The Dissent Letter outlined five overarching concerns about recent EPA actions. Foremost among them: that dismantling the research arm of the EPA (the Office of Research and Development) undermines EPA’s core work of developing and implementing science-informed policy. blog.ucs.org/dminovi/who-...
The letter also described how the admin’s actions have undermined the public’s trust in EPA by ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversed the EPA’s progress in addressing pollution in overburdened communities; & promoted a culture of fear among employees. act.ucsusa.org/4ligCRc
In the letter, the EPA employees voiced support for protecting the EPA’s ability to conduct independent science w/o interference & share scientific findings with the public. These protections are formalized in the EPA’s scientific integrity policy, which is still in effect. act.ucsusa.org/4eHoYPO
We’ve been documenting attacks on science across the federal government, including in the EPA. The EPA’s job is to ensure that people across the U.S. have access to clean drinking water, breathable air, and environments free of chemical hazards. www.ucs.org/resources/at...
The EPA works for the whole public, not just the President, and the agency is obliged to use the best available science to enforce laws passed by Congress. Administrator Zeldin is reshaping the agency to center the President’s political interests, not the public interest.
Open conversation & disagreement are a part of healthy democratic systems. Leaders can’t make good decisions unless they listen to the facts and work w/ their staff to solve problems. Instead, Admin Zeldin is silencing open dissent, punishing people for speaking out by putting them on admin leave.
@skyview.social unroll
We have t been a healthy democracy for some time now.
We don't have a healthy democratic system, technically we don't have democratic system anymore either. By the time the 26th election Rules by I predict we will not even be a democracy in name only. Right now people are admitting on Twitter their plans for corruption.
Sorry for the typos
It is common to see proponents of environmental & public health regulators argue that these officials ‘work for’ the public & act to defend the public interest. Even if I am inclined to agree, it challenges the dominant assumption that their authority is, largely delegated from politicians.
We need to explain why we chose to give independent authority to regulators in the first place, whether some domains may require more independence (i.e. more like a central bank or public prosecutor), and more broadly a philosophical defence to address the concerns about accountability & democracy.
Obviously the office of anti-Science. Sometimes called the Oval Office.
I resisted this notion for a long time, but I'm now convinced that a number of these people have a death wish. They must think that Jesus will rapture their punk asses up to heaven where there won't be anybody who isn't just like them. They don't just deny climate change, they embrace it.