The Evisceration of the Environmental Protection Agency: What Does the Fox Say?
Sorry for the disproportionate number of recent posts that address politics, but let’s be honest: that’s where most of the action is vis-à-vis energy and the environment.
In other blogs, you can read about how Trump has appointed Steve Bannon, a neo-Nazi, as his Chief Strategist and Jeff Sessions, an overt racist, as his Attorney General. Here, however, we confine ourselves to environmental stewardship and the role that clean energy plays in achieving it.
And that leads us to Trump’s appointee to head the transition in the EPA, Myron Ebell: top-level climate denier, lobbyist, and supporter of many polluting energy companies. He’s a science skeptic and ally to companies with long histories of pollution.
From this article: The Environmental Protection Agency plays a vital role in protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink and the climate on which we rely. Ebell, however, denies the science of climate change. He opposes policies to protect clean air and water. He has a history of supporting policies that protect polluter profits over public health. In fact, he directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which received donations from polluters like Exxon and Murray Energy.
It’s hard to imagine a time at which the EPA served a more important role than it does right now. The U.S. has made considerable progress towards cleaning up the environment in the past two decades, with respect to auto emissions, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and a host of other areas. Donald Trump has announced that he’ll be undoing all that—and it’s easy to see that this is exactly what will happen in the absence of a strong EPA.
Yet we see the sad truth: The fox is guarding the hen-house.
It is worse than Reagan’s appointee James Watt, who tried to mine all the national parks.
Agreed. I had forgotten about him. 🙂
A TRUMPERIAN ERA OF BLACK SWANS DELIVERING KNOW NOTHINGNESS IS THE AGENDA that the Drum Beats usher in……..Stand Tall and Lean into the Wind…
Progress generally occurs two steps forward, one step back, repeat over and over. It appears that we are now taking the one step back. Unfortunately, it is a one step back that we cannot afford.
Craig,
Good grief, it would be hard to find a less qualified, less suitable candidate to oversea the EPA than Myron Ebell !
I’ve always defended the right for advocates like Eball to express their opinion, and on some issues can see some veracity in their criticisms of excesses in claims made by various “green” and leftist advocates.
Obama did display a tendency to push the EPA into a more activist political role, which the EPA in general rejected. In some respects the EPA has overstepped it’s authority, and been bureaucratically inflexible.
The political stances in recent years by some EPA employees in relation some issues did require disciplinary action and reminding that the EPA is a non-partisan public service organization.
However, those minor observations aside, the EPA is one of the most important organizations within the US federal administration. It’s very important that it’s mission remain untainted by political or ideological bias. The work of the EPA is just too valuable to be compromised.
Which is why, Myron Ebell is a bizarrely ill-equipped person to oversee any government department, let alone the EPA.
This is the one appointment, where the new President should have followed Reagan’s example and appointed a shrewd, capable fair minded, moderate, with a history of successful public service administration.
As a person, Myron Ebell is bright, charming and very entertaining, but he just so unsuitable to be a public servant. I wouldn’t expect the equally sincere, Bill McKibben, or any other heavily partisan advocate, to seek such an appointment. Myron Eball should have refused the appointment,for his Presidents sake, and recommended someone more suitable.
The EPA has an awesome amount of power. It’s in the invidious position of not only formulating policy, but possessing policing, enforcement and powers of prosecution. It’s sense of independence from political influence and responsibility to the wider community must be maintained.
Not a good portent for things to come !
Hey! We agree on something! 🙂
Craig,
I general, I fear giving administrative power to ideologues of any persuasion.
Having an Executive Presidency with an non elected can have some benefits. The President can persuade an individual with unique talent, who may not wish to participate in the the political arena, to serve the nation.
The Westminster system only allows members of parliament to serve as Cabinet ministers. While this has the advantage of making members of cabinet answerable to the electorate, and/or parliament, it can also produce Ministers who know nothing about the departments for which they’re responsible.(or anything much for that matter !).
I fear we’re going to see a Presidency that reveals all the weaknesses and flaws in the US system. The danger of
Obama stretching presidential power, was the next incumbent would seize upon the precedent as an excuse to further abuse presidential privilege.
If ever there was a President who desperately needed a strong, pragmatic, shrewd and experienced cabinet, it’s this President-elect ! Unfortunately, his appointments are those of a business operator, where executives can be easily fired and replaced until the right people are appointed.
Government service just isn’t like that. I also fear for the morale and tenure of those dedicated officials within the EPA. Many officials have irreplaceable knowledge. If, as I suspect, the employees retire, or resign, the effectiveness of the department may be compromised.
The real danger of such an event, is the next administration may then recruit zealous activists to replace Trump appointees and the EPA’s reputation and effectiveness will be further eroded and dragged into a political morass.
Far from reforming Washington, even with the best of intent, Trump may inadvertently make things worse by destroying conventional safeguards simply because he doesn’t fully understand, or value, a nonpolitical civil service.
He should listen more to his sister.