Zinke’s controversial, EPA-style ‘secret science’ order isn’t going over well with Democrats
"Trump’s EPA scraps air pollution science review panels "Who Is Andrew Wheeler, Trump's New EPA Chief?""
Experts worry national parks and endangered species could be heavily impacted by the proposal.
E.A. Crunden Oct 12, 2018, 11:51 am
The Teton Range, a mountain range of the Rocky Mountains, is seen from Jackson Hole, Wyoming, United States on July 12, 2018. CREDIT: Patrick Gorski/NurPhoto via Getty Images
House Democrats are calling on Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to stand down from plans to rein in the use of confidential data when crafting agency policies, a controversial move that follows similar efforts to limit the use of science at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In addition to Grijalva, the letter was signed by Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman (CA), Donald McEachin (VA), and Niki Tsongas (MA). They warned that what sounds like an effort for more transparency will actually limit the type of science used in decision-making.
These limitations could endanger ecosystems and sacred Native American spaces. Thursday’s letter notes that polar bear habitat protections and safeguards against drilling in the Arctic are among the areas that could be impacted by the rule.
Rather than helping ensure “the best available science” is used in policymaking, Grijalva and his co-signers say, approaches like the one taken by the Interior Department will only favor partisan interests.
“We are skeptical that this waiver provision is anything but another layer of protection for the fossil-fuel industry at the expense of scientific integrity,” the letter emphasizes, concluding by calling on Zinke to rescind the order.
Zinke’s “open science” order appears to be following the EPA’s lead. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), a long-time denier of climate change, has used his position .. https://thinkprogress.org/zinke-rolling-back-offshore-oil-and-gas-production-safety-rules-0b1b4d6c49c4/ .. as House Science, Space, and Technology chairman to encourage so-called “secret science” orders without much success or support from his peers. Under former administrator Scott Pruitt, however, the EPA embraced such ideas and the agency has pushed ahead with efforts to implement limitations on science. Advertisement
These types of policies would require decision-makers to rely only on scientific studies where the underlying data used by the researchers is made public.
A lot of data if released, however, would violate patient privacy or industry confidentiality. In many instances, it could open up scientists to attacks from individuals or industries looking to distort the data. The impact would also be to impose a dramatic burden on government officials compiling the data, effectively limiting their ability to introduce new protections for health and the environment.
Scientists and environmentalists have expressed concern that public lands and endangered species could be compromised by such limitations. A significant amount of long-established environmental research is sourced from private and confidential data, something that is largely true of scientific research more broadly.
But the Trump administration has indicated an interest in restricting the use of private data, a move that experts largely agree would hinder science — it would potentially rule out the use of valuable personal or sensitive information typically made anonymous upon publication for privacy concerns.
At the EPA under Pruitt, the agency in April proposed .. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-rule-strengthen-science-used-epa-regulations .. a “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule that would have a similar impact to the one proposed at the Interior Department. While the Interior order allows more leeway and gives staff the opportunity to use science at their own discretion so long as they can explain their reasoning, Democrats nonetheless took aim at the similarities in their letter.
“Both policies threaten the suppression of scientific information not aligned with this administration’s agenda under the auspices of improving science-based decision-making,” the letter reads.
Heather Swift, an Interior agency spokesperson, defended the move to BuzzFeed News .. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/trump-interior-limits-science .. in October as an effort to combat criticisms of the department’s opaque decision-making process and accusations about “cherry picking” science.
“The goal is for the Department to play with its cards face-up, so that the American people can see how the Department is analyzing important public policy issues and be confident that it is using the best information available to inform its decisions,” Swift told the publication.
But Thursday’s letter argues that even outside of the new open science order, the agency seems to be actively undermining science. The letter highlights the secretary’s own conflict-laden requirements of those submitting research proposals, which are reportedly undermining the role of science in the agency.
