Posted on 01/05/2021 5:05:06 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
The Environmental Protection Agency has completed one of its last major rollbacks under the Trump administration, changing how it considers evidence of harm from pollutants in a way that opponents say could cripple future public-health regulation.
The new rule would require the release of raw data from public-health studies whose findings the EPA uses in determining the danger of an air pollutant, toxic chemical or other threat. Big public-health studies that studied the anonymized results of countless people have been instrumental in setting limits on toxic substances, including in some of the nation’s most important clean-air protections.
Some industry and conservative groups have long pushed for what they called the transparency rule. Opponents say the aim was to handicap future regulation.
Critics say the new rule could force disclosure of the identities and details of individuals in public-health studies, jeopardizing medical confidentiality and future studies. Academics, scientists, universities, public health and medical officials, environmental groups and others have spoken out at public hearings and written to oppose the change.
“This really seems to be an attempt to permanently let major polluters trample on public health,” said Benjamin Levitan, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund advocacy group. “It ties the hands of future administrations in how they can protect the public health.”
The EPA has been one of the most active agencies in carrying out President Donald Trump’s mandate to roll back regulations that conservative groups have identified as being unnecessary and burdensome to industry.
Many of the changes face court challenges and can be reversed by executive action or by lengthier bureaucratic process. But undoing them would take time and effort by the incoming Biden administration, which also has ambitious goals to fight climate-damaging fossil fuel emissions and lessen the impact of pollutants on lower-income and minority communities.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
In college I worked for a professor who did studies for outside entities. He was amazing at his ability to bring in money to the university. His first question to the customer was always, “What is it you are trying to prove?” Then, astonishingly, his study always supported whatever the customer wanted to prove. (Regardless of what the data said.)
THAT’S the best fig leaf they could think up on short notice??? Bahahaha! ‘You don’t need to see the data we want to represent however the hell we like and want to use to make policy affecting hundreds of millions of American citizens! Some Granny in IA might have her privacy invaded! Keep a sense of priorities, man!’
And besides, who says it’s final? How do you know Trump’s not still going to do be president?
So Trump’s regulations would require the EPA to release the raw data used in its pronouncements. That sounds entirely reasonable for people who want to “follow the science”
Requiring transparency is not a threat to the environment.
It is only a threat to junk “science.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.