Union of Concerned Scientists Report 2019

From the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Common Dreams, January 28, 2019

WASHINGTON – New research shows that the administration has interfered with or sidelined science in 80 separate incidents over the past two years, demonstrating a pattern of hostility to evidence—and posing a serious threat to public health and the environment.

These abuses are detailed in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report “The State of Science in the Trump Era: Damage Done, Lessons Learned, and a Path to Progress.” On President Donald Trump’s watch, scientific agencies have been hollowed out, and at the leadership level, fewer than half of 83 critical science positions have been filled.

In numerous agencies, less data is being collected and decision-making processes have been changed to exclude scientific advice. The administration has delayed, suppressed or cancelled at least 14 important studies over the past two years. And the number of environmental impact statements filed has been cut in half, denying the public vital information and opportunities to comment on public projects.

“The administration is trying to accomplish its goals by pushing science out of the process,” said Jacob Carter, a UCS research scientist and the lead author of the report. “After two years, it’s clear that this administration values neither the work of federal scientists nor the health and safety of the public. Science is being silenced, in a truly unprecedented way—and we’re all paying the cost.”

The pattern is pervasive across multiple agencies, touching issues as wide-ranging as immigration, taxes and LGBQT rights. President Trump’s appointees to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior stand out for their glaring conflicts of interest and their hostility to the science-based mission of their agencies. Climate science and studies on the public health impacts of pollution have been especially targeted—demonstrating the administration’s commitment to helping politically powerful industries at the expense of the public good.

“The administration’s rollbacks of public protections without scientific justification are really damaging,” said Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. “But there’s even more potential harm from the actions they’ve taken to limit how future administrations can use science in policymaking. The Trump administration is restricting the kinds of science agencies can consider, rigging the rules for analyzing policies, gutting advisory boards and pushing federal scientists out of public service. That damage could be long-lasting.”

The good news is that there are proven paths to constrain these abuses. “The State of Science in the Trump Era” identifies some success stories that point the way forward. Scientists, science advocates and community groups have been able to use the courts, the public comment process, and Congress to put a check on the administration. Through sustained public pressure, the science community and its supporters have turned back some nominees and stalled several potentially damaging policies. Further, the new Congress has a chance to step up and perform its constitutional duty of holding the administration accountable.

“For the first time in two years, we could see some meaningful checks and balances in Washington,” said Carter. “This is how it’s supposed to work—Congress should press the administration to stop undermining science and do its job of protecting the public. And the science community can play a meaningful role if scientists step up and get engaged as constituents. There’s a lot of damage to undo, but we have a roadmap to get there.”

In the report, UCS researchers lay out an action plan for Congress. These recommendations include passing new laws to protect scientific integrity and reduce conflicts of interest; holding oversight hearings to investigate anti-science actions and the harms they cause; and protecting the role of science in laws like the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act that are under attack.

“President Trump’s political appointees have taken a wrecking ball to science, which we all depend on,” said UCS President Ken Kimmell. “But the science community is more engaged than ever to fight back. Supporters of science, public health and environmental justice will be watching to make sure science works for all of us — in the Trump era and beyond.”

###

Are birds made of paper, to be manipulated?

Editorial of the Morgantown Dominion Post, May 14, 2018

EPA & Interior policy shifts focused on economics, not health or wildlife

Protecting the environment and wildlife often calls for balancing benefits and costs. No, it’s not written as such into relevant legal codes or regulations. And though this tradeoff is almost a matter of course for wildlife, it’s also apparent in many decisions for humans. However, the nation’s Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are about to put an exclamation mark on that idea.

First, Interior is about to change how agencies under its umbrella enforce the more than 100-year-old Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Formerly, potential penalties served as incentive for businesses and agriculture to take reasonable measures to avoid killing birds. For instance, installing netting over oil waste pits or restricting certain pesticides spare thousands of birds annually. In other words, taking reasonable steps at a reasonable cost to protect bird populations.

But now, the Interior Department has decided it will only prosecute those that “d e l i b e r a t e l y” kill birds, not those that kill them by “accident.” This treaty has never attempted to altogether end the deaths of birds from unintentional consequences (wind turbines, skyscrapers, vehicles and power lines come to mind). There’s an unwritten understanding that such deaths are unavoidable. What this treaty does is aim to prevent those deaths that can be prevented. But to argue that gross negligence does not translate into criminal intent is as good as a blank check to ignore practical protections for birds.

Meanwhile, the EPA is intent on putting a price tag on the protections the Clean Air Act provides for breathing. The EPA now wants to calculate what the economic impact of your need to breathe clean air is.

Formerly, federal law and court decisions have required the EPA to focus on public health — not what it cost businesses or tax revenues — to set limits on pollution. Now, before defining regulations on pollution, smog, soot, etc. it will need to determine their impact on the economy. We don’t have a problem with having all the facts about such issues, but protecting public health should win every argument.

The EPA was never a perfect agency but once it cared as much about the environment as it now does the ability of polluters to get rich. This shifting of the principles of the EPA and the Interior Department to “reform” regulations can only muddy their efforts. What is clear though, is these policies tip the scales for wreaking havoc on clean air and wildlife.