Freedom, as Americans often define the idea, comes not without implied duties to others.     We cannot (legally at least) harness the unlimited capacity to harm other people, even if we pleased to do so. Property rights, and freedom of speech all imply the concept of reciprocity, and giving a level of “moral standing” to others. When concerning everyday actions, an object, living or not, has “moral standing” when we consider our actions for that object’s “own sake” (Kernohan 23). Rationally thinking people tend to consider others to an extent when making decisions, even if the consideration is purely to retain a good reputation for themselves. Why is it, then, that so many individuals and corporations are actively tainting our environment - thus tainting our future reputation?  Should we be remembered by future generations as the people that destroyed our environment, depleted all its resources, and made communities uninhabitable, destroying the nature responsible for our success? 

At first glance, the above question seems to consider the environment as deserving of moral standing. Not everyone will agree that the environment itself has inherent value.  However, we humans are indeed part of the environment, which can be essentially defined as the total living and non-living factors that surround and affect an organism (Kernohan). As the most influential species on Earth, we owe a duty to our environment to protect it, not for its own sake, but for the health and prosperity of our children. 

No governmental agency is as devoted to the protection of our health and environment as the Environmental Protection Agency, often abbreviated as the EPA. Recent decisions in Congress have proposed to reduce the EPA’s budget, and weaken the ability for its scientists to collaborate and research global issues. Perhaps more than ever, Americans must understand that the need for the EPA extends beyond politics, and that conditions have greatly improved since its establishment. Foremost, we should consider that the EPA is an agency that benefits the health and safety of every American citizen, every day. Recently, at the highest levels of government, decisions have been made that emphasize short-term monetary gains over the long-term prosperity of the American people. We must preserve the EPA’s regulatory and research capabilities, not only for our immediate health, but to ensure a safe future for our global society.

Prior to the EPA’s establishment, there were a slew of national environmental issues.   For example, due to unregulated industrial dumping, many of America’s waterways were unusable for anything beneficial. The Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland, Ohio, was “so thick with combustible industrial chemicals that it often caught fire (Palmer, Why we need the EPA)”. On June 22, 1969, sparks from an overpassing train caused a fire to grow “five stories in height as the river burned for about 30 minutes” (Palmer). Many other U.S. waterways occasionally caught on fire, and were labeled as unsafe for recreational swimming, let alone be used as drinking water. There was a dire need to protect and clean America’s waterways. Even in 2016, the EPA spent 52% of its allocated goal-oriented funding on providing “clean and safe water” for communities across America (EPA: Annual Fiscal Report 29 – see chart). 

From the same chart, the EPA claimed to have spent 12% of its funding on enforcing “clean air” standards. Poor, even dangerous air quality was, and still is, a major issue in many American cities, as well as in areas located around polluting factories or power plants. Smog was a common issue in New York City, although Americans hadn’t commonly referred to it as smog. One particular event was downright chilling. In 1948, the small steel mill town of Donora, Pennsylvania suffered an air pollution event due to the mill, that killed 20 of its own people, one of the worst such events in U.S. history (Palmer). Donora currently maintains a smog museum, reminding people of the preventable tragedy, one that would serve as a basis for a need of emissions regulations regarding air pollutants. 

The desire for environmental regulation extended beyond political boundaries. In the late 1960’s, there was an almost unanimous desire in Congress to establish an organization that would tend to the self-inflicted wounds we had caused. In his 1970 State of the Union speech, President Richard Nixon assured that “restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions” (Palmer). Soon after, on December 2nd, 1970, Nixon signed an executive order that established the Environmental Protection Agency (Light). The EPA initially received overwhelming public support (the only true opposition came from “recalcitrant polluters” who tried to give money under-the-table to continue business as usual). The passion of the American population was evident in the first Earth Day, celebrated April 22 of the same year. Around the country, “some 20 million Americans demonstrated” (Palmer). 

