmful to industry; they often help business. Indeed, government regulation is as central to the growth of the American economy as markets and dollars.</p>
<h2>Robber barons and the Progressive Era</h2>
<p>The late 19th century in the United States was the heyday of robber barons – John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Jay Gould and many others – who secured exorbitant wealth by building unregulated monopolies. They controlled the country’s oil, steel and railroads, and they used their wealth to bankrupt competitors, buy off politicians and fleece consumers. They manipulated a growing market economy that had weak rules and even <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-republic-for-which-it-stands-9780199735815?cc=us&lang=en&">weaker legal enforcement</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/progressive-era-new-era-1900-1929">progressive movement</a> of the early 20th century took aim at the robber barons, calling upon government to regulate their activities in the interest of the public welfare. Writing on the eve of the First World War, journalist Walter Lippmann <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.416.8041&rep=rep1&type=pdf">famously explained</a> that Americans had a choice to continue their economic drift into ever-deeper corruption and inequality, or they could empower their elected representatives to master the challenges of their age and create a more just and sustainable economic order. Lippmann and other progressives wanted a more active government, led by men of intelligence, who would regulate the most powerful corporations and ensure that they <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Drift_and_Mastery.html?id=PRwAcMYmcfkC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false">served the public interest</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189828/original/file-20171011-9751-1agebp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189828/original/file-20171011-9751-1agebp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189828/original/file-20171011-9751-1agebp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189828/original/file-20171011-9751-1agebp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189828/original/file-20171011-9751-1agebp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189828/original/file-20171011-9751-1agebp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189828/original/file-20171011-9751-1agebp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189828/original/file-20171011-9751-1agebp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Progressive Era arose in the late 19th century in part in response to poor working and living conditions for workers. This illustration from Puck Magazine shows industrialists Cyrus Field, Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Russell Sage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_protectors_of_our_industries.jpg">Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>President Theodore Roosevelt was a creature of both the New York business elite from which he came and the progressive reform movement which he eloquently embraced with his calls for a “<a href="http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/speeches/trsquaredealspeech.pdf">square deal</a>” to help the poor and “<a href="http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/speeches/trstrenlife.pdf">strenuous</a>” efforts by the well-endowed to enter “<a href="http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html">in the arena</a>.” Roosevelt saw himself as part of an intelligent and energetic elite who would take the reins of government to improve society as a whole.</p>
<p>From the Executive Mansion, which he renamed the “White House,” Roosevelt pushed the federal government to expand its regulatory role over oil, steel, railroads and numerous other industries. He was not anti-business. His efforts proved that government regulation could improve the lives of citizens while allowing businesses to continue to prosper.</p>
<p>Historians of the period <a href="https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/jeremi-suri/the-impossible-presidency/9780465051731/">like me</a> have, in fact, shown that the progressive era regulations often helped businesses by providing them with a more stable, predictable economic environment, where government regulations enabled increased capital investments and expanded consumer purchases. Progressive regulations of the robber baron market <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700104425">were good for businesses and consumers</a>.</p>
<h2>Regulatory ‘capture’</h2>
<p>The same is true for regulations a century later. Government activities to ensure competition, transparency and safety in various industries give the American economy stability almost unparalleled in any other country. </p>
<p>Investors send their capital to American companies because government regulations ensure that capital is not stolen or siphoned for corrupt purposes. Talented workers travel to the United States to work in American companies because government regulations protect safe and humane working environments, where businesses are held accountable for fulfilling their obligations to employees. Consumers buy products from American businesses – from food and drink to cars and houses – confident that they are receiving value for their money because of government regulations against cheating, lying and fakery in product sales. Investors buy stocks in the auto companies, workers seek employment in the auto industry and citizens buy cars because government helps <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/books/20book.html">protect the integrity of the process at all levels</a>. The federal government bails out shareholders, workers and purchasers when everything goes wrong.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189830/original/file-20171011-9777-1ldwjcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189830/original/file-20171011-9777-1ldwjcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189830/original/file-20171011-9777-1ldwjcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189830/original/file-20171011-9777-1ldwjcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189830/original/file-20171011-9777-1ldwjcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189830/original/file-20171011-9777-1ldwjcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189830/original/file-20171011-9777-1ldwjcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189830/original/file-20171011-9777-1ldwjcu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Regulation can stifle innovation, which is why the type of regulation is more important than the number of them. The Bell telephone monopoly was broken up in the 1990s, which helped usher in competition for broadband internet services.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EvgeniiAnd/Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is not to say that all regulation is good. Sometimes regulation chokes innovation by slowing change and prohibiting risk taking. This was evidently true for regulated monopolies in mid-20th-century America, including the venerable <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/3112937">Bell telephone company</a>.</p>
<p>In other circumstances, regulations empower special interest groups who gain power from laws that protect them and hurt potential competitors. This is true for pharmaceutical and insurance companies who drive the massive and troubled health care industry in the United States today. Government regulations <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=iZytxUn2iEIC&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=health+insurance+disempowers+doctors&source=bl&ots=sHuRF1jkhf&sig=2mizoDk2H6-TRZsAXDvjkiTDFuo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAhe2jvOfWAhXK4SYKHS3eA-84ChDoAQgzMAM#v=onepage&q=health%20insurance%20disempowers%20doctors&f=false">actually disempower</a> doctors, who have reduced control over treatments, and <a href="https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-59420-675-7/">patients, who cannot shop for price</a> when they are choosing health options.</p>
<p>Extensive <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/glj101&div=42&id=&page=">research</a> shows that business leaders often “capture” regulation. Large companies – particularly in communications, real estate, pharmaceuticals and defense – use clever legal practices, control over information and often brute force to make regulators bend to their will. </p>
<p>The classic case is how lobbyists for Lockheed Martin, Boeing and other military contractors pressure members of Congress, with thousands of constituents employed in the industry, to <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Prophets_of_War.html?id=FLjNNTneVsoC">limit restrictions</a> on their production and sales. The <a href="https://tobinproject.org/books-papers/preventing-capture">regulators get bought off and bullied</a> into becoming the advocates of the companies they are supposed to control. </p>
<p>Perhaps college athletics is the best example. Does the NCAA really regulate the big college sports programs, or does it <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Cartel.html?id=nyJSUSDi-5QC">advocate for them</a>, and defend them when they bend the rules? As for the fate of the Clean Power Plan, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is an unabashed champion of the fossil fuel industry, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/09/pruitt-tells-coal-miners-he-will-repeal-power-plan-rule-tuesday-the-war-on-coal-is-over/?utm_term=.77ec9d513a1b">declaring</a> the “war on coal is over” when announcing plans to roll back regulations to limit carbon emissions from power plants. </p>
<h2>Consumer benefits</h2>
<p>This short history of government regulation shows how complex the issue really is. </p>
<p>The historical record reveals that regulation is generally beneficial to big established businesses: It often solidifies their dominance in markets, stabilizing basic practices. However, regulation will frequently hurt small startup competitors, who cannot mobilize as much influence over the regulators as their bigger counterparts. For consumers, regulation can help or hurt, depending on how it is carried out.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189832/original/file-20171011-9754-1go4u88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189832/original/file-20171011-9754-1go4u88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189832/original/file-20171011-9754-1go4u88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189832/original/file-20171011-9754-1go4u88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189832/original/file-20171011-9754-1go4u88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=753&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189832/original/file-20171011-9754-1go4u88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=947&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189832/original/file-20171011-9754-1go4u88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=947&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189832/original/file-20171011-9754-1go4u88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=947&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Roosevelt spearheaded regulatory reform but made clear his actions were not anti-business, but were instead aligning business and public interests.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_Roosevelt.jpg">U.S. Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With the determined political leadership of a leader like Theodore Roosevelt, regulations can indeed make workplaces safer and products more reliable for citizens, while providing the stable conditions corporations need to do business. But vigilance is necessary, and a number of government boards and agencies emerged to play this role. Hence the creation of federal bodies from the Federal Communications Commission (1934) and the National Labor Relations Board (1935) to the Federal Aviation Administration (1958) and the Environmental Protection Agency (1970), and many others. </p>
<p>When we look forward to the next decade, the question is not whether to have federal regulations. Less regulation will only mean more instability, uncertainty and losses for businesses and consumers. The real question is what kind of regulations, and how can federal, state and local governments administer them to serve the public interest as a whole, preventing excessive red tape, special interest domination and big business “capture.” </p>
