An agency in crisis
S
ometimes an intervention is needed to save an old friend, to convince them to change their destructive ways. That’s how I feel about the U.S. EPA. The agency is in danger of irrelevancy and of losing its credibility on the environment. I hate to see a friend in crisis. In the past year, EPA lost a major lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court over whether CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant; EPA denied permission to California and 17 other states seeking to control greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles (those states are now suing EPA); and the agency lost a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals over its plan to slow the regulation of mercury emissions from large coal-fired power plants. During the past 4 years, EPA has lost 10 separate lawsuits concerning air regulations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit alone. Its science is being investigated by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for industry bias (Chem. Eng. News 2008, 86 [15], 35). How has the largest environmental agency in the world become the most frequent defender of pollution? California Clean Car campaign. When states become so frustrated that they mandate “clean cars” and greenhouse gas controls on their own, and when EPA blocks their moves, the agency has totally lost its way. I’m reminded of the climate convention delegate from Papua New Guinea who implored the U.S. during climate negotiations in Bali last December, “If you cannot lead, please get out of the way.” Mercury from power plants. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin and is transferred from the air to fish to humans—fetuses are exposed to mercury through cord blood from their mothers. About 6% of U.S. women of childbearing age have blood mercury levels that are above the established reference dose for health effects. When the agency in charge of protecting human health tries to slow the process for reducing mercury emissions even though such a large population is at risk, something is gravely wrong. It wasn’t always this way. There was real hope as recently as March 2005, when Stephen Johnson was appointed by President George W. Bush to replace outgoing EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt. Environmentalists were excited to have a toxicologist become the first career scientist ever appointed to run the agency. Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group, a leading watch-
© 2008 American Chemical Society
dog on chemicals in the environment, called it “a spectacularly good appointment.” Carl Pope of the Sierra Club said Johnson was “the best we could expect.” Perhaps more prescient was Joan Mulhern at Earthjustice, who observed, “It’s hard to imagine . . . that the administration has any intention of bringing on board an independent voice. We’ve seen no indication that he is inclined to go against the grain.” We’re all disappointed, but probably not nearly as disappointed as the people who actually work for EPA. On April 24, the Union of Concerned Scientists released results of a survey mailed to 5400 staff scientists at EPA. Of them, 1586 responded, and nearly two-thirds wrote that they had experienced recent political interference with their work. These are dedicated professionals, many of whom joined EPA (idealistically) to protect the environment. They deserve better, and so does the nation. The agency has experienced dark days before in its 38-year history, and I suppose it will again. Remember the 1981 appointment of Anne Gorsuch Burford, EPA administrator under former president Ronald Reagan, who was tasked with (essentially) dismantling EPA, drastically reducing its budget, and morphing it into the Industrial Protection Agency? EPA was in crisis, with mass resignations over a conflict of interest involving the Superfund program. Burford was found in contempt of Congress and resigned in 1983. I will never forget the day, after Burford resigned, that William Ruckelshaus, like the Lone Ranger riding to the rescue, spoke to an all-hands meeting at EPA headquarters in Waterside Mall. He had agreed to take over as interim administrator. The energy and enthusiasm among the staff were palpable and contagious. The agency was back. Now EPA is in crisis again. By abdicating its leadership role as chief protector of the environment and human health, it risks irrelevancy. But the damage doesn’t have to be permanent—it’s nothing that a change of administration can’t fix.
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected] June 1, 2008 / Environmental Science & Technology ■ 3907
