Examination of the Changes in Environmental Protection Agency Under Trump Administration

During his campaign, President Donald Trump promised to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that it had long hampered the country’s economic development. Most Americans have been made to believe, based on this argument, that all statistics presented by the EPA about climate and the impact of industrialisation in global warming are exaggerations. Businessmen and fuel industrialists are another group that is unhappy with the EPA’s stance on environmental conservation measures. When Trump’s administration took office, most of these organizations predicted harsh action against the EPA and other environmental and earth scientists who have been advocating for the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. These expectations are coming to pass as the Trump’s administration has initiated various radical changes in the Environmental Protection Agency starting with its leadership. Moreover, some of the agency’s mandates have been stripped off to render it powerless in pushing for its environmental conservation agenda among other changes. This article seeks to outline some of the changes that have taken place at the EPA since the Trump’s administration came into power. It will further indulge into the possible consequences of these changes to the operation of EPA and the environmental conservation efforts in general.

Specific Policies on Environmental Protection

Previously, numerous plans were put in place to enhance environmental protection and address the issue of climate change (Zhang et al. 2014). The EPA was tasked with the implementation of these regulations and was undertaking its responsibility diligently until when President Donald Trump came into power (Zhang et al. 2014). In the first 100 days of his term in office, Trump has made certain decrees that have changed how the EPA operates. First and foremost, the president appointed a climate change denier to head the agency which is supposed to champion for environmental well-being (Zhang et al. 2014). This action was seen as the first step of crippling and finally disbanding the EPA by Trump. With anti-environmentalist in charge of the institution, it is just clear that he will work to implement president’s onslaught on the organization with questioning and this not a good sign for the world’s efforts on climate change(Galea 2017, 229). Scholars observe the appointment of Scott Pruitt as the new EPA administrator as one major mistake that has been taken by the president. Pruitt is on record saying that he does not believe that carbon IV oxide is the primary contributor to the global warming (Galea 2017, 229). It is therefore ridiculous to have such an individual heading the environmentally conscious body. This nomination was followed by some policies initiated by the president to a null the rules govern the climate change issue in the country.

Apart from the change in the administration at the EPA, Trump’s intentions on the climate change issues are still envisaged on other policies that he has come out to criticize and nullify (Breville 2011, 25). One of the actions that he has taken is to sign executive orders directing reviews of various legislations touching on climate change, energy, and mining. A perfect example of such executive orders signed by the president and is in violation of climate change efforts is the one he signed on March 28th, 2017(Breville 2011, 15). In this order, President Trump instructed the EPA regulators to rewrite first rules aimed at curbing United States’ carbon emission rate and other regulations on environmental degradation. These rules that were to be revised or abolished include revoking the law that was preventing coal mining firms from dumping debris into the steams and instead granting them full mining rights(Simonis 2004, 199). In addition to that, Trump lifted the freeze of land leases to the coal companies a policy that was enacted during President Obama’s error to allow for environmental impact analysis of their activities. The Republican legislators fundamentally supported the lifting of the lease.

There are very many other policies that Trump’s administration has revoked to make climate change campaign unachievable. The revocation of the rule that banned hunting of predators in Alaska is just one of them (Simonis 2004, 199). The Congress passed a policy that was overturning this regulation with some legislatures from Alaska arguing that the federal government had no jurisdiction of controlling that land as it was under the authority of the state government and Trump signed this policy into law (Simonis 2004, 199). This action is evidence that the Trump’s regime is out to frustrate environmental protection efforts from all quarters. Most of these regulations have been in place for many years. Furthermore, another policy has been passed to revoke a significant update to the public land use and planning process as was enacted during the Obama presidency (Holifield 2004, 285). This was also passed in the Congress, and Trump never delayed to sign it into the role as it served his interests. This implies that the government will open up playing grounds for the industrial development including the vast lands and this spells doom for environmental conservationists in the country and the entire world (Holifield 2004, 286). The Republican legislatures have ever been at loggerheads this update made under President Obama’s administration, and they have made sure that they have their way. Another notable policy change that has been conducted under Trump’s government to frustrate environmental protection is effort the approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. Mr. Obamas decision to block the construction of these pipelines came under severe criticism from the Republican legislatures and the oil and steel manufacturing companies. They argued that step was going to deny Americans job opportunities. Immediately the Trump’s regime took power the governments have taken action to lift this ban and dust Obama’s effort to conserve the environment (Cooter 2004, 5265). The list of the policies that were just changed in the first 100 days of Trump’s administration is almost endless giving his clear position regarding environmental protection. As much as he is doing this domestically, there are other international policies that his government has frustrated so far.