<p>What the United States needs is less ideology and more detailed attention among politicians to matching regulatory processes with public purposes. That was, of course, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700104425">goal of the progressives</a> more than a century ago. If we don’t return to their model, chances are we will continue the current drift into another age of robber barons.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84961/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeremi Suri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Trump administration is committed to deregulating industry, as it’s done with the EPA Clean Power Plan. But a historian shows how regulations have actually benefited both industry and consumers.Jeremi Suri, Professor of History and Public Affairs, Mack Brown Distinguished Chair, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/806632017-08-14T02:34:28Z2017-08-14T02:34:28ZRed team-blue team? Debating climate science should not be a cage match<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181833/original/file-20170811-14040-1uy41uu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Having an antagonistic debate over climate change will not shed any more light on the fundamentals of climate science. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ivica Drusany/Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scott Pruitt, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056858">has called for</a> a “red team-blue team” review to challenge the science behind climate change. “The American people deserve an honest, open, transparent discussion about this supposed threat to this country,” he <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/345937-epa-head-casts-doubt-on-supposed-threat-from-climate-change">said on a radio show</a>, adding he hoped to hold the exercise in the fall. </p>
<p>Most commonly, red team-blue team reviews are used as a <a href="http://www.csoonline.com/article/2122440/disaster-recovery/emergency-preparedness-red-team-versus-blue-team-how-to-run-an-effective-simulation.html">mechanism to improve security</a> of information systems or military defenses. The blue team is associated with an institution, the owner of an asset or a plan. The red team is charged with attacking the blue team, with the goal of revealing vulnerabilities. </p>
<p>I have participated in red team-blue team exercises and in many reviews that share characteristics with their philosophy. Whether the review is cast as a hostile intruder, a devil’s advocate or scenario planning, there is always the spirit of challenge by an antagonist. </p>
<p>This can take many forms. As a climate researcher, I have participated in reviews where weather and climate projects were investigated for budget reductions. Others examined the role of high-risk research and technology along the critical path of a project. I have participated in studies of management acumen and how projects fit into a national and international political and scientific context.</p>
<p>I have also participated in forums of scientific debate. This is where scientists provided evidence supporting competing arguments to explain unresolved observed behaviors. The arguments were testable, hence, scientific hypotheses. </p>
<p>From my experience in both types of review, I can say confidently that red team-blue team exercises are not a mechanism for scientific debate. They are not designed to take a testable hypothesis and then look at whether observations and theory support or refute it. They are more like <a href="http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/The_Joker_(Heath_Ledger)">Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight</a>, causing disruption, distortion and chaos. </p>
<p>And so, Pruitt’s call for a red team-blue team review is not designed to test the scientific robustness of our knowledge of climate change. Rather, it is part of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-back-obama-rules/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.aeec51a7f253">political strategy</a> to continue the dissolution of the EPA’s climate change activities and to destroy President Obama’s efforts to address climate change – something Pruitt and the Trump administration have made their <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-epa-chief-pruitt-regulations-climate-change.html">stated goal</a>. </p>
<h2>Scientific reviews of climate science</h2>
<p>Administrator Pruitt’s call for a red team-blue team review has been discussed by a number of other scientists. In a Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/06/21/attention-scott-pruitt-red-teams-and-blue-teams-are-no-way-to-conduct-climate-science/">commentary</a>, Ben Santer, Kerry Emanuel and Naomi Oreskes discuss peer review and its checks and balances. Former Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/24/the-perversity-red-teaming-climate-science/VkT05883ajZaTPMbrP3wpJ/story.html">John Holdren, in the Boston Globe</a>, takes on the political nature of Pruitt’s position and documents the extensive reviews of climate change science by many organizations.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1226&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1226&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181606/original/file-20170809-13168-1n6r722.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1226&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In addition to ongoing scientific reviews of climate science going back decades, there have been extensive political and policy challenges, as this 1995 House hearing document shows.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://archive.org/stream/scientificintegr111695unit#page/n1/mode/2up">U.S. government</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These many reviews of climate change science are motivated by the consequences of climate change. The disruptions to the world are enormous and costly. To intervene and limit those disruptions requires changes in how we use energy, and essentially, the elimination of fossil fuel emissions. For decades it has been in the best interest of our prosperity and environmental security to get the answer on climate science right. Hence, reviews have been carried on from many perspectives.</p>
<p>Indeed, law professor Daniel Farber has reviewed the practice of climate science and <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1030607">concluded</a>, “Climate scientists have created a unique institutional system for assessing and improving models, going well beyond the usual system of peer review. Consequently, their conclusions should be entitled to considerable credence by courts and agencies.”</p>
<p>Farber not only cites the <a href="http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16">attributes of peer review</a>, but also the extensive community efforts to compare and improve the computer models scientists use to project future climate change. Further, the review process of the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> contributes to the robustness of the basic conclusions that the Earth’s surface air temperature will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise and the weather will change.</p>
<p>So the scientific investigation of the Earth’s climate does not suffer from a lack of scrutiny.</p>
<h2>Political challenges to climate science</h2>
<p>In addition, climate change science has been the target of political and public debate for decades. In 1995 the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science <a href="https://archive.org/stream/scientificintegr111695unit/scientificintegr111695unitdjvu.txt">held hearings on the integrity of climate models</a>. The results of those hearings persist today in the political and societal discourse, and there have been many subsequent political hearings. </p>
<p>The political and public attacks on climate science have led to reactionary research. This research has served to strengthen the foundation of climate science. On the other hand, no findings have seriously challenged that foundation. Therefore, resources have been spent, and we have delayed action on climate change to check the dots on the i’s. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=817&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181826/original/file-20170811-21897-900bgs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1027&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Steve Koonin, a former undersecretary of energy under Obama and NYU professor, has said it’s worth a red team-style debate to argue if climate change is the ‘greatest catastrophe that’s facing the planet or this is a nothing burger.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://cusp.nyu.edu/people/steve-koonin/">New York University</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Administrator Pruitt’s call for the red team-blue team review seems inspired by a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579">Wall Street Journal commentary</a> by physicist and New York University professor <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060058443">Steven Koonin</a>, who called for an adversarial, public red team-blue team review of climate science. Koonin maintained that such a review would be a step toward “evidence-based policymaking and against the politicization of science.” A goal would be to “Put the ‘consensus’ to a test, and improve public understanding, through an open and adversarial process.”</p>
<p>In my view, however, the “consensus” argument to support the correctness and the reliability of climate change is poorly posed. It is an argument based on polls that maintain that an <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051">overwhelming majority of climate scientists</a> have accepted the basic conclusions of a warming climate. The consensus argument likely emerged as a tactic for communication, but it is not a prudent tactic. It sets up a choice: Whose side are you on? Who or what do you believe?</p>
<p>More fundamentally, the consensus argument is not an argument of climate science; it’s one of communication or political science. Hence, putting “consensus” to the test is not accomplished by an adversarial review of climate science. An adversarial review of climate science, especially one motivated by a hostile political appointee, serves only to escalate the politicization of climate science and undermine evidence-based policy making. </p>
<h2>Been here before</h2>
<p>At the beginning of the Bush-Cheney administration in 2001, the White House asked a committee of the National Academy of the Sciences for a short-fuse, less-than-one-month <a href="https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/global-change.html">evaluation of the key uncertainties of climate science</a> as well as an analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary reports. The committee included <a href="http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump">professor Richard Lindzen</a>, frequently cited as a climate change skeptic in the public media. </p>
<p>The committee stated in <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/10139/chapter/2">their conclusion</a>, “The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I scientific report, but seeks here to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessments and the caveats that need to be attached to them.”</p>
<p>During the 1990s there were many reviews of climate science and proposed climate programs. As one example, JASON Reviews were an especially interesting form of review. I made presentations at these reviews. Professor Koonin <a href="http://www.csm.ornl.gov/chammp/news/news.aug.98">took part</a> in these reviews as well.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/">Federation of American Science</a>, “JASON is an independent scientific advisory group that provides consulting services to the U.S. government on matters of defense science and technology. It was established in 1960.” JASON was formed originally by scientists, mostly physicists, associated with the World War II Manhattan Project. They have been used to review climate science several times, and their membership has included those counted as climate skeptics, for example, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html">Freeman Dyson</a>. </p>
<p>The JASON review has some elements of a red team review - an independent team of highly trained and accomplished scientists examines proposed and existing research programs. </p>
<p>I never saw any indication of the JASON panel questioning the underlying tenets of climate science or the methodology of climate scientists. </p>
<h2>What Pruitt’s review is really about</h2>
<p>Given the many instances of scientific, political and policy reviews over decades, one cannot legitimately argue that an adversarial-style process will shed light on core climate science. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jWQCqlD5JuI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has cast doubt on the role people have in global warming, contradicting the findings of thousands of specialized scientists over decades.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instead, what Pruitt has proposed has all of the characteristics of formalizing as behavior, if not policy, a federal disruption of climate policy. </p>
<p>His tactic can be viewed only as spectacle to advance a political agenda. Such spectacle will be based on emotional appeal and will rely on manipulating the message about the role that uncertainty plays in scientific investigation. The goal will be the <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547016677043">amplification and persistence of public doubt</a> – a goal that would be undoubtedly achieved.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80663/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard B Rood receives funding from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Park Service. He is affiliated with the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society and he writes for its ClimatePolicy.org blog. </span></em></p>Why assembling two teams to debate climate change is all about political spectacle and sowing doubt – and has nothing to do with actual climate science.Richard B. (Ricky) Rood, Professor of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/782452017-08-03T01:04:25Z2017-08-03T01:04:25ZWhy shifting regulatory power to the states won’t improve the environment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180425/original/file-20170731-22136-1pm2a7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">To comply with air pollution laws, midwest energy companies built tall smokestacks to displace pollutants. This one at Indiana's Rockport Generating Station is 1,038 feet high, just 25 feet shorter than the Eiffel Tower.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sniegowski/35480921010/in/photolist-W4jZFq">Don Sniegowski</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Trump and his appointees, particularly Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, have made federalism a theme of their efforts to scale back environmental regulation. They argue that the federal government has become too intrusive and that states should be returned to a position of “<a href="https://www.bna.com/scott-pruitt-tip-n73014449932/">regulatory primacy</a>” on environmental matters. </p>
<p>“We have to let the states compete to see who has the best solutions. They know the best how to spend their dollars and how to take care of the people within each state,” Trump said in a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/27/remarks-president-trump-meeting-national-governors-association">speech to the National Governors Association</a> last February.</p>
<p>Some liberal-leaning states have responded by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/12/defying-trump-these-state-leaders-are-trying-to-impose-their-own-carbon-taxes/?utm_term=.28d99579f876">adopting more aggressive regulations</a>. California has positioned itself as a leader in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/climate/california-climate-policy-cap-trade.html">fight to curb climate change</a>. New York is <a href="http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/96f0fec0b45a3c6485257688006a701a/26be8a93967e604785257cc40066b91a/$FILE/ATTK0J3L.pdf/Reforming%20The%20Energy%20Vision%20(REV)%20REPORT%204.25.%2014.pdf">restructuring its electricity market</a> to facilitate clean energy. And Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, has ordered state environmental regulators to design a rule to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-virginia-climatechange-idUSKCN18C26J">cap carbon emissions</a> from power plants.</p>
<p>State experimentation may be the only way to break the gridlock on environmental issues that now overwhelms our national political institutions. However, without a broad mandate from the federal government to address urgent environmental problems, few red and purple states will follow California’s lead. In my view, giving too much power to the states will likely result in many states doing less, not more.</p>
<h2>What’s so great about the states?</h2>
<p>Politicians are happy to praise states’ rights, but they rarely say much about what federalism is supposed to accomplish. Granting more power to the states should not be an end unto itself. Rather, it’s a way to promote goals such as political responsiveness, experimentation and policy diversity. </p>
<p>Many U.S. environmental laws include roles for states and the federal government to work cooperatively to achieve shared objectives. Often, this involves the federal government setting strict goals, with states taking the lead on <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2960&context=mlr">implementation and enforcement</a>. This careful balance of federal and state power has been implemented by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.</p>
<p>In recent years, scholars have expanded on Justice Brandeis’ famous “<a href="http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2015/08/states-as-laboratories-of-democracy.html">laboratories of democracy</a>” model of federalism with the notion of “<a href="http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/120/">democratic experimentation</a>.” Brandeis’ core insight, updated for contemporary society, is that decentralization lets state and local governments experiment with different policies to generate information about what works and what doesn’t. Other states and the national government can use those insights to generate better policy outcomes.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DZiOowSiiwc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">California Gov. Jerry Brown announces that his state will host an international climate change action summit in September 2018 – the first such meeting to be held in the United States.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But as I have shown in <a href="http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-perils-of-experimentation">recent work</a>, there is no guarantee that state experimentation will produce neutral technical information. It also can generate political information that can be put to good or bad uses.</p>
<p>For example, state experimentation with pollution controls may allow regulators to identify cheap ways to reduce emissions. On the other hand, big polluters may use the opportunity to figure out clever ways to avoid their obligations. </p>
<p>This happened in the 1970s and ‘80’s after the Clean Air Act was enacted. State experimentation allowed polluters to learn that by building very tall smokestacks at electric power plants, they could <a href="http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1275&context=law_urbanlaw">send pollution downwind</a> while keeping local officials happy. Experimentation resulted in information on how to push pollution around instead of cleaning it up, and utilities in midwest states used this knowledge to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/13/13greenwire-gao-faults-tall-smokestacks-at-coal-plants-55552.html">shift pollutants to states downwind</a> in the Northeast.</p>
<h2>An elusive balance</h2>
<p>It makes rhetorical sense for the Trump administration to wrap its environmental agenda in federalism. Air and water pollution are unpopular, and conservation groups have called out Trump’s policies and budget for <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/trump-watch/trump-touts-rolling-back-environmental-safeguards">undoing “environmental safeguards.”</a> </p>
<p>Reframing deregulation as federalism turns the issue into a debate about how to allocate power between the national government and the states. But striking the right balance between federal and state power requires careful attention to context and the costs and benefits of decentralization. </p>
<p>For example, Pruitt has formally proposed to <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-scott-pruitt-have-a-solid-case-for-repealing-the-clean-water-rule-80240">rescind the Clean Water Rule</a>, an Obama administration regulation that clarifies the jurisdiction of EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate smaller water bodies and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. One might think that without EPA on the beat, states will take a more central role in water pollution control. But in fact, many states have passed <a href="https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d23-04.pdf">laws banning any clean water regulation</a> that is more stringent than federal standards. Shifting responsibility in this area back to states will create a policy vacuum instead of space for experimentation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180763/original/file-20170802-6912-161npab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180763/original/file-20170802-6912-161npab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180763/original/file-20170802-6912-161npab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180763/original/file-20170802-6912-161npab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180763/original/file-20170802-6912-161npab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180763/original/file-20170802-6912-161npab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180763/original/file-20170802-6912-161npab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180763/original/file-20170802-6912-161npab.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many farmers, ranchers and developers contend that the Clean Water Rule is overly burdensome and infringes on states’ rights.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/executive-order-on-wotus-rule">Senate Republican Policy Committee</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Less creativity, not more</h2>
<p>There is even more need for a federal role in addressing problems that have global impacts, such as climate change. Once greenhouse gases are emitted, they do not just cause warming in the place where they were released. Instead, they mix in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change around the world. This means that no given jurisdiction pays the full cost of its emissions. Instead, in the language of economics, these impacts are <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/externality.asp">externalities</a> that are felt elsewhere. </p>
<p>This is why a global agreement is needed to effectively slow climate change. The United States has already withdrawn from the Paris climate accord. If we pull back on regulating greenhouse gases nationally as well, many states will have little incentive to take action.</p>
<p>Under the Obama administration’s <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/03/28/the-clean-power-plan-2014-2017/">Clean Power Plan</a>, which Pruitt is reviewing and <a href="http://publicpower.com/2017/epa-tells-states-need-take-no-action-clean-power-plan/">has told states to ignore</a>, every state was required to figure out how to meet a carbon reduction goal. However, it did not dictate how they should do it. </p>
<p>This approach would have produced valuable political information from red and purple states, which tend to rely more heavily than blue states on fossil fuels. By forcing Republican leaders to craft state climate policies and sell them to their constituents, the Clean Power Plan promoted what I consider truly useful experimentation that could have helped break the national gridlock on climate policy. </p>
<p>Now, without a prod from the federal government, those experiments are unlikely to occur. EPA’s retreat will mean that we have less, not more, insight into smart and politically viable ways of cutting carbon emissions. </p>
<p>Any regulation can be improved on, and the Trump administration could have risen to that challenge. Instead, the leadership at EPA is abdicating the agency’s traditional leadership role. In doing so, it is promoting stagnation and backsliding rather than innovation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78245/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael A. Livermore does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump administration officials argue that states can regulate more effectively than the federal government. But without leadership from the top, federalism may allow red states to avoid acting.Michael A. Livermore, Associate Professor of Law, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/805902017-07-24T02:29:39Z2017-07-24T02:29:39ZHistory shows that stacking federal science advisory committees doesn’t work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179065/original/file-20170720-32541-1qiudaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists provide key input to government agencies on issues such as improving oil spill prevention and response after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Deepwater_Horizon_offshore_drilling_unit_on_fire_2010.jpg">U.S. Coast Guard</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists are busy people, but every year thousands donate many hours of their time without payment to advise Congress and federal government agencies. They provide input on all kinds of issues, from <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/ScienceBoardtotheFoodandDrugAdministration/UCM564105.pdf">antibiotic resistance</a> to <a href="ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/SAB/sab/Meetings/2016/November_2016_Documents/SAB_Mtg_Pres_Nov2016_EMUWright_10-07-16.pdf">mapping the world’s oceans in three dimensions</a>.</p>
<p>The Trump administration has raised alarms by signaling that it is determined to replace scientific advisers who are not in line with its political philosophy. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/epa-sheds-38-more-science-advisors">replacing most of the members</a> of EPA’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/bosc/about-board-scientific-counselors-bosc">Board of Scientific Counselors</a> and, very likely, its <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/BOARD">Science Advisory Board</a>. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060054139">suspended the activities of numerous advisory panels</a>, including many scientific committees, pending review of their purpose and composition.</p>
<p>Will Trump Cabinet members really be able to shift the scientific advice on which their agencies rely? And how should scientists respond?</p>
<p>Over the past 35 years I have served on numerous federal scientific advisory panels, including EPA’s Science Advisory Board, and many committees and boards of the <a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/">National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine</a>. In my view, the history of past purges shows that stacking the deck with like-minded advocates is self-defeating. That’s true whether those advocates come from industry or nongovernmental organizations – and especially if they represent only one political party. </p>
