The EPA presented a proposal that seeks to limit the role of science in environmental policies. In this way, the environmental agency of the United States could reject scientific evidence in areas such as pollution and public health. Democratic politicians affirm that this norm has not transparency and that it only seeks to benefit private interests of the industries that emit polluting particles.
By José Díaz
Servindi, 20 July, 2018.- Although the resign of Scott Pruitt from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seemed a good sign a month ago, the fact is that this would not change the environmental policies made by Donald Trump. This because the agency would try to implement a new rule that would affect the fight against pollution.
This last since EPA would seek to introduce a proposal to limit the role of science in decision-making in areas such as pollution and risks to public health. This intention would seek to undervalue scientific research that affects the private interests of companies whose activities involve elevated levels of emission.
The proposal, which for now is on debate, would have been proposed by the administration of the controversial Scott Pruitt before he left the EPA involved in multiple investigations for irregularities in his position.
The concern is not only in the academic sector but also in the representatives of the Democratic Party because in this way the EPA may reject the results of scientific studies on the environment before making decisions on environmental policy.
Accumulating rejection
The first sector to protest this proposal have been the American Democratic politicians who have questioned the lack of transparency with which the initiatives in the EPA are handled. According to the New York representative, Paul Tonko, this proposal would seek to limit critical investigations with the main broadcasting industries.
This has nothing to do with transparency. It’s a thinly veiled campaign to limit research that supports critical regulatory action, said Tonko.
This same position is shared by the Democratic representative of Oregon, Suzanne Bonamici who has affirmed that the proposal of the EPA should be quickly rejected by the Parliament. According to the legislator, this legal initiative would only seek to benefit the private interests of some political sectors.
It should be remembered that in past the EPA has used scientific research to formulate environmental policies. One of the most memorable was the one conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health that tested the link between air pollution and death rates in the northern United States.
It may interest you
World: #IndigenousPeople possess a quarter of the global territory → https://t.co/dfmLe8BLQt pic.twitter.com/IJZ7PW18nt
— Servindi (@Servindi) 19 de julio de 2018
Añadir nuevo comentario