"Afraid." "Concerned." Or just plan ticked off.
That is what past leaders of the Environmental Protection Agency said they felt when they think about the direction the agency has taken under President Trump.
Four former EPA chiefs — three Republicans and one Democrat — spent Tuesday criticizing the EPA's shrinking size and ambition in testimony on Capitol Hill, saying the agency has moved away from its core duties under Trump, The Post's Brady Dennis and I reported.
“I’m deeply concerned that five decades of environmental progress are at risk because of the attitude and approach of the current administration” Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who led the agency during the George W. Bush administration, told lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"Climate change is real, and the administration is abdicating its responsibilities by denying it," added Whitman, once the governor of the coastal state of New Jersey.
Similar worries dominated the testimony of Gina McCarthy, who led the EPA during the final years of the Obama administration and has been an outspoken critic of the current one.
Like Whitman, McCarthy bemoaned the exodus of longtime EPA employees and what she calls the sinking morale of many career staffers. She and others raised questions about whether the Trump administration is adequately relying on science to drive its policy decisions, and said the White House is ignoring the threat of climate change amid an aggressive push to scale back environmental regulations.
And for McCarthy, the Trump administration is in the process of rolling back her own work.
“I’m here for one reason and one reason only, and it’s not to weep about all my precious rules being rolled back. Although I admit that the constant roll back is beginning to tick me off a bit," McCarthy said. "Maybe even more than just a bit."
"I’m here to remind the political leadership at the EPA that what they do matters, and it’s time for them to step up and to do their jobs. Just do your jobs," she continued, adding the current EPA seemed to value lowering costs to industry more than safeguarding public health.
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment on the testimony. Earlier this year, the agency touted its work during the first two years under Trump, highlighting dozens of deregulatory actions and saying that it had “continued to deliver on its promise to provide greater regulatory certainty while protecting public health and the environment.”
The Hill hearing was intended to “address the mission and future” of the agency, according to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the committee chairman. It comes after seven past EPA chiefs, representing Republican and Democratic administrations, wrote to House lawmakers in April, offering Congress help with oversight of the agency.
“We are united that there has never been a more important time for us to put aside our differences and advocate collectively for public health and the environment,” they wrote in the letter, which was first reported by E&E News.
The letter was signed by the EPA’s first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, a Republican who also has been critical of the Trump administration’s approach, as well as a host of other past leaders.
The ex-EPA chiefs, who served under Reagan, Obama and both Bushes, pressed Congress to use its oversight power to rein in the current deregulatory push and to ensure the EPA relies on science over politics in its actions. House Democrats who invited the former officials echoed their concerns and promised they are already looking into the rollback of air and chemical rules.
“The four former administrators with us this morning truly know what is at stake and how to accomplish EPA’s mission,” Pallone said.
Some Republicans on the committee criticized McCarthy’s management of the EPA for what they saw as exceeding her authority, pointing to the EPA’s efforts to drastically slash emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“Under her leadership, I think the EPA went rogue,” Rep. David B. McKinley (R-W.Va.) said.
Other Republicans emphasized how often their constituents, many of whom are rural farmers, have to contend with difficult-to-understand regulations on pesticides and fertilizers. And at times, the former administrators acknowledged the challenges of making the public understand their work.
“It’s not an accident that the president can say the kind of things he said about wanting to break up EPA into little bits,” said former administrator William Reilly, who served under George H.W. Bush.
But Reilly still expressed apprehension with what he sees as the pro-industry direction the agency has taken, with its revisions to Obama-era air pollution rules on mercury and methane.
He noted that while the EPA needs to consider the "economic impact" of its actions, "the environment and health come first."
Lee Thomas, a Republican who led the EPA from 1985 to 1989, compared the current EPA management to the tenure of Anne Gorsuch Burford — Reagan’s controversial first EPA administrator.
Burford, the mother of Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, resigned amid sharp budget cuts, a rift between political and career staff and a scandal over mismanagement of the Superfund cleanup program.
“EPA in 1983 was in the middle of chaos and turmoil,” Thomas said. “There were six different congressional committees that were investigating what was going on at EPA … There was a deregulatory agenda. There was an attack on science at many levels.”
“All that sound familiar?” he added. “ Well there’s an awful lot of that going on today.”
|You are reading The Energy 202, our must-read tipsheet on energy and the environment.|
|Not a regular subscriber?|
— 2020 watch: Joe Biden told a Greenpeace activist he supports having a climate-focused presidential debate. “We should,” Biden said when asked on a ropeline after a speech in Iowa. “I think that’s what we should be doing. …Yeah, I’m all in. Take a look at what I’m talking about – and by the way, the first climate change plan in the history of the Congress? Biden.”
The context: “Biden has been at pains to emphasize his devotion to climate action, especially since an aide was quoted as saying Biden would take a ‘middle road’ to fighting climate change — a characterization he strongly disputes,” The Post’s David Weigel reports. Biden’s remarks make him the 15th Democratic candidate to endorse a climate debate.
Meanwhile: The chair of the Democratic National Committee defended his decision not to hold a single-issue debate. He called climate change an “urgent threat” and insisted he’s “confident that climate change will receive more attention than ever before — and deservedly so.” But he said “[t]o amend these rules now, after having enforced them throughout this primary process, would be putting our thumb on the scale,” he said in a post on Medium. “If we change our guidelines at the request of one candidate who has made climate change their campaign’s signature issue, how do we say no to the numerous other requests we’ve had?”