In addition to the policies that have already been signed into law, there are a number of regulations still under review by order of the president (Cooter 2004, 5365). The policies under considered under this article range from climatic, natural resource utilization and scientific research sectors. One such law is the rule currently protecting the tributaries and the wetlands within the clean water Act (Pickard et al. 2017). Trump ordered a review and possibly an elimination of this section of the legislation. If this law is implemented, it will expose these natural resources to overexploitation hence degradation of the environment (Pickard et al. 2017). Another policy that is under consideration of the Trump’s changes is the one on the limitation of the toxic discharge into waterways from the power plants. Politically, the Republican members of Congress have not shown any interest on overturning this rule since it has not been implemented by the EPA (Pickard et al. 2017). Following a court case against this law, the agency has delayed its compliance date concerning complaints from industrial society. The organization had argued that complying with this legislation will render production so expensive and therefore uneconomical (Sabo et al. 2016). Nevertheless, this policy will still be scrapped off since it lacks the political goodwill and moral support from both the presidents and the industry owners in the country.

The list is endless, but just to highlight a few more policies that are facing roll back under Trump’s regime may create the bigger picture of his attitude and policy(Sabo et al. 2016). In this long list is the possible revocation of the law that limits methane gas emission by the new oil drilling sites (Sabo et al. 2016). Others include the offshore drilling policies, evaluation of the clean power plan policy and the fuel efficiency standards for truck and cars among other legislation (Sabo et al. 2016). All these laws and numerous others whose fate are still in doubt under the Trump’s administration are likely to change the environmental policy of the united states for worse.

President Trump has ordered a slash in the budgetary allocation to the Environmental Protection Agency and the ministry it operates in. This policy is likely to affect the operation of the institution since it needs more cash to conduct scientific research on climate change (Rager et al. 2016). The agency has been involved in controlling environmental pollution by using the industries that violet the environmental laws. It, therefore, implies that the decrease in budget allocation in the future will interfere with this excellent course (Rager et al. 2016). The companies will, therefore, emit greenhouse gases and deposit mineral wastes into the rivers and oceans leading to environmental disaster.

Internationally, there is the controversial plan by president Trump to pull the United States out of the Paris environmental agreement. In January 2017, he made this declaration at an international meeting with the fellow G7 nations’ leaders in Italy. As much as this decision has attracted criticism from all corners of the world, Trump is still very adamant that this is the only way of reducing unemployment rates in the America. According to the accord, the United States agreed to cut down its greenhouse gas emissions by about 25% below the 2005 levels by 2025. This agreement was meant to protect the industrializing countries from the environmental hazards caused by effect emissions from developed states. The other countries confirmed their commitment to 2005 agreement including Japan, China, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy (Rager et al. 2016). It is therefore clear that the Trump’s administration does not commit at all to environmental protection and sustainability. This should be a major concern to the international community since the increase in CO2 emissions in the United States will affect everyone in the globe (Sarewitz 2016, 331). A part of changing the national policies on the environment and opting out of international climate agreements, Trump’s government has also influenced several shifts in the Environmental Protection Agency that aims at weakening it.

The Changes Made by the Present EPA Administration

After the Senate had confirmed him as the new administrator of the EPA, Mr. Scott Pruitt has so far implemented a vast number of changes in the institution (Sarewitz 2016). First on the list is the replacement of the head offices of the agency with his like-minded friends most of whom he derived from the office of the Oklahoma Senator (Sarewitz 2016). This is a step viewed by many as a way of ensuring that the new administration which entirely disagrees with the career officials, scientists, and other employees responsible the daily operation of the organization.

