Let’s begin with a brief history of how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came into being. Established in late 1970 by Pres. Richard Nixon, the goal was to clean up and protect the environment by vigorously attacking pollutants in the air, land and drinking water. Its mission was the protection of the environment and public health.
Congress passed the “Clean Air Act” of 1970 and the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act” two years later. In 1990, with climate change hastening, amendments to the “Clean Air Act” saw the growth of the EPA’s responsibilities by advancing new regulations. A few examples are, a broader hazardous air pollutant program; technological standards for nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants; programs to control sulfur dioxide.
Fast forward to the 21st century where we are now experiencing global catastrophic storms much more frequently, resulting in an immediate need to act quickly and decisively. While the Biden Administration has been doing just that, the manifesto chapter on the EPA paints it as an “assault” on the energy sector, accusing the Administration of making coal, natural gas and oil operations expensive and unreachable. The accusation includes “forcing the economy to build out and rely on unreliable renewables. This approach has also been applied to pesticides and chemicals as the Biden Administration pushes the “greening” of agriculture and manufacturing among other industrial activities.”
The plans call for changing EPA rules using “pause and review teams,” reassess all current settlement suits, ending all grants to advocacy groups and reducing personnel. Coastlines and lands under federal control would be opened up to coal, gas and oil extraction. This would include fracking using accelerated review procedures. Lands that had previously been withdrawn due to endangered species, historical and wilderness protections would now be included. Plans for recreational development on leased federal lands would get faster approval. According to the manifesto, “the United States has an obligation to develop the vast oil and gas and coal resources for which it is responsible.”
Their plans include repealing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which is bringing money to the states for renewable energy jobs. They plan on abolishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) whose job it is (among many others) is to measure the damage done to air and water, calling that “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.” They feel there is a need for “Science Policy Reforms” and would allow the EPA to espouse citizen science (what IS that?), deputizing the public to become watchdogs in areas such as data analysis, pointing out scientific flaws and researching negligence or mismanagement.
Citizen science?
These plans would accelerate extreme weather and negative climate effects. For some states, New Hampshire being one, flooding is of great concern. According to NOAA, the country experienced 23 climate disasters last year, resulting in at least a billion dollars worth of damage. With the average at around nine per year, last year’s was the most ever in one year. But hey, let’s get rid of this department, they’re scaring people with facts. . .
An important question to ask candidates this year are their thoughts about climate change and if enough is being done to address it. If they tell you it’s all a hoax, then it looks like you have your answer. Vote accordingly.