<p>Recommendations from these “friendly” panels will not win broad support from the scientific community, and I predict the committees will quickly lose their credibility, legitimacy and influence. Consequently, policies and regulations based on the panels’ recommendations will be less likely to withstand public or political scrutiny and be more open to legal challenges than if they were based on more balanced input.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5TqfKin_ibw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Deborah Swackhamer, chair of the EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors, talks with Rachel Maddow about the pressure she received from an EPA official to change her congressional testimony and how the EPA’s outside scientific review board has been ‘decimated.’</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rules for federal advisory committees</h2>
<p>It is important to have processes for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/apr/08/lessons-science-advice">watching the watchers</a> who provide scientific advice. Federal advisory panels operate under laws and rules that are designed to assure their objectivity. </p>
<p>Under the <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100916">Federal Advisory Committee Act</a>, committees that advise the president and executive branch agencies must be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented.” Agencies also are supposed to take steps to ensure that committees’ advice will not be “inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest.” </p>
<p>The National Academies, which produce studies for Congress and federal agencies, recognize that scientists are human, so some bias will always exist. Therefore, they seek <a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/">a balance of perspectives</a> within study committees, and invite scientists from industry and former government service as well as from academia to serve on these panels.</p>
<p>Typically, members must describe their employment and financial interests and reveal any potential biases to the other members at the start of the committee’s work. In my experience, scientists from the private sector brought helpful perspectives when they engaged in objective technical deliberations. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178862/original/file-20170719-19049-ek78kc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178862/original/file-20170719-19049-ek78kc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178862/original/file-20170719-19049-ek78kc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178862/original/file-20170719-19049-ek78kc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178862/original/file-20170719-19049-ek78kc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178862/original/file-20170719-19049-ek78kc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178862/original/file-20170719-19049-ek78kc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A group portrait by Albert Herter depicts President Abraham Lincoln signing the charter of the National Academy of Sciences in 1863.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/history/archives/nas-incorporators.html">National Academy of Sciences</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Drafting of National Academy reports is a group process that allows committee members to correct unsubstantiated conclusions and recommendations that are based on subjective opinions or self-interest. The reports are <a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/nasem/na_067075.html">reviewed by external peers</a>, as are reports from many federal advisory committees. </p>
<p>During my service on federal advisory committees, I can scarcely remember a time when the party affiliation of scientists serving came up, even in social conversations. Of course, participants are generally aware of the political implications of their work. However, in my experience they typically participate in objective discussions and report writing in a manner that is not shaped by partisan or political goals. </p>
<p>For example, I participated in a National Academies committee that issued <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12469/progress-toward-restoring-the-everglades-the-second-biennial-review-2008">carefully verified and worded conclusions</a> in 2008 about risks that climate change posed to restoration of the Everglades. Last year <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23672/progress-toward-restoring-the-everglades-the-sixth-biennial-review-2016">the report of this committee</a> provided more specific recommendations for addressing the effects of future water shortages and sea level rise. </p>
<p>The responsible Florida state agency has now <a href="http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-pn-everglades-science-fight-20170713-story.html">threatened to stop cooperating with the independent scientific review</a>, accusing the committee of “unscientific meddling.” But members agreed that, despite the political sensitivities regarding climate change, their recommendations were highly pertinent to sustainable restoration. </p>
<h2>When politics interferes</h2>
<p>Sometimes, however, administrations try to stack the deck. In March of 1983 I was one of seven scientists <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/03/27/advisers-to-watt-blackballed-by-gop-committee/dd26ee9b-9535-4864-b56e-723a7213ab51/?utm_term=.07bd55a8aade">rejected by Interior Secretary James Watt</a> for reappointment to a committee that advised the agency on studies related to offshore oil and gas development. I learned that the Republican National Committee had checked our voter registration, and my status as an independent apparently disqualified me. </p>
<p>After Watt’s committee purge became public, the appointment process was stalled and the committee ceased to function. Six months later, Watt was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/10/us/watt-quits-post-president-accepts-with-reluctance.html?pagewanted=all">forced to resign</a> after his notorious <a href="http://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/09/21/Interior-Secretary-James-Watt-drew-laughs-when-he-told/1131432964800/">statement</a> mocking affirmative action by describing the members of another committee as “a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” </p>
<p>When Watt’s successor at Interior, William P. Clark Jr., discovered the appointments impasse and recognized the credibility problem, he appointed some of the scientists who had been “blacklisted” to a revitalized committee, including me. However, he excluded candidates who had been approved by the Republican National Committee. I was elected chair and served on the committee until 1987. </p>
<p>In 1990 I moved from Louisiana to Maryland, and had little involvement with offshore oil and gas issues until 2010, when I was appointed by President Obama as one of seven members of the <a href="https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13543">National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling</a>. This was a high-level commission charged with investigating the root causes of the disastrous 2010 oil spill and recommending ways to make offshore drilling safer.</p>
<p>Before receiving the appointment, I was subjected to “extreme vetting” that probed my publications, statements to the media, financial interests and even my driving record. My political party registration never came up. To chair the commission, Obama selected former U.S. Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a Democrat, and former EPA Administrator William Reilly, a Republican.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179068/original/file-20170720-23980-tjku49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179068/original/file-20170720-23980-tjku49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179068/original/file-20170720-23980-tjku49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179068/original/file-20170720-23980-tjku49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179068/original/file-20170720-23980-tjku49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179068/original/file-20170720-23980-tjku49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179068/original/file-20170720-23980-tjku49.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fred Bartlit Jr., chief investigator of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, makes a presentation to the panel. Panel members, from left to right: Co-chair William Reilly, Co-chair Bob Graham, Christopher Smith of the Energy Department, Frances Ulmer, and Donald Boesch.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Oil-Spill-Hearing/9aec5761e6744c38afea4a4b719f7959/11/0">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why scientists should stay engaged</h2>
<p>These past efforts show that filling committees with “friendly” advisers doesn’t really work. Biased conclusions and unsupported recommendations are sure to be called out by the scientific community and thus will have little power in the democratic debate. </p>
<p>Of course, purging scientific advisory committees is just part of what many observers see as a broader <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/the-trump-administrations-war-on-science.html">war on science</a>. This attack also includes <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/09/epa-scott-pruitt-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-climate-change">advocating policies that reject solid scientific consensus</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/climate/scott-pruitt-climate-change-red-team.html?_r=0">proposing “red team” assaults</a> in place of rigorous peer review, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/22/trump-budget-seeks-huge-cuts-to-disease-prevention-and-medical-research-departments/?utm_term=.1e1e31b60128">proposing drastic reductions in federal funding</a> for science and medical programs, and the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-budget-cuts-science/519825/">resulting loss of scientific talent</a> in the nation and capacity in federal agencies. These threats have much more serious consequences for American science and the nation.</p>
<p>Facing these threats, scientists should not disengage from providing the nation with objective analysis and recommendations. Rather, we should take the long view and be prepared to seize opportunities to advise, as well as to challenge and dissent when needed. Now more than ever, scientists should take these responsibilities seriously rather than cynically.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80590/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Donald Boesch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Can federal agencies stack advisory panels with friendly members? Some have tried, but a scientist who has advised many administrations says they will produce bad policies that lack broad support.Donald Boesch, Professor of Marine Science, University of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/773852017-07-09T23:52:51Z2017-07-09T23:52:51ZHow environmentalists can regroup for the Trump era<p>Since taking office, President Donald Trump has launched an all-out assault on regulations that protect the environment. In addition to retreating from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/paris-agreement-23382">Paris climate accord</a>, he wants to slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/climate/trump-epa-budget-superfund.html?_r=0">more than 30 percent</a> and he has issued executive orders instructing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to roll back or bypass <a href="http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-pledges-lawsuit-response-epa-clean-air-act-violation">clean air</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-scott-pruitt-have-a-solid-case-for-repealing-the-clean-water-rule-80240">clean water</a> rules.</p>
<p>Pruitt has enthusiastically championed these initiatives by seeking to suspend and eventually repeal many <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-epa-chief-pruitt-regulations-climate-change.html">Obama-era regulations</a>. Six states and several nonprofits are suing the EPA over its choice to backtrack on a decision to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-lawsuit-pesticide-idUSKBN19R2P4">ban chlorpyrifos</a>, a pesticide. </p>
<p>As an environmental law professor who has worked for the federal government and a leading green nonprofit group, I believe there are lessons to draw on from similar anti-environmental initiatives during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.</p>
