
EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff - ComradeTaco
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/01/25/us/politics/ap-us-trump-agencies-crackdown.html
======
dmix
An official at EPA who worked under Obama isn't buying into this hysteria.

> Longtime employees at three of the agencies — including some career
> environmental regulators who conceded that they remained worried about what
> President Trump might do on policy matters — said such orders were not much
> different from those delivered by the Obama administration as it shifted
> policies from the departing White House of George W. Bush. They called
> reactions to the agency memos overblown.

> “I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,”
> said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity
> because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I
> don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And
> the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you
> run things by them before you update the website.”

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-
agenc...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-
told-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html)

~~~
snowwrestler
The reality is that the people coming in at the top of the Trump
administration don't yet know what they are doing, and the mid-level staff who
usually handle all the details are mostly not hired yet; they're behind
schedule on filling those roles.

So I think it's plausible that they are mostly just trying to slow the federal
machine down a lot, to make it easier for them, as understaffed newbies, to
understand and manage.

That said, demanding that the government collect, use, and freely communicate
accurate scientific knowledge seems idempotent: you will always get a positive
result from doing it.

------
kbrwn
It feels like such a strange time to be alive. Even if you disagree with the
concept of man-made climate change the distortion of scientific studies seems
like something that everybody can agree is wrong. So much of science is funded
by govt grants. The idea that everything must conform to the view of the
current administration or it is not worth funding seems dangerous and
economically limiting.

~~~
snappyTertle
I don't think many people disagree that climate change exists. What's debated
is what the proper solution is. Throwing public money necessarily diverts
private resources. Who is to say gov't has a better solution? Would you really
trust a bureaucratic monopoly led by Trump to come up with the best policy for
energy? I don't think gov't should be in charge of picking favorites with
regulations and grants.

~~~
jaredklewis
Well depends on your definition of many. Seems like 35% of Americans dont
believe climate change is man made. So I don't think this can be framed as
just a debate between people wanting public vs private counter measures. There
is also still a very large group of people (including many in the Trump
administration) that are skeptical of the whole concept.

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-
eig...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-
high.aspx)

~~~
snappyTertle
Having a large group of people (including the Trump administration) not
"believe" (in this case, beliefs shouldn't matter, we should be looking at
facts) climate change is exactly why this should not be a public issue.

Once it's public, people vote for a blanket solution or government officials
(by no means environment experts) decide what to do. Private companies should
be free to innovate and try multiple different solutions where the best one
sticks.

~~~
mercer
Honest question: what incentive would private companies have to address
climate change? It strikes me as a perfect example of an externality that
these companies wouldn't be incentivized to change.

------
nikdaheratik
This is very worrying as it's starting to look like the same BS that Harper
tried to push in Canada. Which was just bad policy and the kind of thing that
can keep scientists away from doing valuable research for years.

~~~
maxxxxx
This worries me a little. You can destroy an organization quickly but building
it back up takes much, much longer.

------
tabeth
All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me
wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy?
I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great
democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely _feels_ like it
doesn't work quite as intended.

As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust
for climate change is just mind boggling. What exactly is he afraid that'll
happen? [1] Why all of the resistance? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm
genuinely curious.

[1]
[http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/](http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/)

~~~
RKoutnik
It's worth noting that 3 million more people voted for Hillary. I wouldn't
chalk this one up to a design issue, rather implementation (in this case,
weighting votes by geographic region).

We've submitted a patch and are waiting for enough reviewers to approve:
[http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/](http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/)

~~~
blazespin
The electoral college is not the problem. If we remove that, than states that
lose representation they were promised when they joined should have the right
to secede.

~~~
genericpseudo
This is a bad thing how? Serious question. The US would be a much happier and
healthier place if it were more like the EU.

~~~
nostromo
The US is quite a bit like the EU.

The average German has less say in EU politics than the average Luxembourger.

Similarly, the average Californian has less say in US politics than the
average Wyomingite.

------
txru
Seems like an interesting similarity to the Soviet 'politruk'[0], a Communist
Party official assigned to maintain the political control of the armed forces.
A familiar example is the politruk who voted to launch nuclear warheads during
the Cuban Missile Crisis with his submarine Captain, but First Officer Vasili
Arkhipov voted to wait for orders from Moscow.

Similar functions also existed in their academic structures, but the official-
ness of this order certainly smacks of the politruk.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar)

------
Gargoyle
So I'm confused what has actually happened here. "(epa transition
communications direector) said there was no mandate to subject studies or data
to political review."

Then what is actually going on? This article is very confusing on that point.

~~~
brianmurphy
Consider the source of the article. The root of modern journalism is to make a
negative insinuation despite official statements to the contrary and let the
reader's preconceived notions run wild.

------
Mtinie
Does FOIA cover previously released studies that have been revoked "pending
review"?