The appointment of the former Attorney General of Oklahoma Mr. Scott Pruitt has made the EPA declare that it will go back to basics (Tollefson and Witze 2016). In this case, Mr. Pruitt asserts that the institution will resort to executing simple tasks such as cleaning toxic areas and concentrate on controlling air and water pollution. It is therefore clear that the agency will no longer research possible effects of industrial effluents on the environment (Tollefson and Witze 2016). Moreover, the new administrator has changed the zeal with which the agency executes its mandate and instead of championing for environmental protection laws, he is on record criticizing them. Pruitt was the first and foremost proponent of the America’s withdrawal from Paris climate agreement and took into the media immediately after the declaration to praise the president for that action (Tollefson and Witze 2016). Therefore, instead of EPA setting standards for climate change and environmental conservation by striving to reduce greenhouse gases emission, the EPA under the leadership is leaving the decision to industrialists will.

Additionally, the new management of EPA has given the climate change task force a wide birth in that; it is claimed that he is intending to disband it using illegal means. One such way Pruitt is using to frustrate the climate change scientists are a reduction in budgetary allocation and cutting down the workforce (Hlasny 2010). Most of the scientists currently working with the agency fear for their jobs and at the same time feel oppressed since they cannot conduct their duty freely. It is also argued that the current EPA is working on deleting climatic change data from their websites and this implies that within the next two years, all the vital information will have been lost. Without this crucial statistics, the EPA will not be in a position to prove its stand against emissions of CO2. (Hlasny 2010) Furthermore, the communication system in the institution has broken down, and there is no official channel. The administrator seems to address the agency issues on media something which has been criticized by the most of the employees (Hlasny 2010). Lack of appropriate communication system in any organization paralyzes its operations, and this is what is expected to happen at the EPA.

The employees of the EPA have been denied the opportunity to meet with their counterparts in other regions of the country and the rest of the world. Pruitt has achieved this fete by barring the workers from attending international and domestic conferences on climate change and environmental issues (Tollefson 2017, 509). For instance, there was a climate conference in Atlanta early this year, and the employees were not allowed to participate raising the question of whether they still have the right to interaction (Tollefson 2017, 509). Finally, it is important to note that the current EPA leadership has put on hold the implementation of most of the policies that were enacted during President Obama’s tenure (Tollefson 2017). The agency is even working closely with the federal government in rolling back most of the legislation on environmental conservation. From the changes that are being implemented by the EPA with the new administration, it is evident that the agency is destined to collapse (Tollefson 2017). If it does not collapse, then it will remain voiceless and powerless in executing its mandate and therefore will be rendered useless. The most worrying trend is that the government and the Republican legislatures are all skeptical about the scientific evidence on climate change.

Possible Consequences of the New Policies under Trump’s Government on Environmental Protection

The decision to withdraw America from the Paris agreement will have a very adverse impact on the earth’s atmosphere. Considering that United States is the second leading carbon emitter in the globe after China, its failure to commit to this treaty will increase the CO2 emissions by a significant margin (Lindegren, Blenckner and Stenseth 2012). Moreover, the withdrawal of America from this accord will also have an adverse impact on other participating countries that may choose to either exit or remain reluctant to implement the agreement. Domestically, the revocation of various rules aimed at controlling climate change in the country threatens to expose the citizens to highly harmful industrial effluents (Lindegren, Blenckner and Stenseth 2012). Researchers have established a link between climate change and health of people as it is argued that environmental pollution leads to some diseases. Climate change has been suggested to be one of the causes of diabetes and skin cancer. Carbon IV Oxide also affects the mental health of individuals. Such diseases will lead increase in government expenditure in the provision of healthcare to the people infected. Because the Obama healthcare plan is also under scrutiny by the Trump’s administration and may be scrapped out, it is likely that seeking medication may too expensive.