<h2>Enforce speed limits</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177234/original/file-20170706-26461-vponf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177234/original/file-20170706-26461-vponf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177234/original/file-20170706-26461-vponf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177234/original/file-20170706-26461-vponf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177234/original/file-20170706-26461-vponf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177234/original/file-20170706-26461-vponf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1163&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177234/original/file-20170706-26461-vponf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1163&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177234/original/file-20170706-26461-vponf8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1163&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA chief Scott Pruitt is following in the footsteps of Anne Gorsuch, one of the people who held that job during the Reagan administration.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Supreme-Court-Gorsuch-Mother/37cd9293481b422a9a5f3907e58d05f5/1/0">AP Photo/John Duricka</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>First, environmentalists must ensure that Trump’s agencies follow proper legal procedures before suspending or revoking these regulations. Although federal agencies have considerable discretion to make regulatory changes, rules that were the product of years of careful study and deliberation cannot legally be suspended overnight.</p>
<p>When Reagan’s EPA announced indefinite suspensions of environmental regulations, the courts ruled in the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Gorsuch case that it was <a href="https://elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/13.20303.htm">illegal to do so</a> without first providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. (The Gorsuch in question was then-EPA Administrator <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuchs-mother-once-ran-the-epa-it-was-a-disaster/?utm_term=.eb9977c7d99c">Anne Gorsuch</a>, the newest Supreme Court justice’s late mother.)</p>
<p>Citing this decision, a federal court has ruled that Scott Pruitt acted illegally when, apparently at the <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056130">behest of the industries</a> with the most at stake, he suspended a regulation requiring new oil and gas operations to monitor for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/03/epa-methane-rule-trump-scott-pruitt">leaks of methane</a>, a potent greenhouse gas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that Pruitt’s action was “<a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/17-1145/17-1145-2017-07-03.html">unauthorized</a>” by the Clean Air Act, “unreasonable,” “arbitrary, capricious” and “in excess of statutory authority.”</p>
<p>Although Pruitt claims to champion states’ rights, his concerns seem to extend only to giving states the right to weaken environmental standards. He has threatened to block California’s program to adopt stronger environmental protections than required by federal law (<a href="http://www.hybridcars.com/regardless-of-trumps-epa-california-continues-to-drive-the-clean-car-market/">but apparently has backed down</a>).</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177377/original/file-20170707-8807-r9orpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177377/original/file-20170707-8807-r9orpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177377/original/file-20170707-8807-r9orpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177377/original/file-20170707-8807-r9orpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177377/original/file-20170707-8807-r9orpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177377/original/file-20170707-8807-r9orpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177377/original/file-20170707-8807-r9orpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177377/original/file-20170707-8807-r9orpx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Obama administration tried to curb natural gas flaring because scientists say the practice stokes climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Ethane-Pollution/f33468bb4d8e45b685644a3f7da1dce4/34/0">AP Photo/Matthew Brown</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ensure that agencies follow the law</h2>
<p>Second, whenever the government changes regulations, the courts must ensure that the new or revised rules still comply with all underlying environmental laws. And the nation’s environmental laws, enacted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress, mandate the protection of public health and the environment – by the EPA.</p>
<p>When George W. Bush’s administration claimed that the Clean Air Act couldn’t be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Supreme Court disagreed. In its landmark <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html">Massachusetts v. EPA decision</a>, the court found that EPA not only had that authority but that it had <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/stopping-trump-the-battle-to-thwart-the-assault-on-climate-moves-to-the-courts">a duty</a> to regulate emissions that contribute to climate change.</p>
<p>The Massachusetts ruling later served as the legal basis for the Obama administration’s efforts to combat climate change. If Trump’s team tries to repeal climate-related regulations, the Clean Air Act mandates that it replace them with new ways to fight climate change.</p>
<h2>Reject alternative facts</h2>
<p>Third, regulatory decisions must be supported by facts – no matter what the White House wants to believe. Consider what happened when the EPA proposed repealing the limits on <a href="http://www.unc.edu/courses/2008fall/envr/230/001/Needleman_2000.pdf">lead additives</a> in gasoline during the Reagan administration. Upon taking stock of the damage lead <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs379/en/">can do to human health</a>, the agency chose to instead phase out leaded gasoline entirely. <a href="http://web.mit.edu/ckolstad/www/Newell.pdf">Ending the use of lead</a> in gasoline has proven to be a huge environmental success story in the United States and virtually every country in the world. </p>
<p>The Trump administration could run into similar trouble with its efforts to downplay climate change. For example, it has deleted <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-just-scrubbed-even-more-mentions-of-climate-from-its-web-site/">climate change information</a> from the EPA website, and Pruitt <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/06/07/epas-scott-pruitt-wants-to-set-up-opposing-teams-to-debate-climate-change-science/?utm_term=.a1f47abb70ef">wants to debate</a> the overwhelming scientific consensus concerning human contributions to climate change, such as burning fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Any EPA effort to deny the established <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/climate-change-facts-versus-opinions/">facts about climate change</a> is unlikely to survive judicial review. Trump and members of his administration are entitled to <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/05/does-donald-trump-believe-man-made-climate-change/">their own opinions</a>. But they may not write regulations rooted in make-believe “<a href="http://www.stormlake.com/articles/2017/06/28/heir-ignoramus">alternative facts</a>.”</p>
<h2>Fill the leadership vacuum</h2>
<p>Environmentalists and environmentally minded state governments are pushing back. <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/12/13/green-groups-get-unprecedented-trump-bump-in-donations/">Donations to green nonprofits</a> have surged since he won the presidency. These groups – along with numerous <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-challenges-trump-epa-over-toxic-pesticide">state attorneys general</a> – are joining forces to fight efforts to rescind environmental protections.</p>
<p>As the Trump administration abdicates federal leadership on environmental protection, others are filling that void. For example, in response to the White House’s decision to reject the Paris climate accord, many states, local governments, corporations and universities have pledged to <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/05/we-are-still-in-paris-goals-239151">redouble their efforts</a> to shrink their carbon footprints.</p>
<p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/california-governor-plans-host-2018-global-climate-summit-48475792">California Gov. Jerry Brown</a> is planning a climate summit that he’ll host in 2018. Former New York City Mayor <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2017-06-05/bloomberg-delivers-us-pledge-to-continue-paris-climate-goals-to-un">Michael Bloomberg</a>, the billionaire philanthropist who serves as the U.N. secretary-general’s special envoy for cities and climate change, is coordinating a nonfederal effort to meet the Paris targets.</p>
<h2>Heed the Australian experience</h2>
<p>U.S.-based green groups should also should reach out to lay the groundwork for long-range, bipartisan efforts to improve environmental policies. They can find an apt model in Australia.</p>
<p>Three years ago, when former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott was making similar attacks on environmental law, Australian environmental law specialists banded together to lay the groundwork for strengthening their future environmental laws. This effort by the Australian Panel on Experts on Environmental Law, for which I serve as an adviser, has generated a set of <a href="http://www.apeel.org.au">intriguing recommendations</a>, supported by technical papers.</p>
<p>The panel recommends measures to strengthen the government’s role in environmental policy and to place a price on carbon as a means of reining in climate change. In the United States, this is an approach with bipartisan potential. The Climate Leadership Council, a group of prominent Republicans, has proposed a “<a href="https://www.clcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TheConservativeCaseforCarbonDividends.pdf">Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends</a>” – a blueprint for carbon-pricing that deserves consideration across the political spectrum.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177375/original/file-20170707-8807-1co1173.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177375/original/file-20170707-8807-1co1173.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/177375/original/file-20170707-8807-1co1173.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177375/original/file-20170707-8807-1co1173.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177375/original/file-20170707-8807-1co1173.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177375/original/file-20170707-8807-1co1173.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177375/original/file-20170707-8807-1co1173.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/177375/original/file-20170707-8807-1co1173.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President Trump often promises to roll back coal regulations but there may be limits to how many he can rescind.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hershey-pa-december-15-2016-presidentelect-538492702?src=d7zl1Wr-4Z-5-xlp1nkYew-1-0">Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What’s more, I have seen that U.S. environmental law remains the envy of the world through my extensive contact with environmental law professors from scores of countries. Our independent and unbiased judiciary ensures that regulatory decisions are supported by law and facts – blunting the impact of the Trump administration’s efforts to undercut the environmental protections its predecessors established.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I believe that the nation’s environmental laws will survive Trump’s assault – and may even become stronger in response to it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77385/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Percival is the co-executive director of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, a consortium of environmental law professors from 200 academic institutions in 60 countries. He also was an adviser for the Australian Panel on Experts on Environmental Law.</span></em></p>Green groups fighting Trump’s anti-environmental agenda should heed precedents from the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. They can also learn from the Australian experience.Robert Percival, Professor of Environmental Law, University of Maryland, BaltimoreLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/802402017-07-05T23:45:40Z2017-07-05T23:45:40ZDoes Scott Pruitt have a solid case for repealing the Clean Water Rule?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176975/original/file-20170705-3057-h59vuk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Snow geese settle on a wetland in North Dakota. If the Trump administration successfully rescinds the Clean Water Rule, many wetlands might lose federal protection.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsmtnprairie/16392520873/in/album-72157639591865744/">Krista Lundgren USFWS/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On June 27, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule rescinding the Obama administration’s “<a href="https://theconversation.com/epas-clean-water-rule-whats-at-stake-and-what-comes-next-42466">Clean Water Rule</a>.” This regulation is designed to clarify which streams, lakes, wetlands and other water bodies fall under the protection of the Clean Water Act. </p>
