EPA removes half of scientific board, seeking industry-aligned replacements

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Administrator Scott Pruitt, in choosing not to renew nine members’ terms, has ‘eviscerated’ board of scientific counselors, says chair

 

The Environmental Protection Agency has “eviscerated” a key scientific review board by removing half its members and seeking to replace them with industry-aligned figures, according to the board’s chair.

 

 

Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator, has chosen not to renew the terms of nine of the 18-member board of scientific counselors, which advises the EPA on the quality and accuracy of the science it produces. The group, largely made up of academics, is set to be replaced by representatives from industries that the EPA regulates.Deborah Swackhamer, chair of the board, said that with other planned departures, the panel was left with five members, including her, in the midst of an EPA hiring freeze.

“The committee has been eviscerated,” she told the Guardian. “We assumed these people would be renewed and there was no reason or indication they wouldn’t be. These people aren’t Obama appointees, they are scientific appointees. To have a political decision to get rid of them was a shock.”

The nine departing members – who worked on matters including toxic water pollution, climate change and chemical safety – all completed three-year terms. The decision to not renew those terms has opened the way for the Trump administration to refashion the scientific board in line with its industry-friendly agenda that has sought to strip away various pollution rules in the name of “regulatory certainty”.

A spokesman for the agency told the New York Times: “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community.”

There would be a morality issue if the committee is turned into a political pawn of a certain viewpoint

Deborah Swackhamer

This could lead to multiple instances of conflicts of interest, Swackhamer said, despite clear EPA ethics rules.

“If you have industry hand-picked people,” she said, “the concern would be that they would have a frequent conflict because we discuss areas that touch upon big industry.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/08/epa-board-scientific-scott-pruitt-climate-change

Edited May 8, 2017 by ccneat

[ready4ONE 5,400]

What could go wrong? Sounds like just what the so-called president said he was going to do. Clean air, clean water, bio-diversity, who needs them?

 

In the immortal words of Dr. Suess "Business is business, and business must grow." Kiss the truffula trees goodbye!

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

27 minutes ago, ready4ONE said:

What could go wrong? Sounds like just what the so-called president said he was going to do. Clean air, clean water, bio-diversity, who needs them?

 

In the immortal words of Dr. Suess "Business is business, and business must grow." Kiss the truffula trees goodbye!

I picture Trump reading that  to his grankids in his voice, SAD

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Kinda like letting the fox guard the hen house. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Kinda like letting the fox guard the hen house. 

What is most discouraging is that all of these appointments have become politicized at a time where we need scientific straight talk.  

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 minute ago, ccneat said:

What is most discouraging is that all of these appointments have become politicized at a time where we need scientific straight talk.  

But those crazy right wingers don't care about the environment. They just want to line the pockets of their big business buddies all the while having the support from their fanatical low income followers too. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

But those crazy right wingers don't care about the environment. They just want to line the pockets of their big business buddies all the while having the support from their fanatical low income followers too. 

Seems like those folks have or will have grand kids live in the future they are creating as well as those they disagree with.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 minute ago, ccneat said:

Seems like those folks have or will have grand kids live in the future they are creating as well as those they disagree with.

Most of them aren't smart enough to realize what's going on. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, spookyturtle said:

Most of them aren't smart enough to realize what's going on. 

I think they are, and I am not prepared to let them off the hook.  These are not highschool dropouts.

 

They choose to seek out information that confirms their world view OR

They favor the prosperity, access, donations or lobbying fees that comes to them when they align themselves with the Oil industry

 

So is it not smart to go down that path or is it ignorance or is it greed?  Maybe a combination.   When I see this scenario I think of the awesome Chris Buckley book movie "Thank you for smoking" and the MOD squad ( merchants of death)

[eieio 1,594]

This is great news. I say they should be cut by 75%. 

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

Good, need more diversity of thought.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

55 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Good, need more diversity of thought.

Thought has nothing to do with this. Thoughtless greed more like. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

Good, need more diversity of thought.

And by diversity you would mean?

[IAMX 3,055]

8 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

Thought has nothing to do with this. Thoughtless greed more like. 

We know, any opposing view is thoughtless greed.

 

 

8 hours ago, ccneat said:

And by diversity you would mean?

http://www.bersin.com/Lexicon/Details.aspx?id=17339

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

We know, any opposing view is thoughtless greed.

 

 

http://www.bersin.com/Lexicon/Details.aspx?id=17339

I was looking for more detail in the context of letting these capable. scientists go like"when we replace these scientists with some petroleum industry shills, we will have diversity in viewpoints to counterbalance the logical conclusions of the scientific community on pollution"