The quest by president Trump to disband the EPA has already shown some adverse effects. For example freezing of employment has led to unemployment over 100 people in the agency alone (Lindegren, Blenckner and Stenseth 2012). In the long run, many people will lose jobs, especially in the agricultural sector as the rain pattern changes. Food production will be too expensive as many farmers will resort to irrigation farming (Cressey 2017). Revocation of clean power plan policies means that the industries will henceforth direct their untreated waste to the rivers and other water bodies without any caution. This action will eventually lead to the death of aquatic life causing an ecological imbalance (Cressey 2017). The effects of climate change resulting from the implementation of the Trumps regime are so many to be exclusively enumerated. It is therefore vital for the political players to mainly the Congress members from the Republican to reconsider their position on the environmental protection.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it is evident that the arrival of Trump’s administration will have a significant impact on the climate change issues. The president has shown his intention to disband the EPA and has the political power and good will to proceed. The first step that pointed towards crippling of the agency operations was the appointment of climate change denier to head the EPA. It will be very ironical to select a person has used an organization for discharging its mandate to lead it. Mr. Pruitt has been quoted criticizing the scientific findings of climate change arguing that he does not believe in that carbon IV oxide is the main course of climate change. He further has promised to take the organization back to the basics of cleaning toxic lands.

Moreover, Trump has signed various executive orders to revoke and review most of the rules that were being implemented by the institution. For instance rescinding the law that restricted coal mining firms from depositing debris into rivers and the one that delayed leasing of coal mining lands will lead to overproduction of greenhouse gases. Despite being detrimental to environmental conservation efforts, the Congress has gone ahead to pass these laws in an attempt to foster their political ideologies. Furthermore, president Trump’s position climate change has not only affected domestic campaign but has also rolled over to the international platform. This stand was observed during the G7 meeting in Italy where he failed to commit to the Paris agreement raising questions on the future of the global warming minimization attempts. It is important to note that, as much as economic development and growth is vital every country, it should be done in an environmentally friendly manner. America, under President Donald Trump stewardship, should reconsider their position on the climate change and stop its attack on the Environmental Protection Agency.

References

Breville, Maggie. 2011. “US Environmental Protection Agency Tribal Environmental Health Research Program.” Epidemiology 22: S115.

Cooter, William S. 2004. “Clean Water Act Assessment Processes about Changing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Management Strategies.” Environmental Science & Technology 38(20): 5265-5273.

Cressey, Daniel. 2017. “Environmental Treaties in Danger under Trump.” Nature.

GALEA, SANDRO. 2017. “How The Trump Administration’s Policies May Harm The Public’s Health.” The Milbank Quarterly 95(2): 229-232.

Hlasny, Vladimir. 2010. “SO2 Concentrations and Health Damages under Alternative US-EPA Policies.” SSRN Electronic Journal.

Holifield, Ryan. 2004. “Neoliberalism and Environmental Justice in the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Translating Policy into Managerial Practice in Hazardous Waste Remediation.” Geoforum 35(3): 285-297.

Lindegren, Martin, Thorsten Blenckner, and Nils C. Stenseth. 2012. “Nutrient Reduction And Climate Change Cause A Potential Shift From Pelagic To Benthic Pathways In A Eutrophic Marine Ecosystem.” Global Change Biology 18(12): 3491-3503.

Pickard, Brian R., Maliha Nash, Jeremy Baynes, and Megan Mehaffey. 2017. “Planning For Community Resilience to Future United States Domestic Water Demand.” Landscape and Urban Planning158: 75-86.

Rager, Julia E., et al. 2016. “Linking High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data With Exposure And Toxicity Forecasts To Advance High-Throughput Environmental Monitoring.” Environment International 88: 269-280.

Sabo, Robert D., et al. 2016. “Watershed-Scale Changes in Terrestrial Nitrogen Cycling During a Period of Decreased Atmospheric Nitrate and Sulfur Deposition.” Atmospheric Environment 146: 271-279.

Sarewitz, Daniel. 2016. “Science and Innovation Policies for Donald Trump.” Nature539 (7629): 331-331.

Simonis, Udo E. 2004. “Green Giants? Environmental Policies Of The United States And The European Union and Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States.” The Environmentalist 24(3): 199-201.

Sion Control Programs.“ The science of The Total Environment 490: 171-181.

Tollefson, Jeff, and Alexandra Witze. 2016. ”US Earth Scientists Plan For Uncertain Future Under Trump.“ Nature 540(7634): 492-493.

Tollefson, Jeff. 2017. ”Trump And Republicans Take Aim At Environmental Agency.“ Nature.

Zhang, Hongliang, Jianlin Hu, Michael Kleeman, and Qi Ying. 2014. ”Source Apportionment of Sulfate and Nitrate Particulate Matter in the Eastern United States and Effectiveness of Emis