Tag Archives: EPA

It’s Time to Rescind This Trump-Era Restriction on the Clean Air Act

Posted on by

Photo: Gene Daniels, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

 

I, like 7% of US kids, grew up with asthma. One family road trip to California turned into a nightmare when we stopped for gas just inside the San Joaquin Valley. I had barely hopped out of the minivan when I felt my lungs tighten. Within seconds, I was doubled over, wheezing. Every inhale felt like needles were poking into the walls of my lungs, and every exhale was a pathetic little puff. Luckily, I had easy access to my rescue inhaler, and I made it out of the situation safely. But the memory will always stick with me.

This was my first run in with the realities of air pollution, but this isn’t a story about me, or even about the San Joaquin Valley, where twice as many kids have asthma compared to the national average. It’s about an arcane system of environmental rules that leaves us all vulnerable to such threats

Like me, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan was once an asthmatic kid. Now, the EPA he leads has the power to improve air quality for all of us, asthmatic or not. And you and I have the power to help him do it.

In December 2020, after Donald Trump knew he’d be leaving office and President Joe Biden would be his successor, the Trump White House raced to cement its legacy of environmental deregulation.

One of their last-minute actions is especially concerning. It has the unfortunately long title “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process.” From here on out, I’ll just call it the Cost-Benefit rule. Trump’s EPA Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, touted the Cost-Benefit rule for improving consistency and transparency in rulemaking.

The rule requires EPA economists to split up the expected economic improvements from any new Clean Air Act rule into “benefits” and “co-benefits.” Benefits are narrowly defined as improvements directly targeted by a new rule, while every other improvement gets relegated to co-benefit status.

Let’s say a new rule targets sulfur dioxide emission to reduce acid rain. But reducing sulfur dioxide emissions will also likely reduce fine particulate matter emissions, which are correlated with use of rescue inhalers for asthma symptoms.

But all of the dollars saved when folks with asthma breathe easier as a result of our hypothetical rule don’t count under the Cost-Benefit rule. They’re just co-benefits.

Industry stakeholders flooded the EPA with public comments in support of the Cost-Benefit rule, giving the Trump EPA an easy way to rationalize the rule. Under the rule, polluters could push back against Clean Air Act measures by excluding co-benefits, which can play an important role in justifying new environmental regulations.

Excluding co-benefits made it easier for polluters to challenge Clean Air Act measures in court, slip out from underneath them, and continue polluting. If co-benefits can be ignored, or downplayed as they were under the Trump administration, new Clean Air Act measures are harder to justify based on cost-benefit  analysis  alone.

A decade after my asthma attack outside that California gas station, 82 million Americans still live in counties with air pollution above national standards. There is still work to be done. Lives are on the line. Counting co-benefits can save lives.

This is where the Biden EPA’s effort to rescind the Cost-Benefit rule comes in. It’s where we the people have the power! The EPA under Trump used public comment from industry to justify the creation of the Cost-Benefit rule, and the EPA under Biden can use public comments from you in its rationale for rescinding the rule.

From now until June 14, 2021, the EPA is collecting public comments on rescinding the Cost-Benefit rule. Please, for all of us who will breathe a little easier knowing that the EPA can use the best information available to make rules to protect us, submit a comment. When you submit a substantive comment, the EPA is required to respond to your concerns  in the text of the final regulation.

It’s time to take a stand against conservative politicians and corporate polluters weakening our environmental protections. The EPA is and should be for the people. We’re taking it back.

What You Should Know About Biden’s EPA

Posted on by

 

Photo: Gage Skidmore

 

“A cry for survival comes from the planet itself. A cry that can’t be any more desperate or any more clear.” President Biden made clear in his Inaugural Address that addressing environmental degradation would be a high priority for his administration. Repairing an EPA weakened by the Trump administration will be key to making that happen, but just what kind of EPA is Biden inheriting from the Trump administration before him?

 

How did Trump change the EPA?

