Last week, Donald Trump delivered a televised addressed about how his environmental policies have made the United States a cleaner place to live. This week, however, a government watchdog agency is rebuking his administration, saying that the scientists it has appointed to EPA boards may have conflicts of interest because they are industry-funded.
Devaluing science is a strategic move by the Trump administration to ease regulations and allow companies more environmental latitude. But at what cost? While industry may want fewer constraints, it generally does not deny the role that sound science must play on policymaking. Being eco-minded, in fact, is smart business and something that consumers are demanding.
“EPA also did not consistently ensure that members appointed as special government employees — who are expected to provide their best judgment free from conflicts of interest and are required by federal regulations to disclose their financial interests—met federal ethics requirements,” says the report issued by the Government Accountability Office, or GAO.
The watchdog makes specific reference to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The GAO says that the number of academic scientists — who receive no money from regulated industries — dropped by 27% in year one of the Trump administration and by 45% in year two, both for the Science Advisory Board.
Under former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — forced to resign because of ethics complaints — scientists receiving research grants from the agency were precluded from sitting on its boards. That has included hundreds of independent scientists employed by universities but it has not barred scientists employed by oil and natural gas companies.
Critics said that the move has had the practical effect of purging independent scientists and replacing them with those who get their paychecks from fossil-fueled companies. While most such companies want greater leeway, many are now acclimating to running their businesses in a carbon-constrained world — one where their shareholders are demanding greater transparency.
Due Diligence
Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Calpine Corp., Exelon Corp., PG&E Corp., Royal Dutch Shell and Tesla are supportive of mandated carbon cuts. Successful organizations, in fact, not only stand by their shareholders but they also seek to satisfy their communities, customers and employees.
“This (GAO) report shows that the Trump administration rigged influential advisory boards to favor its polluter backers,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said, D-R.I., who is on the Environment and Public Works Committee. “In the process, they also slowed down the work of the committees, delaying key decisions on whether to regulate potentially dangerous environmental hazards.”
The courts have said that federal agencies should consider all known scientific evidence -- necessary for the incorporation of “best available technologies.”
For its part, the Trump administration told several news organizations that it is has doubled the size of the staff involved in trying to weed out potential conflicts. Their goal, it said, was to assure compliance with disclosure rules — hard to believe, given that “lax enforcement” in the last two years has led to 15% more days with unhealthy air, says the Associated Press.
EPA’s role is to protect public health and the environment. While both Republican and Democratic administrations have worked to streamline rules, none until now has sought to install former lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry as the top regulators. That’s the ultimate conflict of interest.
To that end, Trump plans to create a climate commission to combat his own administration’s findings — the ones that conclude manmade CO2 is a threat to the environment and to the economy. The panel would be composed of a who’s-who of industry-backed scientists. Critics say that the potential panelists are outside the mainstream by the globe’s mostly highly-regarded climate experts.
Trump is running for re-election on a platform of white nationalism and anti-socialism. But yet the president has no problem passing along the external costs of extracting minerals onto others, which includes those associated with cleanups and health maintenance: Moody’s Analytics just released a report finding that unmitigated pollution will cost $54 trillion in 2100 under a warming scenario of 1.5 degrees Celsius and $69 trillion under a warming scenario of 2 degrees Celsius.
Harvard University, meanwhile, concluded in 2018 that the cumulative effect of the president’s environmental policies will lead to 80,000 premature deaths. It added that the primary beneficiaries of reduced regulations are corporate shareholders — not the American workforce, or dislocated whites.
The Trump administration has politicized scientific research in an effort to coalesce the president’s base, all to win re-election. But the role of any chief executive is not to assure their own survival but rather, that of the entity they are overseeing. Eliciting research from independent scientists is crucial to that effort — even if their views are in direct conflict with those held by the chief administrator. The GAO is now raising a ‘red flag’ and the American people will be demanding accountability.