In response: Democratic contender and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who is running on a climate change platform, said the DNC “won’t recognize the climate crisis as an existential threat, but instead has chosen to treat it as a pet issue of one candidate.”
Trump in Iowa: While speaking at the Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy in Council Bluffs, the president touted his work on ethanol while taking a jab at Biden. “I fought very hard for ethanol,” Trump told the audience. “Under the previous administration, our leaders rejected American energy and they rejected ethanol."
Biden fires back: The former vice president criticized the Trump administration’s tariffs between the United States and China, which he said “crushed” the state’s farmers, during remarks in Iowa, The Post’s Matt Viser, John Wagner and Jenna Johnson report. “[Trump] thinks he’s being tough,” Biden said. “Well, it’s easy to be tough when someone else is feeling the pain.”
Biden's legacy on ethanol: The ex-vice president "was considered instrumental in orchestrating the blending cuts as a way to help struggling refineries on the East Coast deal with rising compliance costs under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard,” per Reuters. “A federal court struck down the cuts in 2016. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has yet to make the biofuel industry whole for the lost gallons despite repeated promises to do so.”
— It'll be harder for China to choke the U.S. of “rare earth” minerals than it thinks: Amid escalating trade tensions between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, China is threatening to hold these minerals hostage as retaliation. The elements are linchpins of many high-tech products such as wind turbines, electric vehicles and nuclear reactors. And China’s share of global production was at more than 97 percent in 2010, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
But: According to The Post's David J. Lynch, the U.S. economy is more resilient to such a rare-earth ban than it appears. New mines in California, Australia and Myanmar have shrunk China's production share to 71 percent last year. And any embargo won't be foolproof, with rogue operations in China last year producing an estimated 60,000 tons of rare earths.
— Democratic chair wants an explanation for the suppression of congressional testimony on climate: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) sent letters to the State Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence demanding more information about the White House’s suppression of written testimony about “possibly catastrophic” consequences of climate change. The Post first reported last week that the White House blocked a State Department intelligence agency from submitting written testimony to Schiff’s committee about the national security threat from human-driven global warming. “
If these reports are accurate, I applaud your Bureau for standing by its analysts and the integrity of its analysts and the integrity of their work in the face of political pressure, but the Committee remains gravely concerned about the events surrounding [bureau senior analyst Rod Schoonover]’s withheld written testimony,” he wrote in the letter to State Assistant Secretary Ellen McCarthy, who oversees the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Schiff’s demand: The chairman called for details about communications with the White House on any review process for the written testimony as well as testimony from McCarthy or other officials to explain the basis for Schoonover’s analysis.
— Bernhardt’s accidental interview: Interior Secretary David Bernhardt spoke with the Colorado Independent after remarks at the Western Governors Association meeting in Vail, Colo. He reportedly agreed to the interview because he thought it was with his hometown newspaper, the Glenwood Springs Post Independent. He spoke briefly about climate change and about national parks, mentioning that he recently saw structures in Acadia National Park that are “literally crumbling.” “You may go look at a campground and charcoal grills are falling down, the amenities don’t work, the water doesn’t turn on when you turn it on,” Bernhardt said, telling the publication he’s hoping to address park maintenance by raising entry fees and visitor costs.
— Adrift in the Arctic: This fall, scientists will launch the largest Arctic research expedition ever, to document how climate change is affecting the fastest-warming region on Earth, as The Post’s Sarah Kaplan reports from Utqiagvik, Alaska. “What the scientists discover during their year in the frozen north will help them forecast the future of the entire planet,” she writes. “Struggling on the sea ice off Alaska during their training this April, they get a taste of how tough the task will be. They are steeling themselves for what awaits at the pole: profound isolation and protracted darkness, laborious experiments, cold that can plunge to 45 degrees below zero. There are countless ways the Arctic might thwart and threaten them at every turn.”
By the numbers: It will take one year and $134 million and will be part of a 17-nation project. The Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate, a 387-foot research station, is scheduled to launch on Sept. 20 and will see a rotating set of 300 meteorologists, biologists, oceanographers and ice experts.
— A “new climate regime”: A study published this week in the journal Earth’s Future warned about a “new climate regime” with “extraordinary” heat waves, The Post’s Jason Samenow reports. He points to heat waves that killed hundreds and hospitalized thousands across the Northern Hemisphere last summer, a pattern that may be part of a new normal. “The study’s modeling analysis, conducted by researchers in Switzerland and the United Kingdom, found heat events like last summer’s do ‘not occur in historical simulations’ and ‘were unprecedented prior to 2010,’ ” he adds. “As the climate warms, the study projects that the area affected by heat waves like last summer’s will increase 16 percent for every 1.8 degrees (1 Celsius) of warming.”
- The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy holds a hearing on oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a hearing on wildland fire and management programs on Thursday.
- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife holds a legislative hearing on Thursday.
- The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate holds a hearing on safe storage and disposal of nuclear fuel on Thursday.
- BP’s chief economist presents the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 at the Atlantic Council on Thursday.
— Do it for the polar bears: The Post's Sarah Kaplan shares a delightful tidbit from her reporting assignment in Alaska. See this photo from The Post's Bonnie Jo Mount and many others in Kaplan's story here.