Climate Change, the EPA, and the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

“Climate change is a hoax, and the earth is flat.” Though it’s true that we create our own reality, the government should not be in the business of creating an alternate reality for its citizens – especially by censoring scientific evidence in order to do so. In this case, officials at the U.S. National Park service have attempted to alter reality by deleting every reference to the role of humans in causing climate change, in the draft of a report by scientist Maria Caffrey.

Caffrey, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado, worked as a contractor for the National Park Service. Drawing from years of research, she created the report for the agency when she realized that they were relying on data compiled from inconsistent sources and research methods. The report examines sea level rise and storm surge, and projects the future risks from both for 118 coastal national parks. The intent of the report is to protect parks, their employees, and their visitors from the effects of climate change.

The climate change risk report, created during the summer of 2016, has yet to be released. Though it acknowledges natural as well as human contributions to climate change, the report focuses on the human component, because that, to a large extent, is what is under our control. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, however, all mentions of human activities contributing to climate change were deleted. Included in the deletions were all instances of the word, “anthropogenic,” meaning “originating from human activity.”

Climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck, Dean of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, said, “To remove a very critical part of the scientific understanding is nothing short of political censorship, and has no place in science. Censorship of this kind is something you’d see in Russia or some totalitarian regime. It has no place in America.”

Though current EPA head Scott Pruitt says he believes in climate change, he has questioned the impact that humans have had on it. Pruitt has resisted the science linking the effects of climate change to human activities, as the EPA attempts to reverse a long list of environmental regulations. Shortly after his confirmation as head of the EPA, Pruitt approved a number of EPA website changes, deleting references to climate change.

If it’s true that humans have not contributed to climate change, why not bring that scientific evidence to the forefront to back up (or disprove) government policy? Why is the Trump administration and its various agencies instead working so hard to present a reality in which the concept of climate change, and words like “anthropogenic,” don’t even exist?

National Park Service officials delete references to humans’ role in causing climate change from draft report | Climate Change News [2018-04-08]

Human Role in Climate Change Removed From Federal Science Report | Black Bear News [2018-04-08]

Scott Pruitt’s Proposed Obama-era Rollbacks: Is Time on Our Side?

Under Scott Pruitt, the current head of the Environmental Protection Agency, a large number of Obama-era EPA regulations are under attack. Donald Trump promised to destroy Obama’s environmental protection legacy, simply because it was Obama’s legacy. Scott Pruitt intends to help Trump carry out his promise.

Currently, Scott Pruitt’s EPA has targeted more than 60 environmental regulations from the Obama era for demolition, delay, or suspension. As it does in other areas, such as education, health care, and gun safety policy, the Trump administration demonstrates that it values reversing anything done by the previous administration, as well as saying “no” to anything from “the left,” over the safety and health of its constituents.

Fortunately for Americans, undoing federal regulations is more complicated than simply ordering Scott Pruitt to make it so. The courts don’t look favorably on rolling back regulations simply because one doesn’t like the person who passed them. At least some of Scott Pruitt’s rollbacks have been challenged by the legal system; six have been reversed in court.

In his rush to overturn regulations, Scott Pruitt has often failed to follow many legal protocols, and has neglected to provide adequate supporting materials such as legal and scientific data to justify his proposals. This has resulted in sloppy and poorly crafted legal cases, which aren’t likely to hold up in court. An example is the attempted repeal of the Obama-era emissions law that aimed to reduce auto tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases.

“If (it) gets challenged in court, I just don’t see how they provide anything that gives a technical justification to undo the rule,” said James McCargar, a former EPA senior policy analyst.

Although we should be vigilant, it is wise to remember that the laws passed during the Obama administration sometimes required years of careful scientific research and legal due diligence in order to withstand thorough examination in the courts. Similarly, they would take time to dismantle.

“You have to do the hard work of developing a rule that can withstand judicial scrutiny, even though it isn’t sexy,” says David Hayes, director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU School of Law.  “Pruitt hasn’t been willing to do that, and that’s why he isn’t really having much of an impact.”

No matter how much Scott Pruitt wishes he could take down Obama’s environmental legacy with the swipe of a pen or the tap of a gavel, it also takes time and due diligence to undo laws. Or, in Scott Pruitt’s case, many of his proposed repeals won’t even make it to the “pending” phase before the courts strike them down. Perhaps we can dare to hope that the haphazardness of Scott Pruitt’s attempts will continue to keep our current environmental regulations in place, at least until a new administration.

EPA to Roll Back Obama-era Emissions, Fuel Economy Standards | CBS This Morning [2018-04-03]

Trump’s EPA to Roll Back Obama-era Fuel Economy Standards  | Fox News [2018-04-03]