<p>EPA developed the Clean Water Rule in an attempt to resolve uncertainty created by a fractured 2006 Supreme Court decision, Rapanos v. United States. The Rapanos ruling caused widespread confusion about which waters were covered, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-farmers-and-ranchers-think-the-epa-clean-water-rule-goes-too-far-72787">creating uncertainty for farmers, developers and conservation groups</a>. Efforts to clarify it through informal guidance or congressional action had failed, and EPA acted under mounting pressure from various quarters, including some members of the court.</p>
<p>As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt unsuccessfully <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-legal-activist-scott-pruitt-undo-clean-air-and-water-protections-as-head-of-epa-70127">sued to kill the rule</a>, which he has <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/234685-epa-water-rule-is-blow-to-americans-private-property-rights">called</a> “the greatest blow to private property rights the modern era has seen.” Now he is seeking to accomplish by administrative fiat what he failed to achieve in court. However, he faces a stiff challenge from supporters of the rule, and the courts may not buy his arguments for wiping a rule off the books.</p>
<h2>Making the case for change</h2>
<p>Under the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure">Administrative Procedure Act</a>, federal agencies must follow specific steps when they seek to establish or repeal a regulation. These procedures are meant to establish efficiency, consistency and accountability. To promote fairness and transparency, the law requires that the public must have meaningful opportunity to comment on proposed rules before they take effect.</p>
<p>The Clean Water Rule emerged from an extensive rule-making process that featured over 400 meetings with state, tribal and local officials and numerous stakeholders representing business, environmental and public health organizations. It generated over one million comments, the bulk of which supported the rule. </p>
<p>This process was preceded by a <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=296414">comprehensive peer-reviewed scientific assessment</a> that synthesized over a thousand studies documenting the importance of small streams and wetlands to the health of large rivers, lakes and estuaries. According to a 2015 fact sheet, which has been scrubbed from EPA’s website but is archived <a href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/clean-water-rule-streams-and-wetlands-matter_.html">here</a>, the rule protects streams that roughly one in three Americans depend upon for their drinking water.</p>
<p>To undo the Clean Water Rule, EPA will have to go through the same notice-and-comment process. Pruitt’s proposal to rescind the rule will be published in the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/">Federal Register</a> sometime in the near future. From that date, the public will have just 30 days to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/wotus_prepublication_version.pdf">file written comments electronically</a>. (Normally public comment periods last for 60 days, and the Clean Water Rule was open for comment for 120 days.)</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176976/original/file-20170705-5202-ssdynq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176976/original/file-20170705-5202-ssdynq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176976/original/file-20170705-5202-ssdynq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176976/original/file-20170705-5202-ssdynq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176976/original/file-20170705-5202-ssdynq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176976/original/file-20170705-5202-ssdynq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176976/original/file-20170705-5202-ssdynq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA flyer issued in 2015 to support the Clean Water Rule.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov/16823822718/in/photolist-smMUKn-snC3Zy-rxUJNj-s8sf5v-rvUkZf-UZbhet-W8nNkf-UV52zq-rCEumW-Wmi6gF-s7eXug-VPoT7w-xrobwW-V3F1cH-scc5xm-rDz11b-SLcMXm-A6zrz1-r4bJbQ-rASJjK-rV34ri-C86otQ-Rgb3Ly-rNyNWR-UZEjG8-VdriaZ-BeTxaL-WnQvJw-V1ZYWS-V2zikj-V3F1oz-DRYpVA-ubxhyq">USEPA/Flickr</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>EPA must then review and respond to the comments, make any changes it deems necessary and publish a final rule. Parties with standing can then challenge the final rule, although there is a question as to which court will have jurisdiction to hear them. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue in the fall. In weighing challenges, the key question the court must address is whether EPA’s action is “arbitrary and capricious,” meaning that the agency has failed to consider important aspects of the problem or explain its reasoning. </p>
<p>In a <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/463/29.html">seminal 1983 decision</a>, the Supreme Court ruled that an agency must supply a “reasoned analysis” when it rescinds a rule adopted by a previous administration. The court acknowledged that agencies have some discretion to change direction in response to changing circumstances. However, it noted that “the forces of change do not always or necessarily point in the direction of deregulation.” Further, the court said that a decision to rescind a rule would be arbitrary and capricious if it offers an explanation “that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.”</p>
<p>Pruitt asserts that his repeal “need not be based upon a change of facts or circumstances,” citing a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-582.ZS.html">2009 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia</a>. But in my view, Pruitt reads too much into that decision, which simply held that an agency did not face “heightened scrutiny” – that is, an extra-high bar – when changing policy, but must still “show that there are good reasons for the new policy.” As Justice Breyer observed, dissenting in the same case, “Where does, and why would, the Administrative Procedure Act grant agencies the freedom to change major policies on the basis of nothing more than political considerations or even personal whim?”</p>
<p>Does Pruitt have good reasons? Let’s consider them.</p>
<h2>Repair or replace?</h2>
<p>In his <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/wotus_prepublication_version.pdf">draft proposal</a>, Pruitt argues for repealing the Clean Water Rule because it fails to pay enough homage to federalism principles embodied in section 101(b) of the Clean Water Act, in which Congress expresses a policy to “recognize, preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution.” Yet at another point he states that “This action does not have federalism implications” and, further, that it will not affect “the relationship between the national government and the States.” </p>
<p>Which is it? Either the repeal is necessary to rebalance power relationships or it isn’t. Moreover, wouldn’t it make more sense to first identify how the current rule encroaches on states’ authority and propose specific changes for public comment? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?</p>
<p>Pruitt also contends that if states want to protect waters more strictly than the federal standard, they can choose to do so. But according to a detailed <a href="https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d23-04.pdf">50-state survey</a> by the Environmental Law Institute, 36 states “have laws that could restrict the authority of state agencies or localities to regulate waters left unprotected by the federal Clean Water Act.” </p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://www.aswm.org/pdf_lib/state_summaries/status_and_trends_report_on_state_wetland_programs_in_the_united_states_102015.pdf">report</a> by the Association of State Wetland Managers, only 23 states have laws that directly regulate activities that impact wetlands. The rest depend upon authority provided by section 401 of the Clean Water Act to provide protection for important wetlands. As the act shrinks, so do those authorities.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176977/original/file-20170705-6062-aafx9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176977/original/file-20170705-6062-aafx9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176977/original/file-20170705-6062-aafx9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176977/original/file-20170705-6062-aafx9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176977/original/file-20170705-6062-aafx9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176977/original/file-20170705-6062-aafx9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176977/original/file-20170705-6062-aafx9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on Feb. 25, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/33116612976/in/dateposted/">Gage Skidmore/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After rescinding the Clean Water Rule, Pruitt proposes to carry out a new and potentially lengthy rule-making process in which EPA and other agencies will reevaluate which waters are protected under the Clean Water Act. President Trump has directed Pruitt to consider a revised rule modeled on a highly restrictive definition that Justice Scalia proposed in the Rapanos case. As I have <a href="http://elinwa.org/sites/default/files/2017NWA_Program.pdf">explained elsewhere</a>, the Scalia test is not the controlling standard that the courts have adopted following Rapanos, and it would drastically reduce the coverage of the act from its historic reach. </p>
<p>Pruitt says it is necessary to repeal the Clean Water Rule while EPA reviews which waters should be covered by the Clean Water Act. Otherwise, he contends, the Supreme Court may lift a stay imposed on the rule by a federal appeals court, opening a floodgate of litigation across the country. But that is exactly what his proposed repeal would do. The court would likely grant EPA’s request to extend the stay for a reasonable period of time to allow EPA to initiate a full rule-making on a proposed revision of the rule. </p>
<h2>Verdict: Arbitrary and capricious</h2>
<p>Scott Pruitt has been on a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-epa-chief-pruitt-regulations-climate-change.html">slash-and-burn crusade</a> through his predecessors’ regulatory initiatives. But the courts are beginning to scrutinize these moves more closely. Notably, the D.C. Circuit just <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060056926">ruled</a> that Pruitt cannot suspend an Obama-era rule to restrict methane emissions from new oil and gas wells.</p>
<p>Elections do matter. But so does the rule of law. Pruitt has not offered any compelling reason to justify killing the Clean Water Rule outright. There is plenty of time for a more “reasoned analysis” of ways to protect the nation’s water quality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80240/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Parenteau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Clean Water Rule spells out which streams, wetlands and other water bodies receive federal protection. The Trump administration wants to repeal it, but will face high hurdles in court.Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law, Vermont Law & Graduate SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/747872017-06-01T12:56:06Z2017-06-01T12:56:06ZCutting Superfund’s budget will slow toxic waste cleanups, threatening public health and property values<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171198/original/file-20170526-6385-1bjlhm9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cleanup at the GE Housatonic Superfund site in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, 2007. Years of PCB and industrial chemical use at GE's Pittsfield facility and improper disposal led to extensive contamination around the town and down the entire length of the Housatonic River.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/corpsnewengland/4295848200/in/photolist-7xBm1h-9N7yGW-6Np5v-4tGwpg-9DyTve-9msxb8-9VjzaV-rYwwH4-pWmaRr-5s9bf6-pPPVYS-PiGqx-4yJevn-ptZHxK-pq9itf-pnA9YY-oAXG1P-p1fLKA-9mtB6g-oRT248-oDkwfS-pFYRWe-eBXsZA-otH9jc-7AXPot-ouG3CP-kwvWU-owtYTu-3mNeoR-qHLM58-3mNoJp-pp2DkA-qALY8i-3mQW3o-pasanx-R62Xyd-p9WQEM-qCjnrT-3mNpGn-4yJdMZ-4yJe2D-peBqkU-prn44k-4yNvi3-oWim1W-ptDts8-puAAh9-cBzF-9iYuQ3-q4hAFg">USACE/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Next year will mark the 40th anniversary of the Love Canal crisis, when toxic chemicals were found to be leaking from an underground dump into homes in Niagara Falls, New York. State and federal agencies <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/booming/love-canal-and-its-mixed-legacy.html">relocated more than 200 families</a> out of the affected area. A <a href="https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/love_canal/docs/report_public_comment_final.pdf">state investigation</a> later found elevated rates of birth defects among families who had lived at Love Canal. </p>
<p>This disaster called public attention to health risks from improperly controlled toxic waste. In response, President Jimmy Carter signed the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview">Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act</a> (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, into law in December 1980. </p>
