Former EPA Leaders Sound the Alarm on Environmental Rollbacks
In a stark warning, three former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrators—Gina McCarthy, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman—have condemned the recent environmental rollback plans announced by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. They assert that these rollbacks endanger the lives of millions of Americans and abandon the EPA’s core mission to protect both the environment and public health. McCarthy, who served under Democratic administrations, described Zeldin’s announcement as “the most disastrous day in EPA history.” Her sentiments were echoed by Reilly and Whitman, who served under Republican presidents, underscoring the bipartisan concern over the proposed changes.
The Scope of the Rollback Plan
Zeldin’s plan aims to undo 31 key environmental regulations addressing clean air, clean water, and climate change. These regulations have been in place for decades and are crucial for maintaining environmental protections. The proposed rollbacks include reconsidering the 2009 endangerment finding, which established that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. This finding has been the legal foundation for numerous climate change policies, including regulations on vehicle emissions and power plants. Whitman emphasized that such actions endanger not only the current generation but also future ones, stating, “We all deserve to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.”
Challenging the Endangerment Finding
The endangerment finding, a cornerstone of U.S. environmental law, has been vital in combating climate change. Environmentalists and scientists argue that overturning this finding is unlikely to succeed and would undermine decades of legal and scientific consensus. The former EPA leaders expressed astonishment at the administration’s attempt to dismantle this critical foundation, warning of severe consequences for public health, the economy, and the environment. McCarthy criticized the administration for prioritizing the interests of the fossil fuel industry over the EPA’s mission, asserting that strong environmental regulations have historically benefited both the economy and the environment.
Impact on the Environment and Economy
The proposed rollbacks target various environmental protections, including rules on mercury pollution, soot, and industrial emissions. These changes could lead to significant increases in pollution, detracting from public health and environmental quality. While Zeldin argues that these rollbacks will reduce regulatory costs and lower living expenses, critics contend that such claims overlook the long-term costs of environmental degradation and public health crises. The former administrators stressed that environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive, pointing to the EPA’s history of promoting both a cleaner environment and economic prosperity.
The Influence of the Fossil Fuel Industry
Critics argue that the rollback plan reflects the administration’s alignment with the fossil fuel industry’s interests. The administration’s actions, including funding cuts for climate programs and reduced support for renewable energy, have raised concerns about a return to an era of unchecked industrial pollution. Reilly warned of a potential regression to a time when pollution was rampant, referencing the infamous 1969 Cuyahoga River fire that spurred the creation of the EPA. He questioned whether the administration would allow such environmental disasters to recur, highlighting the importance of maintaining robust environmental protections.
A Call to Action
The former EPA leaders have been vocal in their opposition, publishing an op-ed in The New York Times last month to highlight the potential environmental harm caused by the administration’s actions. They have urged the public and policymakers to recognize the irreversible damage these rollbacks could cause. McCarthy emphasized the difficulty and importance of creating environmental regulations, questioning the motivation behind rethinking proven policies. Environmental groups have vowed to fight these changes, which they describe as the most significant increase in pollution in decades. The stakes are high, and the outcome of this battle will shape the future of environmental protection in the U.S.
