The Green Movement loved the Obama EPA. With Trump’s EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt, well not so much. They are zeroed in on getting rid of Pruitt. Why is that ask you? Because, answer I, he spent $120,000 on a trip to Italy last summer to attend a meeting of G-7 ministers (much of which was spent on security).
They didn’t make any noise at all about Lisa Jackson, who was the EPA director between 2009 and 2013 under B. Hussein Obama. She spent over $332,000 on airfare and security for four international trips. They also didn’t complain about Gina McCarthy, the agency’s director between 2013 and 2017, who embarked on 10 international trips, spending nearly $630,000 on airfare and security.
But do you really think Democrats can even conceive of a sum as small as $120,000 when their hero, B. Hussein Obama, took office when the national debt was $10.6 trillion. He left office with a national debt of $19,9 trillion. That’s a total of $9.3 trillion in additional debt. One hundred and twenty thousand dollars is 0.00000001 of the Obama total (that’s seven zeroes and a one, or one hundred-millionth, in case you’re interested).
So what’s the real stick up their ….? A proposed rule announced by Pruitt will bring much-needed transparency to agency rule-making and end the influence of “secret science.”
[Source: Scott Pruitt’s Effort to Expose ‘Secret Science’ Has Environmentalists Scared Stiff, by Diane Katz]
[Directly from the Katz article] “The environmental lobby is positively apoplectic about the proposal (naturally), even though it aligns perfectly with its long-held commitment to the public’s ‘right to know’ principle. The proposed regulation would require the EPA to ensure that the scientific data and research models ‘pivotal’ to significant regulation are ‘publicly available in a manner sufficient for validation and analysis.'”
How could anyone be opposed to that, ask you? Because, answer I, the left consistently masked politically driven regulations as scientifically-based imperatives. Except, no one was allowed to review the “science” that created “the imperative.” The Greenies support the ‘right to know’ only when they WANT YOU TO KNOW.
Say, “What?” How can one demand that empirical evidence of an “imperative” be kept in the dark? To say that such a position is hypocritical in the extreme would be a gross understatement. Greenie opponents claim that the EPA’s regulatory power would be unduly restricted if the agency is “forced to reveal the scientific data and research methodologies used in rule-making.” Under Obama the EPA could impose major regulations based on studies that were unavailable for public scrutiny. How convenient!
The public’s “right to know” was their rallying cry in lobbying for a variety of public disclosure requirements on the private sector and included informational labeling requirements, emissions reporting, workplace safety warnings, environmental liabilities, etc., etc..
The Greens claim that research subjects’ privacy would be violated. As a scientist who has published more than 500 scientific papers I can absolutely assure you that any identifying information about research subjects must be scrubbed prior to publication. Nor is personal information even relevant in agency rule-making (as well, these agencies are required to protect proprietary information).
Reproducibility of all research is paramount to the scientific process. This is not possible when studies upon which rules were made are unavailable for scrutiny. Indeed, the Data Access Act requires federal agencies to ensure that relevant information is available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act.
The EPA rule change also abides by legislation passed by the House last year. The legislation prohibits the EPA from “proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.” (A Senate companion measure failed to advance to a vote – you can guess who opposed it.)
There is only one word required to describe the environmental lobby’s postion on this matter – hypocrisy.