Fear and Loathing at the EPA

Regulations ought to make things regular. Regulators exist to give certainty to those that they regulate. Those that we regulate ought to know what's expected of them, so that they can plan and allocate resources to comply.          Scott Pruitt, EPA Administrator

Thus spake Scott Pruitt, Trump’s choice to head the EPA, in his introductory speech to EPA employees.  This is really not far from the mark.  Regularity—clarity, predictability, stability—is certainly a virtue of regulations.  Otherwise, they cannot accomplish their purpose, which is to communicate to those being regulated what it is we expect of them.  

     But what is it, exactly, that we expect from the various enterprises and organizations regulated by the EPA?  Here, Pruitt’s record—lawsuits against the EPA, collusion with the fossil fuels industry—gives cause for concern.  What expectations will the EPA under Pruitt communicate to those it regulates?

     Much attention is being given to the fact that Pruitt is something of a climate change skeptic.  He acknowledges the reality of climate change, but he claims that the science is not settled, that there is still much disagreement amongst scientists about the extent and causes of global warming.  Again, there is a kernel of truth here that points to a larger problem.

     The truth is that science is never “settled.”  There are always outliers and critics of the dominant paradigm in any area of science, and the dominant paradigm is always being tweaked.  Science is a project, not a finished product.  Nonetheless, the vast majority of scientists who are knowledgeable in the relevant disciplines agree that large scale climate change is underway and that human technology is a significant cause.  And this agreement is rooted in careful analysis of masses of evidence.  It is not simply a guess, or a political position, or a Chinese hoax.

     But suppose that the climate change skeptics are right.  Suppose there is no large scale climate change underway, or that human technology is not implicated.  Would it, then, be reasonable to put concerns about the environmental impacts of fossil fuel and other problematic technologies on hold?  Would it be reasonable to simply wait until we have more data to do anything?  Pruitt and his ilk—apologists for the fossil fuels industry and other serious polluters—certainly seem to think so.

     But this is simply ridiculous, so ridiculous that one can only conclude that Pruitt and others like him are just stooges for their corporate handlers.  Climate change or no, it is a bad idea to pump millions of pounds of toxic substances into the air every year from our power plants and vehicles.  Climate change or no, it is a bad idea to pump millions of gallons of fracking chemicals into the water table (not to mention the earthquakes this causes).  Climate change or no, it is a bad idea to turn our waterways into a waste disposal system for the coal industry.  And so on and on and on.

     In the hands of people like Pruitt, climate change skepticism becomes a very refined sort of propaganda.  First, climate change is acknowledged to be the significant concern that drives environmental regulation; then climate change is denied or, more precisely, discounted so that it does not weigh too heavily against other considerations (mostly just the short-term economic interests of the corporate sector).  Hence, there is no pressing need for environmental regulation.  QED.  If you combine sound logic with carefully selected facts, you can make anything seem reasonable.

     Pruitt has said publicly that those who call for the termination of the EPA are “justified.”  They are justified because of the Obama administration’s emphasis on climate change.  They are justified because most Americans see the EPA much the same as they see the IRS.  This is propaganda, too.  Whatever is connected with Obama must, of course, be bad.  And many Americans would certainly like to get rid of the IRS, although they would certainly complain about the loss of all the benefits it funds.  I wonder if they will complain about the loss of clean air and water.

     In any case, I think it is clear just what sort of expectations Pruitt’s EPA will have for those it regulates.  In the interest of fostering public preparedness, here is a link to a listing of gas masks for sale on Amazon.  Fortunately, there appears to be a wide selection.