“DOI policy also now requires the review of all cooperative agreements and grants over $50,000 by a political appointee with a bachelor’s degree in business administration and a long-standing friendship with you, but no apparent qualifications to review scientific grants,” the letter notes, referencing a report .. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/22/17767146/ryan-zinke-interior-climate-research-football-buddy .. that research proposals are being reviewed by Steve Howke, senior adviser to the Interior’s acting assistant secretary of policy, management, and budget, Scott Cameron.
Howke is a close personal friend of Zinke’s and, among other things, the pair played high school football together. Climate scientists say that Howke is holding up their research funding, which pertains to pressing topics like the role of global warming in fueling natural disasters.
Experts have largely decried so-called “secret science” efforts for years but until recently they were largely without weight. That appears to have changed at both the EPA and Interior Department, likely thanks to the influence of lawmakers like Smith.
Scott Pruitt’s Attack on Science Would Paralyze the E.P.A. By Gina McCarthy and Janet G. McCabe [Note: Pruitt is gone, Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, is now acting head.] Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has announced that he alone will decide what is and isn’t acceptable science for the agency to use when developing policies that affect your health and the environment. It is his latest effort to cripple the agency. Mr. Pruitt, who as Oklahoma’s attorney general described himself as “a leading advocate against the E.P.A.’s activist agenda,” said in an interview published in The Daily Caller last week that he would no longer allow the agency to use studies that include nonpublic scientific data to develop rules to safeguard public health and prevent pollution. Opponents of the agency and of mainstream climate science call these studies “secret science.” But that’s simply not true. Peer review ensures that the analytic methodologies underlying studies funded by the agency are sound. Some of those studies, particularly those that determine the effects of exposure to chemicals and pollution on health, rely on medical records that by law are confidential because of patient privacy policies. These studies summarize the analysis of raw data and draw conclusions based on that analysis. Other government agencies also use studies like these to develop policy and regulations, and to buttress and defend rules against legal challenges. They are, in fact, essential to making sound public policy. The agency also relies on industry data to develop rules on chemical safety that is often kept confidential for business reasons. For instance, foundational epidemiological research into the effects of air pollution on health by scientists at Harvard and the American Cancer Society established a clear connection between exposure to fine particles and increased mortality. This research led to further studies that supported the development of air quality standards and rules requiring industry to reduce pollution, improving health and reducing costs for millions of Americans. Yet, because the personal health data associated with individuals participating in the studies were obtained with guarantees of confidentiality, Mr. Pruitt apparently would have argued for those studies to be tossed out had he been at the helm then. The E.P.A. administrator simply can’t make determinations on what science is appropriate in rule-making without calling into question decisions by other federal agencies based on similar kinds of studies, including on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, and research into cancer and other diseases. All rely to some extent on data from individual health records. If one agency rejects studies based on that sort of data, it could open up policies by other agencies based on similar studies to challenge. Mr. Pruitt — who is a lawyer, not a scientist — told The Daily Caller: “We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record. Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.” We don’t have the details of the new policy. But don’t be fooled by this talk of transparency. He and some conservative members of Congress are setting up a nonexistent problem in order to prevent the E.P.A. from using the best available science. These studies adhere to all professional standards and meet every expectation of the scientific community in terms of peer review and scientific integrity. In the case of the air pollution studies, a rigorous follow-up examination was done by the Health Effects Institute, a nonprofit research group that studies air pollution. The institute corroborated the findings. In taking this action, Mr. Pruitt appears to be adopting the policies of the Honest and Open New E.P.A. Science Treatment Act, a bill aimed at the agency. Conservative lawmakers have tried to pass versions of this bill before to shackle the agency’s rule making. That law would prohibit the E.P.A. from taking any action “unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support” it is “specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.” An analysis of a similar bill introduced in 2015 by