January/ February 2012 The Environment

The end of the EPA as we know it.

By David Roberts

On stage at the Republican primary debate in Rochester, Michigan, on November 9th, Rick Perry’s thick brows bunched together amid beads of sweat as he struggled to remember the final federal agency he planned to eliminate. “What’s the third one there? Let’s see. Commerce, Education, and the, uh, ummm …”

Mitt Romney, to Perry’s left, offered, “EPA?”

No one blinked. After all, Perry had called the Environmental Protection Agency a “cemetery for jobs.” Michele Bachmann proposed renaming it “the job-killing organization of America” and promised that if she’s elected it will “have doors locked and lights turned off.” Newt Gingrich would replace it with an ill-defined “Environmental Solutions Agency.” Herman Cain would have eliminated the EPA and “start[ed] all over.” Romney, being Romney, says that he supports it in “much of its mission, yes; but in some of its mission, no.” In today’s Republican Party, it looks like that is the moderate position.

Conservatives have inveighed against federal regulations since time immemorial, but the antipathy they harbor toward the EPA is unique in its intensity, particularly under the Obama administration. To appreciate the threat the agency faces if the GOP sweeps the 2012 elections, it helps to understand the roots of that animosity.

The core laws that shape the EPA’s mission—the Clean Air and Water Acts, passed in the early 1970s—are among the most dynamic and aspirational ever to issue from the U.S. Congress. It’s not that the standards in the original bills were all that strict, but that they were designed to evolve. The laws mandate that the EPA regularly revisit its standards and update them based on the latest science.

Take the Clean Air Act, the main target of recent GOP attacks. It not only establishes specific rules for an enumerated class of pollutants, it also instructs the EPA to set standards for “any air pollutant” that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” and to review and update those standards every five years. That makes the law a living, breathing thing. Congress or the president must intervene to prevent stronger and stronger clean air protections.

Environmental law, in other words, is one of the few federal domains where political gridlock can work in favor of science-based policy. All elected officials have to do is stay out of the way. Scholars David Sousa and Christopher Mc- Grory Klyza call this fitful but persistent advance of the law “green drift.”

What’s happened under Obama is that green drift has become a green sprint; his EPA’s schedule is, comparatively speaking, incredibly aggressive. This isn’t because Obama is a government-loving socialist; it’s because of two factors that played out before he even took office.

First, the Bush administration spent eight years slowwalking scientific review and cranking out rules too weak or ill-formed to withstand judicial scrutiny. In cases where the Bush EPA’s rules were challenged in federal court, the agency’s decisions were rejected in whole or in part eighteen out of twenty-seven times. That left an enormous backlog of court-mandated work for the EPA under Obama—more than any sane president would want, given the choice.

Second, there was a turning point in 2007: the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide, as long as it can be shown to “endanger public health or welfare,” qualifies as a pollutant within the EPA’s purview. The agency then conducted an “endangerment finding,” consulting the latest science, and determined that, yes, climate change is a threat. It e-mailed the results to the Bush administration’s Office of Management and Budget, which promptly … refused to open the e-mail. (Really.) That left the task of developing the first-ever regulations on CO2 to Obama’s EPA chief, Lisa Jackson.

The pace of rule making combined with the extension of the rules to greenhouse gases has given conservatives the “regulatory overreach” story they need to declare war, not only on the individual rules coming out of the EPA, but on the agency’s ability to implement rules at all.

This is not the first time a Congress full of hotheaded freshmen has gone after the EPA. When Newt Gingrich rode to power in the Republican Revolution of 1994, he made the agency one of his first targets. However, as National Journal’s Ron Brownstein recounted in a recent column, Gingrich’s efforts quickly died out as more and more moderate Republicans turned against him. Back then, it was seen as politically dangerous to be pro-pollution.

Today’s politics are different. First of all, the economic downturn has left the public unusually receptive to an antiregulatory message, and the GOP has pressed that fact to their advantage—hard. Representative Henry Waxman, ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has grown so alarmed at the number of anti-environment votes in the 112th Congress that he built a searchable online database to keep track of them. At the time of this writing, Waxman’s database cites 191 votes to block, defund, undermine, or repeal environmental protections—an average of one a day. Of those votes, sixty-one target the Clean Air Act.

Second, Republicans have maintained astonishing lockstep unanimity throughout these votes. Rather than shedding moderates, as happened in the Gingrich years, they have been picking up centrist Democrats, even Democrats from competitive districts that Obama won in 2008. The prevailing conventional wisdom in Washington today is that it’s safer to be anti-regulation than to be pro-clean air—and that there’s nothing to fear from environmentalists or the president.

And finally, Republican proposals today are unprecedented in their sheer scope and ambition. They do not simply block this or that rule (though just about every proposed EPA rule has been voted down by the House at one point or another). Instead, they reshape the basic operations and independence of executive branch agencies.

One example of this is the TRAIN Act (that stands for Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation). Introduced by Republican Representative John Sullivan, of Oklahoma, in September, it would create a special committee of cabinet members to analyze the costs to industry of any new EPA regulations. By law, EPA rule making is concerned only with public health and feasibility. States, which are charged with implementing the rules, are allowed to take costs to industry into consideration; in writing the rules, the EPA is not. TRAIN would introduce cost considerations into the rule-making process itself, a radical change and diminution of the law. (According to the EPA’s intensive, peer-reviewed studies, between 1990 and 2010 alone the Clean Air Act will produce almost $2 trillion in public health benefits; the cost to industry will reach just $65 billion.)