In a word: rollbacks. During his term as President, Trump completed 98 rollbacks of environmental policy. Most of these involved the EPA.

EPA rollbacks under Trump left critical wetland habitats unprotected and weakened limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and vehicles. Rules on the disposal of coal ash and other air pollutants were eroded. Rollbacks allowed facilities that pollute the environment to emit more hazardous materials without fearing that the EPA would find them in violation of rules.

The Trump EPA reduced inspections of polluting facilities, and even gave facilities advance warning of inspections, lessening their effectiveness.

Trump’s limitations on inspecting facilities that pollute and weaker rules to enforce added up. The number of EPA cases against polluters plummeted under the Trump administration.

Trump also made it more difficult for the EPA to make new rules with an arbitrary “one in, two out” executive order requiring the EPA to rescind two rules for every new one implemented. 

We are already seeing the consequences of Trump’s EPA. Deaths due to air pollution in the US have increased, at least in part because of weakened enforcement on air pollution. 

And none of this includes how Trump set the nation back in addressing the global climate crisis!

 

What has Biden’s EPA done so far?

The rollbacks are being rolled back, and progress is being  made- but slowly.

Biden issued an executive order directing agencies to “hold polluters accountable”, signaling that the EPA may get its enforcement groove back. 

He has also revoked some Trump-era executive orders that hindered the regulatory role of the EPA, including the “one in, two out” rule.

The Senate confirmed the appointment of Michael Regan, former head of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, as EPA Administrator. In his former role, Regan focused on environmental justice and increasing inspection capacity — areas that were not a priority for the Trump administration.

Immediately upon taking office, Biden established a White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council within the EPA. This demonstrates a renewed effort to address the  disproportionate harms that environmental hazards pose to marginalized communities in the US.

 

What does Biden want to accomplish for the environment?

Biden has centered his environmental agenda around job creation. The American Jobs Plan, announced on March 31, but not yet put before Congress, reflects this.

The American Jobs Plan  focuses on improving physical infrastructure. Environmental health will improve as infrastructure improves, at least in theory.

Under this plan, transportation policy would get an overhaul. Federal funding for public transportation would double, so transit systems could hire more employees, serve more riders, and keep cars off the road, reducing emissions. 

The government would make massive investments in electric vehicle production, making American transportation more compatible with sources of renewable energy in the long term. 

The plan also includes investments in developing resilience against climate-driven disasters like hurricanes.

Provisions for improved utilities aim to put the nation on track for carbon-free electricity by 2035. Buildings all over the US, especially those used for public housing, are slated to be retrofitted for energy efficiency.

The plan also calls for the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps to get more Americans working in climate resilience and conservation efforts while bolstering labor unions.

The fate of this $2.2 trillion plan rests with Congress. The Biden administration is meeting with leaders on Capitol Hill to drum up bipartisan support. Biden hopes to have the plan passed by this summer.

 

What if the plan doesn’t pass through Congress?

Luckily for the Biden administration, some of what is included in the American Jobs Plan can be accomplished by executive order.

Some of what is not possible through executive order is possible through corporate action, according to John Kerry, Biden’s Special Envoy for Climate. For example, the transition from gas and diesel to electricity-powered vehicles looks inevitable, and companies are planning for the electric future accordingly. The biggest companies in America are moving towards a greener marketplace, and “no politician in the future is going to undo this.”

 

What does the American Jobs Plan have to do with the EPA?

If passed as proposed, the American Jobs Plan would give the EPA the funding necessary to accomplish long-held environmental goals. 

The American Jobs Plan includes $45 billion to replace all of America’s lead water service lines. This would mean that no community in the US ever suffers water-borne lead poisoning again. 

Other water infrastructure is up for an overhaul, too. $56 billion will be offered to states, tribes, and communities in grants and low-cost loans to revamp waste, storm, and drinking water systems.

Funding these projects is good for environmental and economic health, as evidenced by the 300,000 jobs created over the last two years by EPA water infrastructure programs. 