the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $250 million a year over the first few years to carry out because it would require new “data collection, correspondence and coordination with study authors, construction of a database to house necessary information, and public dissemination” of the information. The analysis, which did not appear to take into account the cost of redacting details like trade secrets or personally identifiable medical information, also predicted the agency would reduce by half the number of studies it relies on in developing policies and regulations because of the cost of complying with the law. “The quality of the agency’s work would be compromised if that work relies on a significantly smaller collection of scientific studies,” the analysis found. This approach would undermine the nation’s scientific credibility. And should Mr. Pruitt reconsider regulations now in place, this new policy could be a catalyst for the unraveling of existing public health protections if the studies used to justify them could no longer be used by E.P.A. So why would he want to prohibit his own agency from using these studies? It’s not a mystery. Time and again the Trump administration has put the profits of regulated industries over the health of the American people. Fundamental research on the effects of air pollution on public health has long been a target of those who oppose the E.P.A.’s air quality regulations, like the rule that requires power plants to reduce their mercury emissions. Mr. Pruitt’s goal is simple: No studies, no data, no rules. No climate science, for instance, means no climate policy. If a tree falls in the forest, we know it makes a sound, even if people aren’t there to hear it. When people are exposed to mercury, lead or other air- and waterborne pollutants, we know their health is affected, whether or not E.P.A. is allowed to use the scientific studies that confirm those health impacts. This policy no doubt will become a matter of litigation. It will be interesting to hear the agency defend Mr. Pruitt’s view that peer-reviewed studies that meet every standard for proper scientific method and integrity should not be considered in drafting policies and regulations that regulate threats to the environment. Representative Bill Foster, a physicist and Democrat from Illinois, has argued that “scientists should set the standards for research, not politicians.” We couldn’t agree more. Scientific research provides factual support for policies that reduce exposure to pollution and protect the American people from costly and dangerous illnesses and premature deaths. Under Mr. Pruitt’s approach to science, the E.P.A. would be turning its back on its mandate to “protect human health and the environment.” Gina McCarthy was the E.P.A. administrator from 2013 to 2017. Janet G. McCabe was acting assistant administrator of the E.P.A’s Office of Air and Radiation from 2013 to 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/pruitt-attack-science-epa.html .. from stashed March 29, 2018:, in post headed .. As North Korea Talks with China, South Korea & Japan, Could Bolton Derail Denuclearization Progress? https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140431251
America's great strides in cutting smog at risk of being eroded, experts warn
"Trump’s EPA scraps air pollution science review panels "Who Is Andrew Wheeler, Trump's New EPA Chief?" "
This article is more than 1 year old
Scientists and health experts say Trump administration’s bid to undo pollution rules are ‘extremely counterintuitive and worrying’
Oliver Milman in New York @olliemilman
Tue 1 May 2018 19.04 EDT Last modified on Wed 2 May 2018 09.48 EDT
A cable car travels from Roosevelt Island to Manhattan. New Yorkers breathe air that is far cleaner that in London or Berlin, the WHO has found. Photograph: Chris Tobin/Getty Images
America’s leading cities have some of the cleanest urban air in the world but huge advances made in reducing smog are in danger of falling backwards, experts are warning.
New Yorkers breathe air that is 800 times less polluted than Delhi’s and twice as clean as in London and Berlin, the World Health Organization reported.
Many of the luckier one in 10 people are found in US cities such as New York, Miami and Boston. Here, air quality has improved dramatically since landmark environmental regulations in the 1970s started to disperse the choking smogs that commonly lingered there and over cities such as Los Angeles, confining people indoors on warm days, the WHO said.
But US scientists and public health officials have warned that the stunning improvements in American cities have already starting to slow and are even in danger of reversing. They point to diminishing returns from existing regulations and the Trump administration’s zeal in demolishing recent rules designed to improve air quality and combat climate change.
“The actions of this administration are extremely counterintuitive and worrying,” said Christine Todd Whitman, who was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under president George W Bush. “Time will be lost, pollution will be increased and lives will be endangered. It’s not that we will turn into Beijing or Delhi tomorrow but people take clean air for granted now and we can’t slide back to the smogs we once had.”