~~~
wklauss
Maybe, but I don't think FOIA will last long, to be honest, given the steps
the current administration has taken in the first 5 days.

~~~
jakeogh
[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-
set...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-sets-new-
record-withholding-foia-requests/)

It's very unlikely Trump will beat his predecessor in that regard.

------
steffann
What this probably leads to is scientists losing their jobs or their
willingness to work in the US. Under the current president their only option
seems to be to move to another country where they can do their work and
discuss their findings in public. Science with a political filter is no longer
science but only politics with the illusion of factual justification...

~~~
steffann
Which is also very sad for the families of those scientists :(

------
ams6110
Did the _Times_ change the title? It now reads _EPA Science Under Scrutiny by
Trump Political Staff_

~~~
dang
NYT does do that sometimes, but I think in this case the submitter probably
rewrote it—which please don't, unless it's misleading or linkbait:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

------
sid-kap
As awful as this is, it seems completely legal since the executive agencies
operate at the mercy of the President. The President has the authority to tell
the EPA to stop researching climate science, or to even disband the EPA.

Have we never considered this scenario before? Has there ever been an attempt
to establish independent agencies, not subject to the whims of the White
House? (IIRC, maybe the CIA or the FBI are independent agencies?)

~~~
nyxtom
Also, there are laws in place that the EPA is responsible for. So it is highly
unlikely (illegal even) to simply disband the EPA for any reason. The only way
to do that is through congress by repealing a host of laws that the EPA is
effectively responsible for. That is to say, the EPA is responsible for
executing on those laws. If they don't, then the government could be sued -
which is the purpose of the justice department. That's why we have great
organizations like the ACLU and NRDC to make sure those laws get upheld in a
court of law.

~~~
nyxtom
That being said, there are a number of laws that are likely to get axed by the
new administration - probably without congress approval given how much the
executive branch likes to write laws these days. Clean Power Act, Endangered
Species Act..etc. Clean Power Act is likely to go I'm guessing as soon as they
can get it

------
verandaguy
This is very concerning. Something similar happened in Canada with the
previous PM, Stephen Harper, whose government suppressed research which would
-- directly or indirectly -- oppose their platform.

------
a13n
Wow this is getting ugly. What are some actionable things we can do as US
citizens to actually have some kind of an impact on this situation? Not just
specifically environment, but in general.

~~~
Diederich
Expand your perspective. Try very hard to get into the heads of the 40+% of
the population that voted for Trump. Do this with a completely open mind.

There are reasons why all of this is happening. People like us (I guess...I
don't want to define your personal echo chamber) look at those tens of
millions of people and just can't understand why they voted for Trump, or why
they seem to believe what they seem to believe.

But they are people, just like us, but with different and diverse backgrounds.

That's really the answer. If most or all of us can break out of our echo
chambers, we might start to develop a path out of this mess.

------
lstroud
Misleading headline

------
edge17
So remind me again what tax dollars are for...?

~~~
snuxoll
To fund research that benefits The Party.

------
Tulip68
It's absolutely horrifying what's going on in the United States. Trying to
dictate what are appropriate avenues of investigation for practicing
scientists is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes (see "Deutsch Physiks" in
Nazi Germany or Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union).

When you combine this with Drumpf's bigoted, Islamophobic and un-American
executive order aimed at banning Muslims from the country (which substantially
increases the likelihood of another terrorist attack, by marginalizing Muslims
and playing right into the hands of ISIS), it becomes very clear we are facing
one of the darkest times in the history of this republic.

For the sake of the world, every decent person who believes in human rights
must do everything in their power to resist this tyrannical and illegitimate
President. It could very well mean being imprisoned or beaten or even killed
by Drumpf's thugs. But if history has taught us anything it is that freedom is
worth fighting for.

------
notpc
Like it or not, increasing fossil fuel extraction and cutting environmental
regulations is now the policy of the President of the United States. The
public communications of the executive branch are under his authority and he's
not just going to let the EPA run its public relations and releases contrary
to his agenda.

Like others have pointed out, there are other ways the public can get the
information. But it won't be the EPA running a press office counter to the
President's.

~~~
notarealdoctor
> Like it or not, increasing fossil fuel extraction and cutting environmental
> regulations is now the policy of the President of the United States.

Like it or not, the Internet is here for those who want to fact check:

[https://news.vice.com/story/president-obamas-climate-
change-...](https://news.vice.com/story/president-obamas-climate-change-
legacy-is-clouded-by-his-support-of-fracking)

~~~
notpc
The fact that Obama wasn't as environmentalist as some would have liked
doesn't change the fact that Trump is clearly much much less so.