The plan also includes $5 billion to clean up contaminated Superfund and Brownfields sites, and to develop the workforce necessary for cleanup. 

Surprisingly, school buses are another target of the EPA under the American Jobs Plan. The plan provides for 20% of yellow school buses in the US to run on electricity instead of diesel. This would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve student and driver health.

 

Between reversing  Trump-era environmental rollbacks and implementing the measures of the American Jobs Plan if it passes, the EPA under Biden has a lot of work to do. As American lives are lost due to environmental dangers and the climate crisis looms, getting the job done is more important than ever before.

EPA Under Attack: Legacies of Deregulation by Reagan, Bush, and Trump

Posted on by

Photo: US Environmental Protection Agency

 

Donald Trump prevented the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from protecting the environment effectively, but he wasn’t the first US President to do so. In a 2018 paper in the American Journal of Public Health, Leif Fredrickson and colleagues examine the impacts that Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump have had on the EPA.

Why care about this history lesson?

Looking at how these former Presidents used staffing, deregulation, and science to take the EPA apart in the past offers key insights into how President Biden can put the agency back together again today and how to fend off attacks on the EPA in the future.

Let’s look at EPA staffing.

Reagan was the first to hinder the EPA’s mission through staffing. Reagan’s EPA turned down experts with experience in federal government in favor of anti-regulation legislators and industry veterans from fossil fuel companies like Exxon to fill leadership positions. Reagan’s EPA Administrator, Anne Gorsuch, slashed staff by 21% in her two years heading the agency. 

Trump’s EPA took after Reagan when it comes to staffing. The advice of energy executives was prioritized over those of career employees. Trump-proposed staff cuts matched the numbers of the Reagan years, though the Trump proposals did not pass. 

The EPA was sidelined by the anti-regulation priorities of all three presidencies Fredrickson studied.

Under Reagan, deregulation was the name of the EPA’s game. The agency’s Office of Enforcement was dissolved, giving industry less reason to take environmental rules seriously. Reagan’s EPA listened when industry figures complained about regulations such as those phasing out the use of leaded gasoline. It was only after public outcry that the phaseout continued unimpeded.

Bush’s EPA was anti-regulation in subtler ways. Instead of rejecting regulatory action, the EPA avoided having to take action at all by strategically delaying until the chance to act had passed. This was true of chances to strengthen the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. 

Trump took after Reagan with his deregulatory approach to the EPA, but he added his own flair. In an executive order,  Trump required repealing two rules for every new rule enacted, hindering the EPA’s rulemaking ability. Trump’s EPA also repealed the Clean Power Plan, a policy which promised to save lives by reducing particulate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

These administrations manipulated environmental science to suit their political goals without hesitation.

Bush was, frankly, a nightmare for environmental science in the EPA. Under Bush, industry actors gained the right to challenge scientific analyses, slowing the regulatory process. Bush’s EPA gummed up the works of climate science by playing up scientific uncertainty around climate change and prohibiting agency employees from even mentioning the phenomenon.

Trump combined approaches to science from the Reagan and Bush administrations. Like Bush, Trump obscured climate science in EPA resources and discussions. Trump’s EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, planned debates to hash out questions about climate science that have long been settled. Like Reagan, Trump contested the regulation of hazardous materials despite evidence of their dangers. Pruitt overturned a ban on a pesticide that is dangerous to pregnant people and children when ingested in any amount.

Trump seemed like a unique threat to the EPA during his term. In hindsight, he just adapted the worst of Reagan and Bush strategies for his own bombastic brand of governance.

What does all of this tell us about what’s next for the EPA under President Joe Biden?

Just as staffing, regulation, and science can be used to weaken the EPA, restoring their roles at the EPA can strengthen the agency. Biden is already using executive orders to address climate change and return enforcement capabilities to the EPA. How he will “build back better,” as was his mantra on the campaign trail, remains to be seen.