<p>Superfund has supported cleanups of toxic waste sites in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia. But its funding decreased by nearly half between 1999 and 2013, and President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal calls for an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/msar.pdf">additional 30 percent cut</a>, despite EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s assertion that Superfund is “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/02/heres-one-part-of-epa-that-the-agencys-new-leader-wants-to-protect/?utm_term=.512c99422a53">absolutely essential</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171514/original/file-20170530-23684-wppfwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171514/original/file-20170530-23684-wppfwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171514/original/file-20170530-23684-wppfwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171514/original/file-20170530-23684-wppfwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=916&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171514/original/file-20170530-23684-wppfwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171514/original/file-20170530-23684-wppfwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171514/original/file-20170530-23684-wppfwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1151&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protesters in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls, New York demand compensation for families that have been told to evacuate from their homes because chemicals are leaching to the surface, Aug. 5, 1978.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NY-USA-APHS468860-Love-Canal/51f3a058f3bc42579ffc541227a69833/1/0">AP Photo/DS</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As an economist specializing in housing issues, including the relationship between toxic cleanups and property values, I have published several <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1007835329254?LI=true">studies of Superfund sites</a>. In my view, further funding cuts will make it extremely hard for EPA to clean up <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live">more than 1,300 sites still on the Superfund list</a>. Slower cleanups will leave more people exposed to harm from toxic chemicals and will hurt adjoining communities by lowering property values and impacting future development.</p>
<h2>Making polluters pay, where possible</h2>
<p>Under Superfund, EPA has the power to place heavily contaminated sites on a National Priorities List, and find and force parties responsible for the damage to pay for cleaning them up. Initially, if polluters could not afford to pay or the responsible parties could not be identified, cleanups were to be financed from a trust fund supported by a tax on chemical companies and crude oil. </p>
<p>In the program’s early years, only a few sites were cleaned up and minimal funds were recovered from responsible polluters. To speed up remediation, Congress passed the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-amendments-and-reauthorization-act-sara">Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act</a> (SARA) in 1986. SARA directed EPA to pursue permanent remedies for toxic contamination rather than seeking simply to contain waste. It also increased the trust fund from US$1.6 billion to $8.5 billion. Three further rounds of reforms in the 1990s expanded public involvement and enforcement, highlighted environmental justice and attempted to make the program more cost-effective. </p>
<p>In 1995 the Superfund tax expired and Congress did not renew it. Critics <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=1pbDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=revesz+superfund&source=bl&ots=d8mKBZ9Cw2&sig=SMyMWdhmgk-mRdSKBRPKzX-pv9Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD74q5ss_TAhXKTSYKHXVpAb8Q6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=revesz%20superfund&f=false_">argued</a> that EPA spent too much money on litigation trying to get polluters to pay, that few sites were cleaned and that those that were cleaned took longer than necessary. In addition, they <a href="http://www.heritage.org/node/20734/print-display">asserted</a> that sites should be cleaned up to levels that were appropriate to their future uses, rather than to a uniform level. </p>
<p>Since 1995, although a majority of cleanups have been paid for by the responsible polluters, EPA has requested funds from Congress to remediate sites where the polluter cannot be identified or has gone out of business. The state where the site is located pays 10 percent of costs for these projects. </p>
<p>Between 1999 and 2013 Superfund appropriations decreased by 45 percent, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-812">from $2.1 billion to $1.1 billion</a>, although EPA received <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/843A292279CAFA29852575990056E22E">an additional $600 million</a> through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672734.pdf">According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office</a>, funding shortfalls forced EPA to delay the start of approximately one-third of new projects that were ready to begin during this period. Spending at cleanup sites fell from roughly $700 million yearly to $400 million annually, and the number of project completions declined by 37 percent.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XD0fPVIe3zQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Nearly one in six Americans lives within three miles of a Superfund site.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Health and economic payoffs</h2>
<p>In spite of shrinking budgets, Superfund has been relatively successful. In total, 392 sites have been cleaned up and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/deleted-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-state">delisted</a>, ranging from landfills to former military sites. Currently there are 1,337 sites on the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-state">Superfund list</a>, with another 53 proposed sites <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund/proposed-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-state">under review</a>. At Superfund sites that are being reused, EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment-initiative/redevelopment-economics-superfund-sites#national">estimates</a> that in 2014 approximately 3,400 businesses were operating, generating $31 billion in sales and employing 89,000 people.</p>
<p>Research shows that removing toxic waste from these sites provides major health and economic benefits. A <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w16844">2011 study</a> estimated that cleanups reduced the risk of congenital anomalies in newly born babies living near sites by 20 to 25 percent. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2012.12.001">Another study</a> estimated that residential property values that were within three miles of a cleaned and delisted Superfund site increased by approximately 19 to 25 percent between 1990 and 2000.</p>
<p>Toxic waste sites also raise environmental justice concerns. Several analyses have <a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-resource-083110-120011">found</a> that neighborhoods around Superfund sites tend to be lower-income and have more minority residents. One study examined the duration of cleanups and found that sites in neighborhoods that were black, urban and had lower-income residents <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.04.028">took longer to be cleaned up prior to 1994</a>. However, this effect diminished over time – possibly as a result of SARA reforms that required program managers to give greater weight to environmental justice concerns. </p>
<h2>Doing less with less</h2>
<p>In 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency received approximately US$1.1 billion from Congress for the program and obtained nearly $1 billion from identified polluters of Superfund sites. President Trump’s 2018 budget <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf">asserts</a> that cutting support for Superfund by 30 percent will reduce administrative costs and make the program more efficient. It also calls on EPA to find ways to return sites to community control more quickly. </p>
<p>Superfund budget reductions over the past decade reduced the number of sites cleaned up and increased the time required to complete them. If EPA is expected to clean up more sites at a faster pace, cuts will have to come from other parts of the program, such as enforcement, research, planning and preparing for emergencies, such as oil spills and chemical releases. Scott Pruitt may praise Superfund, but if he wants to reduce the cleanup backlog and get more properties back into use, he will have to fight for it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Kiel received funding from the U.S. EPA in the 1990s for research on the impact of toxic waste sites on housing prices. </span></em></p>President Trump’s budget would cut funding for Superfund, which cleans up the nation’s most toxic sites, by nearly one-third. An economist explains how Superfund cleanups benefit local communities.Katherine Kiel, Professor of Economics, College of the Holy CrossLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/731132017-03-28T02:40:22Z2017-03-28T02:40:22ZClimate politics: Environmentalists need to think globally, but act locally<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162773/original/image-20170327-3308-12h771e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The outdoor retail industry is moving its lucrative trade show out of Utah after disputes with state officials over land conservation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Outdoor-Retail-Show-Footwear/d8c8e8249beb46999eeeeb8a44d83b07/13/0">AP Photo/Rick Bowmer</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As President Trump pivots from a failed attempt to overhaul health care to new orders rolling back controls on carbon pollution, environmentalists are preparing for an intense fight. We study environmental politics, and believe the health care debate holds an important lesson for green advocates: Policies that create concrete benefits for specific constituencies are <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative-politics/dismantling-welfare-state-reagan-thatcher-and-politics-retrenchment">hard to discontinue</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/22/poll-majority-prefer-obamacare-to-trumpcare/21904839/">Opinion polls</a> and hostile audiences at Republican legislators’ <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/republican-town-hall-protests-cotton-cassidy-grassley-trump/517608/">town hall meetings</a> show that the Affordable Care Act won public support by extending health insurance to the uninsured. And this constituency is not shy about defending its gains. </p>
<p>The same lesson can be applied to environmental issues. In our view, environmentalists need to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941929109380760">defend environmental regulations</a> by emphasizing their concrete benefits for well-defined constituencies, and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00139972">mobilize those groups</a> to protect their gains. </p>
<p>Environmentalists should continue making broad, long-term arguments about addressing climate change. After all, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402005">there is an important political constituency</a> that views climate change as the defining challenge for humanity and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9018-z">favors active advocacy on climate issues</a>. At the same time, however, they need to find more ways to talk about local jobs and benefits from climate action so they can <a href="http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/260997">build constituencies that include both greens and workers</a>.</p>
<h2>Pork-barrel environmentalism?</h2>
<p>Americans have a love-hate relationship with <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110914?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">pork-barrel politics</a>. Reformers <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7058542&page=1">decry it</a>, but many legislators boast about the <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=sl&lr=&id=bDKsAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Ferejohn,+J.+A.+(1974).+Pork+barrel+politics:+Rivers+and+harbors+legislation,+1947-1968.+Stanford+University+Press.&ots=4OV9kzBlln&sig=DSaupq2L5HsksAiMqIu4nxxOmnY#v=onepage&q&f=false">goodies they bring home</a>. As former Texas Senator <a href="http://www.azquotes.com/quote/967603">Phil Gramm</a> once famously crowed, “I’m carrying so much pork, I’m beginning to get trichinosis.” And pragmatists assert that in moderate quantities, <a href="http://themonkeycage.org/2013/01/bring-back-pork-barrel-spending/">pork helps deals get made</a>.</p>
<p>Classic studies of the politics of regulation by scholars such as <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245272148_American_Business_Public_Policy_Case-Studies_and_Political_Theory">Theodore Lowi</a> and <a href="http://contemporarythinkers.org/jq-wilson/book/the-politics-of-regulation-editor/">James Q. Wilson</a> show that when benefits from a regulation are diffused across many people or large areas and costs are concentrated on specific constituencies, we can expect political resistance to the regulation. Groups who stand to lose have strong incentives to oppose it, while those who benefit form a more amorphous constituency that is harder to mobilize.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162767/original/image-20170327-3276-r9fb8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162767/original/image-20170327-3276-r9fb8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162767/original/image-20170327-3276-r9fb8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162767/original/image-20170327-3276-r9fb8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162767/original/image-20170327-3276-r9fb8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162767/original/image-20170327-3276-r9fb8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162767/original/image-20170327-3276-r9fb8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On Feb. 16, 2017, after signing legislation to repeal a rule regulating disposition of coal mining waste, President Trump celebrates with coal miners and legislators from Ohio and West Virginia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/A-Month-of-Trump-By-The-Numbers/7c2685d3342e4f96bb014c30d1032866/1/0">AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We can see this dynamic in climate change debates. President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt contend that undoing carbon pollution controls <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/26/politics/pruitt-trump-clean-power-order/">will promote job growth</a>. Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, <a href="http://wvpublic.org/post/umwa-president-rallies-union-fight-save-coal-jobs#stream/0">argues</a> that the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan will destroy coal jobs and communities, and that “green jobs” in clean energy industries are unlikely to be located in coal country. </p>
<p>Climate change can be <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/focus/ipcc-media/index.html">framed in many ways</a>, and there has been much discussion about which approaches <a href="http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202009/Nisbet-full.html">best engage the public</a>. Environmental advocates can do a better job of emphasizing how climate regulations produce local benefits along with global benefits. </p>
<p>One promising initiative, the <a href="https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/the-latest/research-shows-clean-vehicle-and-fuel-economy-standards-creating-and-sustaining-good-jobs-across-michigan-and-america-today/">BlueGreen Alliance</a>, is a coalition of major labor unions and environmental organizations. Before President Trump’s recent visit to Michigan, the alliance released <a href="https://www.bluegreenalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Preview-of-MI-Supplying-Ingenuity-II-vFINAL.pdf">data</a> showing that nearly 70,000 workers in well over 200 factories and engineering facilities in Michigan alone were producing technologies that helped vehicle manufacturers meet current fuel efficiency standards. Regulations can be job creators, but this truth needs to be told effectively.</p>
<h2>Pipelines: Local jobs or global environmental protection</h2>
<p>President Trump’s approval of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-keystone-xl-pipeline-debate-is-over-but-our-infrastructure-needs-are-not-50358">Keystone XL</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-will-native-tribes-fight-the-dakota-access-pipeline-in-court-72839">Dakota Access</a> pipelines demonstrates the difficulty of fighting locally beneficial programs with global arguments. </p>
<p>Environmentalists argue, correctly, that both pipelines are part of the infrastructure that supports the fossil fuel economy. For example, by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2335">some estimates</a> the KXL pipeline could increase global carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 110 million tons annually by making possible increased oil production from Canadian tar sands. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162770/original/image-20170327-3301-xj45so.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162770/original/image-20170327-3301-xj45so.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162770/original/image-20170327-3301-xj45so.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162770/original/image-20170327-3301-xj45so.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162770/original/image-20170327-3301-xj45so.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162770/original/image-20170327-3301-xj45so.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162770/original/image-20170327-3301-xj45so.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rally against the Keystone XL pipeline, Washington, D.C., Feb. 3, 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrdcpix/12297645886/in/dateposted/">Rocky Kistner, NRDC/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, both the <a href="http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/Dakota-Access-Pipeline-Provides-High-Quality-Jobs">AFL-CIO</a> and the <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-access-pipeline-unions-call-obama-stand-american-workers-n658971">Teamsters</a> support the projects. They believe pipelines create jobs, although there is <a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/10/van-jones/cnns-van-jones-says-keystone-pipeline-only-creates/">broad disagreement</a> over how many jobs they generate over what time period. </p>
<p>By endorsing both pipelines, Trump is probably seeking to consolidate his support among midwestern working-class voters who believe, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Riley_Dunlap/publication/226024551_Environmentalism_and_Elitism_A_Conceptual_and_Empirical_Analysis/links/0c9605311699d7174a000000/Environmentalism-and-Elitism-A-Conceptual-and-Empirical-Analysis.pdf">rightly or wrongly</a>, that urban <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9018-z">environmental elites</a> are imposing job-killing regulations. But these pipelines also impose local costs, which have spurred <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-native-american-pipeline-resistance-in-north-dakota-is-about-climate-justice-64714">Native American</a> protests against DAPL and opposition to KXL from <a href="http://boldnebraska.org/">farmers, ranchers and citizens in Nebraska</a>. </p>
<p>Local protests have not changed the Trump administration’s political calculus on DAPL or KXL, which is why opponents in both cases are turning to the courts. But in other instances environmental groups have successfully mobilized communities by highlighting local issues.</p>
<h2>Conserving Utah’s public lands</h2>
<p>Federal control of public lands is a sore issue for Republicans, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-twisted-roots-of-u-s-land-policy-in-the-west-52740">particularly in western states</a>. Utah offers a fascinating example. State politicians want to <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/02/05/Governor-of-Utah-calls-on-Trump-to-revoke-Bears-Ears-National-Monument/4251486315351/">reverse President Obama’s designation</a> of the Bears Ears National Monument and reduce the amount of land included in the <a href="https://www.utah.gov/governor/news_media/article.html?article=20170217-3">Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument</a>. But conservationists successfully blocked recent efforts by <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-sportsmen-insight-idUSKBN15W0EK">allying</a> with the outdoor recreation industry. </p>
<p>By <a href="http://www.hcn.org/issues/49.3/utahs-outdoor-rec-industry-defends-public-lands">some estimates</a> Utah’s outdoor recreation industry employs 122,000 people and brings US$12 billion into the state each year. Utah hosts the biannual <a href="http://www.outdoorretailer.com/">Outdoor Retailer trade show</a>, which brings about <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/10/boycott-outdoor-retailer-utah/">$45 million</a> in annual direct spending. </p>
<p>In response to Utah officials’ efforts to roll back federal land protection, the outdoor retail industry has announced that it will move the prestigious trade show to another state after its contract with Salt Lake City expires in 2018. <a href="http://inhabitat.com/patagonia-launches-campaign-to-protect-utahs-bear-ears-national-monument/">Patagonia</a> is boycotting the 2017 summer show and asking supporters to contact Utah politicians and urge them to keep “<a href="http://p2a.co/VvxLM7c">public lands in public hands</a>.” The <a href="https://cyclingtips.com/news/bicycle-industry-reacting-to-utah-governors-push-to-strip-federal-protection-for-public-lands/">bicycle industry</a> is also planning to move its annual trade show to a location outside Utah.</p>
<p>Governor Gary Herbert has reacted by offering to <a href="http://fox13now.com/2017/02/13/utahs-governor-to-meet-with-outdoor-leaders-to-talk-bears-ears-outdoor-retailer-show/">negotiate</a> with the industry. U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz introduced a bill in January that called for selling off more than three million acres of federal land in Utah, but <a href="http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/2/2/14479462/chaffetz-public-lands-backlash">withdrew</a> it after massive protests from hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts. Hunters and gun owners are important constituents for Chaffetz and other conservative Republican politicians.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162772/original/image-20170327-3279-p9mtnr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162772/original/image-20170327-3279-p9mtnr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162772/original/image-20170327-3279-p9mtnr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162772/original/image-20170327-3279-p9mtnr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162772/original/image-20170327-3279-p9mtnr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162772/original/image-20170327-3279-p9mtnr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162772/original/image-20170327-3279-p9mtnr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wetland restoration project sponsored by the hunting and conservation organization Ducks Unlimited, Barron County, Wisconsin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/widnr/6587898601/in/photolist-b39GJD-puA79K-8cgzAE-9xjx2A-oS5n97-8cdjxV-5YJ1y3-bC8UTo-9wkeBF-9wo96W-5YDKyF-8wKeBf-b8vpUn-4DFrBM-9RKiYF-aNzFXg-4mVuvF-9nmDmf-9NbuoU-9N8v5Z-9woamN-Jzxna-9xgwQF-bb41SR-9NbjHw-9NbnDy-b8vq98-9xjwHG-4kcHgJ-aNzDzR-9wo9T3-8cdpn2-8cgDwJ-ef6TdZ-efj3v7-8jYQt3-8t6TLP-8jYQuC-efdjon-biajNr-jrXqwB-o2oDkC-efditT-efdjS6-h95QRi-9wkbj8-9xgurk-9N8zaH-qmABHE-5YDNCt">Wisconsin DNR/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Renewable energy means high-tech jobs</h2>
<p>Environmentalists also successfully localized green regulations in Ohio, where Republican Governor John Kasich <a href="http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/27/14094192/ohio-john-kasich-clean-energy-standards-veto">vetoed a bill</a> in December 2016 that would have made the state’s renewable electricity targets voluntary instead of mandatory for two years. </p>
<p>As a politician with presidential ambitions who claims credit for his state’s economic success, Kasich knows that several high-tech companies in Ohio have committed to switching to renewable energy. As one example, Amazon is <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/11/01/amazon-to-build-second-wind-farm-in-ohio.html">investing in local wind farms</a> to power its <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/10/18/amazon-data-centers-in-central-ohio-now-open.html">energy-intensive data servers</a>, in response to <a href="https://www.wired.com/2014/04/greenpeace/">criticism from environmental groups</a>.</p>
<p>Ohio froze its renewable energy standards for two years in 2014 after utilities and some large power customers <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/11/16/ohios-renewable-energy-freeze-fight-reignites.html">argued</a> that they were becoming expensive to meet. But when the legislature passed a bill in 2016 that extended the freeze for two more years, a <a href="http://ohiocitizen.org/ohio-citizen-action-joins-tremendous-opposition-to-hb-114/">coalition of renewable energy companies and environmental groups </a> mobilized against it. In his veto message, Kasich noted that the measure might antagonize “<a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/12/27/kasich-energy-legislation.html">companies poised to create many jobs in Ohio in the coming years, such as high-technology firms</a>.” </p>
<p>In sum, environmental regulations have a better chance of surviving if there are mobilized constituencies willing to defend them. And in the longer term, a local and job-oriented focus could expand the blue-green alliance and move the working class closer to the environmental agenda.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73113/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>President Trump says environmental regulation kills jobs. To fight back, conservation advocates need to show that protecting the environment can produce jobs and local benefits.Nives Dolsak, Professor of Environmental Policy, University of WashingtonAseem Prakash, Walker Family Professor and Founding Director, Center for Environmental Politics, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.