by Phil Kent, SLF President, August 5, 2002
As appeared in Knight-Ridder News Service, distributed nationally
Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does politics. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a designated federal watchdog, consistently fails to convey accurate scientific evidence to its congressional overseers and the public, leaving a gaping hole in the public perception of America's current "clean" air and water status.
Into that gaping hole are rushing the nabobs of environmental politics - U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the National Environmental Trust, the Sierra Club and their allies. Taking advantage of the EPA's lack of focus and glacial-paced reform of regulatory programs responsive to the latest in scientific evidence, the fast-moving agenda-driven groups have seized the public's imagination. According to recent surveys, Americans believe that our air and water are getting worse - despite clear evidence to the contrary.
The EPA's inability and, in some cases, deliberate intent not to convey the best scientific results - even from its own Office of Research and Development - underscores the structural problems with the agency. Administrator Christie Todd Whitman noted the problem in her budget prioritization for 2002, requesting increased funding for the EPA's Science Advisory Board basic research. Her stated goal is to make the EPA a clearinghouse for accurate, timely scientific evidence regarding air, water and ground quality. With 30 years' of regulatory dominance by attorneys and emphasis on short-term goals, the EPA's reformation will be slow in coming.
And, where leadership is lacking, conflict is sure to follow. There are currently more than forty major federal environmental lawsuits involving the EPA, which has joined the energy, chemical and construction industries as prime targets for headline-seeking environmental groups. At stake is more than $1 trillion in combined potential damages, to say nothing of the millionsin taxpayer dollars spent to defend against the sometimes-baseless claims.
U.S. PIRG's "take no prisoners" approach to public policy has particularly muddied the waters. Consider recent "reports," citing questionable scientific methodology, with explosive titles such as "Death, Disease, and Dirty Power;" "Darkening Skies;" and, "Children At Risk." Funded almost entirely by the Pew Charitable Trusts, U.S. PIRG proudly portrays its throwback status in articles like, "Revitalizing the Spirit of the 60s."
In the absense of solid, clear statements from the EPA, U.S. PIRG and others are polluting the public marketplace of ideas.
By admission, the EPA is not a scientific body. Its mandate is broad, covering air quality, water quality, land use issues, wetlands regulations, Endangered Species Act partial enforcement, chemical production, distribution and use, and energy waste disposal. Whitman's lobbying efforts to establish and strengthen a core integrated research program is equally broad, aiming for the EPA to acquire chemical, biological, geological, social and economic understanding of environmental systems and their effect on humans.
While the EPA is not a total failure, given its sweeping responsibilities, the agency has trouble communicating its findings when it has them. Consider the the EPA recently reported that emissions of six principal air pollutants are down 31 percent, while electric generation (of which a large percentage is coal-fire generated) has increased 45 percent in that time.
But the EPA's good news never met the light of day. U.S. PIRG and its allies swamped the agency's information with a controversial "study" conducted by Abt Associates, which linked the operation of coal-fired power plants with alleged airborne sulfate health problems. Widely reported in the general media, the Abt report nevertheless failed to follow accepted scientific methodology and peer review. An April 2002 review by The Annapolis Center's scientific and medical team revealed that the Abt study's "claims of linkages between operating power plants in the U.S. and community ill health lack scientific support."
So where can Americans - including those in Congress - turn for scientifically valid information on the status of our environment? The answer is clear: the millions of American consumers, outdoor enthusiasts, homeowners, and employees of industries targeted by the radical environmentalists, should be able to trust the EPA. Yet until a top-down culture change and refocus of priorities, the EPA will continue to be the weakest link in the national environmental debate.