In the long run, no single executive order is going to make environmental health invulnerable to political whims. Nothing is preventing another Trump, Bush, or Reagan from winning the presidency, mismanaging the EPA, and putting our health and our planet’s health in danger. The best we can do is inform ourselves and others on the environmental legacies of our Presidents (as Fredrickson and his colleagues have with this paper) and fight for political candidates who will use the EPA for environmental protection, as it is intended.

Where the Sidewalk Ends: How Cities Can Save the Environment

Posted on by

In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved its regional headquarters in downtown Kansas City to a new building in suburban Lenexa. The new building has water-efficient toilets, energy-efficient hand dryers, underfloor heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems, and, to top it all off, a constructed wetland to sustainably manage 100% of its storm-water. All of these features have become hallmarks of a twenty-first century eco-friendly building.

But it’s also a move with potentially disastrous consequences for the environment.

Jeff Speck, author of Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step At A Time, borrows fellow author David Owen’s term, “LEED brain,” to diagnose the EPA’s problem. LEED refers to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, in which the sustainability of buildings are evaluated against a set of standards during both construction and maintenance. The different categories range from the sourcing of materials to the renewability of the energy used to power the building.

In the case of the EPA’s new building, the carbon saved with the impressive energy-saving measures will never balance out the tons of carbon emitted by the hundreds of employees now commuting daily to its new suburban location. Many of them used to take public transit to the old headquarters in the heart of Kansas City’s downtown. For many, the move added twenty miles or more to their daily commutes.

Speck, a planning professional for over twenty years, believes that Western society’s preoccupation with easy, flashy technological fixes causes less palatable but equally effective solutions to be overlooked. That is exactly why Walkable City is a must-read, and a breath of fresh air, not only for environmentalists, but also for public health professionals, government officials, and concerned citizens.

Speck prefaces his book with the disclaimer that “this is not the next great book on American cities,” even though Walkable City was named the best design/planning book of 2013. This is perhaps because he already co-authored that one: Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream is widely regarded as the seminal work of the twenty-first century planning movement. But where Suburban Nation was about the problem, Walkable City is about the solutions.

Flickr/Rev Stan

 

In Speck’s view, walkability offers more than just benefits for our environment. By reducing air pollution, asthma rates can be drastically lowered, and an active lifestyle can help curb obesity. The number of injurious and fatal car crashes would decrease while increasing productivity, attracting top talent, and stimulating the local economy. In documenting these side effects, Speck invites an audience much wider than his fellow planners to read his book, appealing to those interested in, as he puts it, “health, wealth, and sustainability.”

Speck isn’t all talk and no walk. With data and real-life experience to support his assertions, Walkable City challenges decades of conventional planning wisdom, advocating for narrower roads and lane widths and the eventual elimination of off-street parking (and higher on-street parking prices). These measures, Speck argues, will reduce congestion drastically, and save millions of gallons of fuel. He believes they will also increase the safety and comfort of pedestrians, as well as business revenue.

These policy recommendations add up to his “General Theory of Walkability,” which maintains that American downtowns need to be useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting. The stark contrast drawn between different cities — even sometimes between different neighborhoods — certainly makes it clear that these qualities do indeed have a strong effect on whether the average citizen chooses to go for a stroll or for a drive.

Discussing zoning code reform and other rather dry topics can make for a less than captivating read. Speck, however, has no problem capturing and holding the interest of the reader. Incorporating witty asides such as a quote from George Costanza of Seinfeld and brash statements like “traffic studies are bullshit” into a compelling and serious narrative is not an easy task, but one that Speck has mastered beautifully in Walkable City.

Likewise, with the content of this book, Speck has done the near-impossible: get to the bottom of what is wrong with with our cities and lay out a clear, concise, and most importantly, implementable vision for their future, backed up by decades of research.

In 2012, had Speck consulted the EPA on its new headquarters, it’s a sure bet that he would have pushed very hard to keep them in Kansas City, especially given that the EPA’s presence there was a dam holding back the flood of businesses and families leaving for the suburbs. For Kansas City, and other American cities struggling to turn the tide, Speck has the answer: walkability.