logo
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
    • Collections
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Subscribe
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Complimentary Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership
  • Submissions

At EPA, Changing the “P” from “Protection” to “Predatory”

Marian Conway
October 10, 2017
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
“trainwreck” by Daniel Pierce

October 3, 2017; Christian Science Monitor

Yesterday, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt announced he will be publishing a proposal to rid the country of its pesky rule limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants. “The war against coal is over!” he declared. This leaves environmental nonprofits such as the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund having to refight battles they thought they had won. Of course, advocacy often involves a mix of steps forward and steps back. Unfortunately, in this case, the future of the planet and our lives is literally at stake, since climate change is moving forward apace.

Pruitt as train-wrecker is cast perfectly for his job, having been involved in bringing 14 lawsuits against the EPA before his tenure began. He’s also a proud climate-change denier. Thus, while Obama’s administration introduced the Clean Power Plan to seek to mitigate the negative consequences of carbon emissions, under Scott Pruitt’s leadership, the EPA is not just easing regulations; it’s seeking to reverse its role.

Legal and bureaucratic restrictions constrain, however, so Pruitt has also been making changes that are less visible but harmful nonetheless. Fortunately, when Pruitt and President Trump attempted to cut EPA’s budget by more than 30 percent,  Congress rejected the proposal. This may demonstrate that even though Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate, they are not willing to give Pruitt a free hand.

Still, the fabric of pollution and environmental regulations which protect the health of the population is vulnerable even to the smallest of regressive actions.

“It’s a thousand attacks,” says Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental nonprofit based in New York. “On everything [Pruitt] does, he’s trying to weaken environmental enforcement, weaken environmental protections, and let industry polluters off the hook.”

This is by no means the first regressive period for the EPA; during President Reagan’s administration, Anne Gorsuch, mother of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, slashed EPA’s budget by 21 percent, cut staff by 26 percent, and relaxed regulations and their enforcement, undermining efforts to address the nation’s toxic waste problems. Thousands of toxic sites remain scattered throughout the country.

“They have built on the Reagan-Gorsuch strategy. I wouldn’t be surprised if they kind of studied that,” says Christopher Sellers, an environmental historian at Stony Brook University in New York.

Those who support deregulation and states’ rights believe he is on the right track, despite—or, maybe better said, because of—the experience of the Reagan-era EPA.

“It’s necessary and a lot more than necessary,” says Steven Milloy, a member of Trump’s EPA transition team and author of Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA. “We’ve had 45 years of bad science, overregulation, and tyranny by the EPA.” Mr. Milloy argues that many of the regulations are based on biased science and aren’t necessary for public health in the ways proponents claim.

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Pruitt would like to reverse regulations contained in the Clean Water Rule and the methane rule, in addition to rescinding the Clean Power Plan, but entrenched regulations are not easily reversed. The way they are constructed, new evidence-based guidelines must be ready to take the place of discarded guidelines. This will take a great deal of time. The best he can do is delay implementation of the Obama administration’s rules.

“Some of the things he’ll try to do he won’t be able to get through the courts, but some he will. It will be a mixed bag,” says Daniel Farber, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and the coauthor of a recent report looking at the potential consequences of the Trump administration for the environment.

In July, a federal appeals court ruled that not enforcing sections of the methane emissions rule was an “unreasonable” delay and stated the EPA must enforce it.

If the EPA cuts the budget, the agency will have less ability to do the research and monitoring, and could enforce regulations on their own priority list.

“The courts won’t intervene on that,” says Farber. The EPA under former President George W. Bush and Mr. Reagan also tried for regulatory rollback, he notes, somewhat less aggressively than now, and met with legal obstacles. “What turned out to be their strongest weapons were budget and enforcement cuts,” says Farber.

In the meantime, the EPA is losing talent and experience. Steven Cohen, a former EPA staff member and consultant, is the executive director of the Earth Institute at New York’s Columbia University. “A lot of people who are really good are leaving the EPA,” he says. “The best people will find other things people want them to do, and the people who aren’t as good are stuck. That’s a typical human resources story in these kinds of conditions.”

Researchers, including Professor [Christopher] Sellers of Stony Brook University, conducted dozens of interviews of current and former EPA employees for ”The EPA Under Siege,” a report released this summer that examines the agency both historically and in the Trump era. Excerpts of those interviews, in an appendix, reveal a demoralized staff that describes feeling at war with the new political appointees. Along with the effort to undo regulations, the interviewees expressed dismay over what they view as disregard for science at the current EPA, new protocols that favor secrecy over transparency, and the decision to use part of the scant budget for a security team for Pruitt, not something that prior administrators have had. (The EPA did not respond to requests for comment from the Monitor.)

Both sides agree that in environmental oversight, the states are critical. States like California and New York have strong environmental rules and will likely suffer less from Pruitt’s work. The states that do not have the strong rules in place, however, will be hurt.

The unwillingness to keep pace with scientific knowledge and, indeed, the denial of science altogether is perhaps the gravest threat, as it leaves our nation less able to take on the next disaster. “There are places where the impact will be larger than in other places,” says the Earth Institute’s Cohen. Environmental laws that are currently in place will help us survive the Pruitt era.

“I think we have enough safeguards,” says Cohen. “The danger is that instead of advancing as we need to keep pace with the technologies we’re introducing, we’ll be running as hard as we can to keep still.”—Marian Conway

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
About the author
Marian Conway

Marian Conway, the executive director of the NY Community Bank Foundation, has a Masters in Interdisciplinary Studies, Writing and a Ph.D. in Public Policy, Nonprofit Management. She has discovered that her job and education have made her a popular person with nonprofits and a prime candidate for their boards. Marian keeps things in perspective, not allowing all that to go to her head, but it is difficult to say no to a challenge, especially participating in change, in remaking a board. She is currently on eleven boards of various sizes and has learned to say no.

More about: Environmental Protection AgencyGovernmentNonprofit NewsPolicy

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

Spring-2023-sidebar-subscribe
You might also like
The Nonprofit Sector and Social Change: A Conversation between Cyndi Suarez and Claire Dunning
Claire Dunning and Cyndi Suarez
Nonprofits as Battlegrounds for Democracy
Cyndi Suarez
Building Public Support for Employee Ownership: Lessons from Colorado
Yessica Holguin and Jason Wiener
Meet the New Global Tax Haven, the United States
Steve Dubb
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk

NPQ Webinars

April 27th, 2 pm ET

Liberatory Decision-Making

How to Facilitate and Engage in Healthy Decision-making Processes

Register Now
You might also like
The book "Nonprofit Neighborhoods" leaning against a wall
The Nonprofit Sector and Social Change: A Conversation...
Claire Dunning and Cyndi Suarez
Nonprofits as Battlegrounds for Democracy
Cyndi Suarez
Building Public Support for Employee Ownership: Lessons from...
Yessica Holguin and Jason Wiener

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

See our newsletters

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

NPQ-Spring-2023-cover

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Copyright
  • Careers

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.