Or consider the REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny). This law would require that every “economically significant” federal regulation (one that has an annual impact of $100 million or more) be affirmatively approved by Congress. Again: no rule would go into effect until it has been voted through by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. If a regulation is not voted on within seventy legislative working days of being sent to Congress, it is “tabled.” That is, it dies.

David Roberts is a senior staff writer at Grist.org, where he covers energy policy and politics.


  • lou on January 05, 2012 9:39 AM:

    "Or will he go with the anti-environmental flow of the national Republican Party?"

    Does anyone really need to ask? He has stated flat out that he would eliminate any EPA regulations impeding oil and gas drilling. Why stop with oil and gas?

    And Romney, due his Mormon faith rewards, is getting his own sparkling new planet, post last breath, so why the hell should he care about the air and water on this one?

    Romney and these Republicans represent an alien, evil seed on this planet, money diggers to the core.

  • Peter on January 05, 2012 11:27 AM:

    Sounds like democracy. Something progressives pretend to like.

  • William Teach on January 05, 2012 12:07 PM:

    No, the EPA will not be gone, nor will the GOP gut clean air, water, and land regulations. They will reign in the EPA, particularly when it comes to greenhouse gas regulations, and some job killing regulations.

    Don't get too hysterical, David.

  • Robert on January 25, 2012 11:48 AM:

    So "William" we should not believe the Rethuglican presidential wannabes because they are liars? What apologetic nonsense. When they act like fools and knaves calling them fools and knaves is not'hysterical' it is simple truth. You need to look in the mirror and figure out why you are lying to us or maybe to yourself for this collection of losers.

  • emjayay on January 31, 2012 9:11 AM:

    I just heard a Gingrich supporter on NPR saying he's voting for Newt because he'll "get rid of ridiculous agencies like the EPA." This guy will no doubt vote for Mitt in the presidential election, and represents a huge number of Republican voters, and Mitt will do anything that a lot of Republicans want.

    How can people be so small minded, short sighted, ignorant, and stupid? Well, a lot of Americans are.

  • Bill on January 31, 2012 9:17 AM:

    I am a state regulatory employee. I have seen the advance of what I read as either a radical environmentalist federal agenda, a disfunctional federal regulatory culture, or a combination of both. Federal environmental enforcement personnel have seemed to me to be rule bound, in effect, out of touch with environmental reality and the consequences of their actions. Much of the policy I have seen being implemented under this administration is to impose costly and burdensome monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements that don't do anything but increase costs and impede capital. My liberal colleagues protest that Obama didn't cause this problem; that because of the laws, "environmental activists" are using the courts to impose draconian adherence to the letter of the law. My experience is that I think laws and regulations have a high incidence of producing unintended consequences. Therefore, there should be periodic sunset provisions and input should be gathered from the folks with their real noses in the real stuff on the ground. As it is, "green drift" is real and this article adds a lot of understanding. The feds need to have the ability to use discretion; it's time to get back to the drawing board and save the "Empire". It'll take a "Newt" to do it though. May the "Force" be with us.

  • David N on February 02, 2012 5:05 PM:

    I am a chemical engineer and I work in the oil, gas, and chemical industry. I also did my graduate thesis on computer modeling. Much of the global warming modeling is based upon work I did a generation ago. I have used modeling in my work and still do.

    First, modeling is very limited in its application. We model relatively simple systems with maybe four or five components. The idea of using it to model an atmosphere with its dozens of components and side reactions is not one I would have any confidence in. Secondly, it is obvious that the modeling is not working because every five years they go back and try to redo the model because it doesn't fit observations. Thirdly, trying to determine policy based upon that is a fantasy. It is no wonder that the results are so unpopular.

    The consequences of the EPA action to reduce carbon usage is to put a cap on the US economy. This is disasterous. It leads to poverty and all the ills that come with it. If Obama wants to push this he can, but he will feel a backlash.

  • Herbal Infusion Bagger on February 03, 2012 4:10 PM:

    "I am a chemical engineer and I work in the oil, gas, and chemical industry. I also did my graduate thesis on computer modeling. "

    "Much of the global warming modeling is based upon work I did a generation ago."

    I'm a ChemE, also have worked estensively on computer modeling, and I call BS. There's a world of difference between 2-D and 3-D GCMs and the zero-dimensional unit operation simulations developed by the chemical industry.

    What else do you want to mislead us on?

    "that the modeling is not working because every five years they go back and try to redo the model because it doesn't fit observations."

    Again, bollocks. Refinements to model accuracy haven't changed the directional prediction of increasing temperatures. Plus, the estimates of the sensitivity of the

    "The consequences of the EPA action to reduce carbon usage is to put a cap on the US economy."

    Ah bollocks again. You can do CO2 capture on point-sources for about $50/tonne CO2, equivalent to 50 cents on a gallon of gas. We've endured similar swings in energy prices without the economy tanking. We're not in the 1970s anymore where the energy intensity of each dollar of GDP made us so susceptible to oil prices. Certain sectors of the economy will do badly if we price carbon, but they're not a big part of GDP and their self-interest in persisting to get a free ride on a negative externality isn't an excuse to take huge risk on the future of the climate.