Is the EPA Using Too Much Science in the Trump Administration's Eyes?

  • Thread starter BillTre
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Science
In summary, the Trump administration says that the EPA was using too much science in Obama's Clean Water Act rules. This is a dispute between the Trump administration and the previous administration, with the Trump administration arguing that the EPA should have used the "every puddle" rule instead of the "navigable waters" rule. This is a dispute that has been brought up by the plurality opinion in Rapanos v. United States, which is that the EPA should not have jurisdiction over every puddle of water.
  • #1

BillTre

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,461
9,475
  • Like
Likes S.G. Janssens, bhobba and jedishrfu
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Just wow! Perhaps they should rely on golf more but wait that’s too much kinematics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes S.G. Janssens and bhobba
  • #3
This is getting a bit political, and of course we do not discuss politics here, which can naturally lead to heated debates that do not reflect our purpose. I am sure the OP did not mean to upset anyone - I suspect it was just something he thought people like us into science would likely find - well for want of a better words - interesting. That in no way endorses, criticizes etc what it is saying.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes nrqed
  • #4
BillTre said:
The Trump administration says the EPA was using too much science in Obama's Clean Water Act rules.

I challenge you to find a sourced statement from someone in the Trump administration who uses the words "too much science" in an official capacity. If you can't, that means we're discussing spin. I'm happy to discuss spin, but I want to make sure that's what we are doing.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #6
Again, I don't see anyone from the Trump administration saying "too much science". Please point me to that. Not spin from an opponent of Trump, but what the administration said.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #7
Vanadium 50 said:
Again, I don't see anyone from the Trump administration saying "too much science". Please point me to that. Not spin from an opponent of Trump, but what the administration said.
This is pure rhetoric, because there is rarely a taped and signed record. So the request for such a source is meaningless as it cannot be fulfilled. Unfortunately this does not imply it is wrong. And to ignore the obvious isn't helpful either.
 
  • #8
fresh_42 said:
This is pure rhetoric, because there is rarely a taped and signed record.
As far as I'm concerned, and probably the same for V50, it doesn't have to be taped and signed. A citation such as the one you gave before would satisfy me, but it has to be a quote from someone in the current administration, not in the previous administration.
fresh_42 said:
So the request for such a source is meaningless as it cannot be fulfilled. Unfortunately this does not imply it is wrong. And to ignore the obvious isn't helpful either.
No, the request isn't meaningless, as I've described above.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #10
fresh_42 said:
It isn't the wording, but opinion, meaning and consequences are essentially the same...
In my opinion the words "[anyone] says..." need to be followed by a direct quote otherwise it is putting words in their mouth they didn't say.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and Bystander
  • #11
russ_watters said:
In my opinion the words "[anyone] says..." need to be followed by a direct quote otherwise it is putting words in their mouth they didn't say.
Well, I haven't used the word anyone, nor did I quote "too much science". But in the interview I did quote, there is someone from the Trump administration basically claiming ##CO_2## is irrelevant. This is not different from saying the Earth is flat, and thus opposing current science. So I think it serves the cause. But I'm seemingly in a political minefield, and this is a place I don't want to be. I just thought I could provide a link to the debate (the first one) as something which is more than "spin". The fact that someone from the Obama administration said it, doesn't make it wrong. However, the link had been rejected, so I sought another one with an authentic similar statement.
 
  • #12
fresh_42 said:
It isn't the wording, but opinion, meaning and consequences are essentially the same

So we're spinning. Fine.

The Constitutional authority for federal water projects was based on "navigable waters" and Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. (In the US system, the federal government can not do just anything it thinks is a good idea: there needs to be constitutional authority, otherwise it is a State matter) The Clean Water Act instead uses the terms "waters of the United States" and the EPA has ruled that because of their interpretation of "Connectivity Report" (more on that later), they should have jurisdiction over every puddle of water. In Rapanos v. United States the plurality opinion (there was no majority) was that this is overly broad. President Obama, by executive order, instructed the EPA to ignore Rapanos and to use the "every puddle" rule, and President Trump ordered them to obey Rapanos.

First comment: For everyone who thought it was swell that President Obama could "act when Congress wouldn't" by executive order, I hope you see what this is a really, really bad idea.

Second comment: If we're going to spin, I could say "Obama defies Supreme Court with EPA executive order" and it would be no less accurate than the present thread title (and arguably more).

Third comment: You do know that where the Connectivity Report declared "insufficient evidence" the EPA (under the Obama administration) overruled them. And somehow now that Trump is moving in the direction of the original report, he's anti-science.

I'm no fan of Trump's. But it does no good to misstate the record in an attempt to make him look bad.
 
  • Like
Likes gmax137
  • #13
I do not want to get into internal American politics, as my news feed on this is on a too small basis to make sound statements. Obviously you reject even an interview on tv / internet, so I'm at the end of what I'm willing to listen to and read from these persons involved. I quit. It's not my disaster.
 
  • #14
As the thread can't help delving into politics, it is closed for Moderation...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
... and will remain closed.
 

1. What is the significance of having too much science in EPA?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for protecting human health and the environment by setting and enforcing regulations based on scientific research. Having too much science in EPA means that the agency is relying heavily on scientific evidence to make decisions and policies, which can have a major impact on industries, communities, and individuals.

2. How does having too much science in EPA affect the economy?

Having too much science in EPA can lead to stricter regulations and standards, which can increase the cost of compliance for industries. This can result in higher prices for consumers and potentially affect the economy. However, it can also spur innovation and the development of new, more environmentally friendly technologies.

3. Are there any downsides to having too much science in EPA?

While relying on sound scientific evidence is important for protecting public health and the environment, there can be downsides to having too much science in EPA. This can include delays in decision-making, increased regulatory burden on industries, and potential conflicts between scientific evidence and political agendas.

4. How does the EPA ensure that their decisions are based on reliable scientific evidence?

The EPA follows a rigorous process for evaluating scientific evidence, including peer review and public comment periods. The agency also has a Scientific Integrity Policy that outlines standards for transparency, quality, and independence in its use of science.

5. Is there a way to balance the use of science in EPA with other factors?

Finding a balance between science and other factors, such as economic considerations and public opinion, is a difficult but necessary task for the EPA. The agency strives to incorporate multiple perspectives and consider all available information when making decisions, while still prioritizing the protection of human health and the environment based on the best available science.

Suggested for: Is the EPA Using Too Much Science in the Trump Administration's Eyes?

Back
Top