With everything that’s going on in the world, sometimes it can be hard to focus on the inscrutable machinations of the policy making process. But don’t let the obscurity and bureaucratic complexity fool you. There is a life and death battle being fought right now in the EPA.
We’ve spent the past couple of years watching as Trump’s EPA has acted at the behest of polluters to transform the agency’s scientific advisory panels into industry-approved rubber stamps. Those efforts will likely pay off this week, as the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) meets to discuss whether pollution limits should be lowered, or if we should allow more Americans to die so polluters can earn a little more money.
Unfortunately, because the CASAC have been stacked with faux-experts handpicked by polluters, odds are slim the outcome will be a win for public health. And new reporting this week by PoliticoPRO’s Alex Guillén shows just how broken the EPA’s advisory system has become.
In normal times, these sorts of panels consist mainly of university scientists who study the details of the issue, with one or two experts there to represent the industry. For example, 90 percent of members of the PM2.5 (soot) panel that Wheeler disbanded were from academia, and 77 percent of the ozone panel were researchers.
And in normal times, advisory boards can expand to allow for new members with specific expertise, but Wheeler ended that practice. However, after pressure from the 7-person CASAC group, he decided to allow for the creation of a non-voting advisory group for the advisory committee.
While the official CASAC group meets over the course of this week, the 12-person advisory group is calling in (as can you!). According to documents obtained by Politico, Wheeler made it a point to make sure this secondary advisory group is heavily biased towards industry.
In the pool of 56 people nominated to advise the advisors, 43 were academics, 10 from industry or consulting, and three from federal or state agencies. Wheeler ignored the government agency nominees all together, and chose to appoint an equal number from the remaining groups, six of the 43 academics (14%) and six of the 10 industry experts (60%).
So while yes, as the EPA pointed out, technically having it be half academics and half industry is a balance of sorts. But the fact that that even split came from a nomination pool that was three-quarters academics “shows they stacked the deck,” UCS’s Gretchen Goldman told Politico.
And she would know! After Wheeler disbanded the PM2.5 advisory board, UCS reassembled it so that experts could still weigh in on the question of pollution limits.
Last time they met, Wheeler’s polluter-packed board was split, 4-2, supporting the Administration's decision to leave the limit where it is. But, as Guillén reported, the reconstituted Independent panel put together by UCS recommended the same thing as the EPA career staff: lowering it by as much as a third.
And the impact this will have is not theoretical. Recent research found that we could save as many as 200,000 American lives by further reducing PM2.5 pollution. Unfortunately, after years of declining levels, PM2.5 levels started rising again in 2016, leading to an estimated 10,000 additional deaths through 2018.
Let’s just hope the weight of 10,000 caskets is enough to counterbalance Wheeler’s dedication to the polluters he’s spent his life serving.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: