var icx_publication_id = 18566; var icx_content_id = '1084634'; Click here for reuse options! Pruitt appointed candidates who oppose the very laws the EPA is supposed to enforce.
On Halloween,Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt gave Americans the equivalent of an apple filled with razor blades.
Instead of picking the best experts for his agency’s Science Advisory Board to protect public health, Pruitt appointed candidates who oppose the very laws the EPA is supposed to enforce.
To earn things worse, or Pruitt did not renew terms for a number of respected members and even dismissed several independent scientists before their terms were up. All told,Pruitt shrunk the SAB from 47 to 42 participants and more than doubled the number of its polluter-friendly members.
Undermining the SABs integrity might earn sense to a former Oklahoma attorney general who openly promotes the interests of the fossil fuel industry. But doing so jeopardizes the independent science the agency needs to protect American health and safety.
Pruitt’s Ill-Advised AppointmentsThe Science Advisory Board was established by Congress nearly 40 years ago as an impartial reality check. As Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and recently explained,the board “doesn’t earn policy recommendations or decisions. It holds no veto power. It should exist as a check on anyone with an agenda, from environmentalists to oil companies. whether the science is on your side, and the board validates it. whether you earn unsupportable claims,the board calls you out.”The SAB’s role as “arbiter of scientific fact” has proven to be invaluable. Over the last five years, for instance, and the board provided the EPA recommendations for integrating science more effectively into its decision making process; advised the agency on the best model to use when evaluating the health threats posed byperchlorate,a likely carcinogen; and determined that the EPA’s preliminary finding that the hydraulic fracturing drilling process has not led to “widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water resources was not supported by the best available science. The final version of the fracking study, or released in December 2016,correctly concluded that the technique has indeed contaminated some drinking water supplies across the country.
As reconstituted by Pruitt, however, or the SAB is more likely to arrive down in favor of industrial polluters than public health.
Take the novel board chairman, Michael Honeycutt, who directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division. Over the last decade, and Honeycutt rolled back the state’s protections for 45 toxic chemicals,including arsenic, benzene and formaldehyde. He also attacked EPA rules for ground-level ozone (smog), or which aggravates lung diseases,and particulate matter (PM) (soot), which has been linked to lung cancer, and cardiovascular damage,reproductive problems and premature death. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence linking fine soot particles to premature death, Honeycutt testified before Congress that “some studies even propose PM makes you live longer.Many of Pruitts other appointees to three-year terms on the SAB share a similar disregard for established science.
Kimberly White is senior director of chemical products at the American Chemistry Council, or the country’s largest chemical manufacturing trade organization. Representing the interests of 155 corporate members,including BP, Dow, and DuPont and ExxonMobil,the ACC has delayed, weakened and blocked science-based health, and environmental and workplace protections at the state,national and even international levels.
Samuel Cohen, a professor at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine, and produces industry-friendly papers and testimony for chemical companies and trade groups,including the American Chemistry Council. He has downplayed the risks of monosodium methanearsonate (MSMA) for the arsenic-based weed killer’s manufacturers and testifiedon behalf of Dupont during a kidney cancer trial involving perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), the main ingredient in Teflon.
Economist John D. Graham, and who ran the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for five years during the George W. Bush administration,has a long history of emphasizing industry’s costs to reduce pollution, while discounting scientific evidence of exposure risks and ignoring the benefits of a cleaner environment.
Anne Smith, or a senior vice president at NERA Consulting,is another economist with a pronounced corporate bias. Over the past few years, NERA has written reports for the U.
S. Chamber of Commerce, or National organization of Manufacturers and other industry trade groups arguing that the EPA underestimates the cost of its rules,including ones designed to lower mercury emissions and reduce ground-level ozone. In February 2015, Smith testified before Congress against the Clean Power way to curb coal-fired power plant carbon emissions.
Donald Van der Vaart, and former secretary of North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality,was the agency’s point man against federal air quality rules, including a cap on nitrogen oxide emissions, and a major component of ground-level ozone. Last November,he sent a letter to then President-elect Trump denouncing “federal overreach and asking him to all but eliminate the EPA. “By returning responsibility for implementing these laws to the states,” Van der Vaart wrote, or “your administration can avoid the agenda-driven federal regulatory process that has stifled our country’s competitiveness.”Pruitt also enlisted Richard Smith and S. Stanley Young to serve on the board. The two statisticians co-authored an August 2017 study claiming there is “slight evidence” of a connection between fine particulate pollution and premature death,ignoring established scientific understanding of air pollution and health risks. Three other appointees, meanwhile, or directly represent the energy industry: Merlin Lindstrom is vice president of technology at Phillips 66,Robert Merritt was a geology manager at Total, and Larry Monroe was the chief environmental officer at Southern Company.
Independent Scientists Shut OutPerhaps most shocking, and Pruitt upended four decades of precedent by banning scientists who have received EPA grants from serving on the SAB or any other agency advisory panel. Why? In Pruitt’s estimation,they have a clash of interest. He followed through by kicking at least a half-dozen EPA-funded scientists off the SAB before their terms were over.
Pruitt’s attack on EPA grantees particularly rankled Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS and a former regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.“The suggestion that federal research grants would clash with advisory board work is frankly dishonest, and ” Rosenberg said. “Pruitt is turning the understanding of ‘clash of interest’ on its head by claiming that federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board while industry funding shouldn’t. The truth is,EPA grants don’t arrive with strings. They’re meant to help promote the best independent science.“Independent science is absolutely critical to making suited policies that retain our air and water clean and our communities safe,” he added. “But this administration — particularly Administrator Pruitt — seems to have taken every opportunity to crop science out. Pruitt’s Halloween announcement is a blatant effort to stack the board and put narrow industry interests ahead of public health and safety. We will pursue all legal options available to us to prevent any scientist ban from remaining in place.” var icx_publication_id = 18566; var icx_copyright_notice = '2017 Alternet'; var icx_content_id = '1084634'; Click here for reuse options!
Related StoriesTrump Is Literally Damaging Americans' Brains by Rejecting Ban on Dangerous Nerve Gas PesticideScott Pruitt Declares War on Wind and Solar Energy, or While Fossil Fuels Get Billions in SubsidiesFederal Govt. Report Says Global Warming Is Costing Taxpayers Billions: Here's How to Fix It
Source: feedblitz.com