The War on the EPA by William M. Alley

Author:William M. Alley
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: undefined
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Published: 2012-02-25T16:00:00+00:00

Secret Science Accusations

In 2018, air pollution was on the front lines of yet another major attack on science. In April, Scott Pruitt held a press conference

to announce a proposed rule-making called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. “The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” he announced.[37] In developing regulations, the EPA would no longer consider studies for which the underlying data were not publicly available. While this may sound like an honest approach, it was, in fact, a thinly veiled effort to undermine key studies that have helped justify stricter limits on air pollution, as well as some toxic chemicals. Health research often contains confidential personal information that is illegal to share. As such, the bill would prevent the EPA from using many of the best scientific studies.

In particular, the new policy was aimed at blocking the EPA from considering large epidemiological studies, such as those that have revealed the health dangers of fine particulates. Fine particulates readily find their way deep in people’s lungs, where they can induce a wide spectrum of heart and lung problems that include a heightened risk of premature death. In the mid-1990s, two major epidemiological studies—known as the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies—tracked the medical histories of thousands of people exposed to different levels of air pollution. These studies, based in part on confidential health information, found that exposure to even relatively low levels of fine particulates increased premature deaths.[38]

These two studies were pivotal in supporting the development of more stringent regulation of fine particles and suggest that the benefits of even tighter regulations would outweigh the costs. Burning coal and other fossil fuels is a major source of fine particulates. Consequently, studies linking health improvements with reduction in particulate emissions have been under attack by industry and Republican lawmakers for more than two decades. Adding to the controversies, Obama’s proposed regulations to curb greenhouse gas and mercury emissions from fossil fuel power plants were supported, in large part, by the associated health benefits from reducing particulate emissions.

In an irony of ironies, Pruitt’s unveiling of the EPA’s proposed “transparency” rule was closed to the public and the press. The audience consisted of a who’s who of climate deniers who had worked to weaken established climate science. In developing the proposed rule, the EPA also bypassed its own Science Advisory Board, which normally provides input on such a major planned action—in this case, an action that would allow the EPA to ignore peer-reviewed scientific studies. Nearly seventy medical societies and public health groups expressed opposition to the proposal.[39]

Standing next to Pruitt at the cloistered unveiling of the transparency rule was Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), the preeminent climate-change denier in the House. As chairman of the House Science Committee, Smith had worked for years to promote bogus scandals against climate scientists and discredit evidence for human-caused climate change. The proposed regulation mirrored legislation long-championed by Smith. His bill, originally called the Secret Science Reform Act and later the HONEST

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.