"This agenda is very detrimental. It will slow progress and in some instances make things worse Dr George Thurston, NYU
Enforcement of the Clean Air Act to reduce harmful emissions from heavy industry and transportation has seen levels of the six most common air toxins, including lead and particulate matter, drop by 50% in the US since 1970 despite growth in population and economic activity, according to the EPA. These six pollutants can cause or worsen a host of health issues, ranging from runny eyes to asthma and heart disease.
However, this progress has slowed in recent years. A new analysis of satellite data by the National Center for Atmospheric Research .. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/24/1801191115 .. found that reductions in pollutants that cause ground-level ozone, or smog, “slowed down dramatically” between 2011 and 2015.
This slowdown, of around 76% compared to 2005 to 2009, is sharper than is shown in EPA data, which typically uses ground-level monitoring. The study’s authors suggest the lagging progress could be down to decreasing relative contributions from vehicle emissions reduction technology and a worse than expected impact from heavy duty diesel trucks.
“More reductions are still necessary – ozone is still too high in many places in the US,” said Noelle Eckley Selin, an air pollution expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who wasn’t involved in the study.
“Continued improvement is not a given even with existing regulations; repealing relevant standards could even make air quality worse. Policies that repeal emission standards and encourage more fossil fuel use move us in the wrong direction for air quality and human health.”
Concern over a regression in air quality stems from a whirlwind of deregulation instigated by the EPA under administrator Scott Pruitt, a self-described opponent of the “activist agenda” of the regulator.
The clean power plan, the centerpiece of the Obama administration climate change effort, is in the process of being dismantled, with Pruitt claiming that it improperly uses clean air laws to curb emissions from coal fired power plants. The EPA previously estimated .. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-numbers.html .. that the plan would prevent 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks and 90,000 asthma attacks per year.
Boston has undergone significant improvement in its air quality since the 1970s. Photograph: DenisTangneyJr/Getty Images/iStockphoto
“This agenda is very detrimental. It will slow progress and in some instances make things worse,” said George Thurston, who specializes in environmental hazards at the New York University School of Medicine. “The problems won’t be evident to the average person, because people have heart attacks and asthma attacks for various reasons. But that harm will be there, it will happen.”
Thurston said the reversals could even hamper air quality improvements overseas. “The US is showing a failure of leadership,” he said. “If the developing world sees we are not serious about climate change and air pollution, they will be less willing to do something. It’s really irresponsible on the part of the administration.”
It remains unclear how successful Pruitt’s EPA will be in repealing its targeted regulations, given stiff resistance from environmental groups and some states via the courts. The agency didn’t respond to a request for comment on its agenda.
On Tuesday, the EPA revealed .. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-04/documents/placeholder.pdf .. that 51 areas in 22 states do not meet ozone standards, after being ordered by a federal court not to delay the publication of its assessment. The administration is facing a further fight after 17 states, led by California and New York, sued to protect California’s waiver to enforce stricter vehicle emissions rules than the federal standard.
“The administration will lose in court over a lot of these regulations because you can’t just get rid of them on a whim,” said Whitman. “What will be lost, though, is the institutional knowledge at the EPA. A lot of people are leaving in frustration and young people looking for a career are hardly looking to the EPA because it’s deemed unimportant. The damage has been done.”
dropdeadfred, Ok, no one suggests Trump's trade war is not hitting China hard. Firstly, [...] Trumpism Is Bad for Business It’s hard to make plans when the rules keep changing. By Paul Krugman [...] It turns out, however, that many businesses want to keep those regulations in place. Major oil and gas producers oppose .. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/business/energy-environment/methane-regulation-reaction.html?module=inline .. Trump’s relaxation of rules on emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Major auto producers have come out against Trump’s attempt to roll back fuel efficiency standards .. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/climate/trump-auto-emissions-rollback-disarray.html?module=inline . In fact, in a move that has reportedly enraged Trump, several companies have reached an agreement with the state of California to stick with Obama-era rules despite the change in federal policy.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
