EPA: No Scientists Need Apply

There are a number of ways an Administration can act to cement its legacy in history. One is to set the nation on a course toward a herculean goal, like going to the moon. Another is to expand the blessings of liberty, as in freeing the slaves or extending the vote to women. Yet another is to improve the lives of millions of citizens, such as with introducing Social Security or Medicare.

The Bush Administration is moving in a different direction, trying to make sure that in enforcing the Endangered Species Act the Environmental Protection Agency need listen to no pesky scientific facts when it makes its rulings. As the Associated Press reports, "The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effects on species and habitats." The EPA, in other words, would be prohibited from compiling data about air pollution. This follows last month's announcement that the EPA had "decided it did not want to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act."

Under current law, experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Maritime Fisheries Service must be consulted "whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely." Under the new guidelines developed by attorneys at Commerce and Interior without scientific review, the Agency head will declare whether habitat damage is likely before any scientific review takes place. If he or she says no, then no assessment will be made. If the verdict is yes, then scientific review must be completed in sixty days or the project will automatically be approved. Needless to say, very few reputable scientific studies can be completed in that length of time. And that, of course, is the point and the purpose.

These administrative rules can go into effect without congressional approval after a thirty-day public comment period. The next president could reverse them, though, or congress could take matters into its own hands and write new regulations. That, however, is a moot point if an Administration such as this one next occupies the White House and decides that laws mandating what the EPA exists for or that the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act or other consumer and health protections are simply things it wants to ignore. There apparently is little consequence to refusing to follow laws when your address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Instead the Orwellian house of mirrors goes on. We have an environmental agency that opposes protecting the environment. We consider scientific matters upon which scientists cannot be consulted. Up is redefined as down, and down up. Elections do have consequences, and their impacts can last a long time. The contributions of Washington, Lincoln and the Roosevelts continue to shape our lives even today. How will the actions and decisions of President Bush affect our lives in the future? How will we be remembered if we allow them to stand?