It’s worth noting that Nixon, a Republican, strongly supported the EPA’s establishment. The current controversy surrounding the EPA tends to be a bipartisan issue – Democrats tend to favor the government playing a strong role in protecting the environment, for poor and rich communities alike. Republicans tend to see the EPA as an overreaching institution that inhibits business enterprise and raises taxes. Yet, Nixon and his Republican colleagues realized the need for environmental regulation transcended the political realm, even if it did mean it would cost a fair deal of money. Nixon contended that “through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called” (Palmer).   

The individual tax burden for the EPA’s services is nothing extreme. According to a times.com/money article by Rob Wile, “Trump Wants to Cut $2 Billion from the EPA's Budget - Here's What That Money Does”, a 2 billion dollar proposed budget cut would only bring the yearly costs down “from $25 per American to $18.81 per American”. This isn’t a huge difference to most people, especially considering that this tax money goes toward providing safe air, drinking water, and regulating businesses that would otherwise be poisoning the American population. An example of one of the EPA’s regulations on business is the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act was amended in 1970 to give the EPA the ability to set emission limits on six major air pollutants, most of which, such as sulfur dioxide, are toxic in high concentrations (Palmer). These emission standards apply to both industrial and automobile sources. While the EPA does restrict the emissions of some businesses, they haven’t infringed on our ability to use the true essence of American culture: our automobiles. While “the number of miles Americans travel per year has steadily climbed and the amount of power Americans consume has grown, emissions have fallen” (Light). This quote suggests that the EPA hasn’t told the average American how much they should drive or dictate how to live their life. Rather, the agency has enforced top-level companies to comply with pollution regulations, regulations which are justified by sound scientific and empirical evidence. In addition to increasing fuel economy, the Clean Air Act has effectively saved lives. Per a peer-reviewed EPA study, EPA regulations have prevented “165,000 fewer deaths per year in 2010 than in 1990 and 1.7 million fewer cases of asthma” (Light). The toxic, choking smog is now in the past – we mustn’t lead history repeat itself by allowing unregulated emissions. 

Still more environmental issues that the EPA has helped solve include overuse of pesticides that contribute to ozone depletion (causing UV exposure -a cause of skin cancer), reducing acid rain, and restoring sites where industrial pollution rendered the site uninhabitable (Light). The EPA’s Superfund program is dedicated to restoring heavily polluted areas to a natural, habitable state. The Superfund program is also the second-most expensive feature of the EPA’s budget. According to the EPA: Annual Fiscal Report 2016, “land preservation and restoration” amounted to 23% of the EPA’s 2016 budget (29). If almost a quarter of the EPA’s $8.1 billion 2016 budget went towards land preservation/restoration, this proves that the cost of cleaning up after environmental hazards is far more expensive than simply preventing them initially. Reductions to the EPA’s budget would hamper their ability to restore America’s diminishing habitats.

In fact, slicing the EPA’s budget would hamper its ability to perform virtually all its influential functions. The proposed 2 billion dollar budget cut would ‘totally undermine the ability of the EPA and it’s research arm to set standards at a level that science can rightfully be confident is protective of public health”, says William Becker, from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. In other words, the inability of the EPA to allocate funding towards scientific development could cause the EPA Science Office “to implode” (Cornwall). One of the EPA’s greatest resources, after all,  is “the vast supply of information it has collected over four decades, some of which is available to the public through the internet” (Light).

Why is only some of the information available to the public? According to Myron Ebell, the former head of President Trump’s EPA transition team, the answer is “secret science” (thehill.com), or potentially incomplete information hidden from the public. Despite all the ways in which the EPA supports Americans, it is not perfect organization. Opponents of the EPA, as I have previously stated, believe it is an overachieving agency that is overtly regulatory and ideological. I agree with Trump that the EPA could use a slight budget cut regarding the prospect of climate change, as the EPA has historically misallocated funds without congressional oversight. For example, “Obama's EPA diverted $160 million from Clean Air Act programs to climate programs” (thehill.com). Perhaps that money could be better spent on supporting renewable energy programs, rather than studying such a controversial concept that leaves people divided. 

Ebell suggests that “secret science”, being private and difficult to replicate, should be banned entirely. While I don’t believe the EPA should publish false information, he extends this concept to refer to any studies that are incomplete or non-reproducible. Congress has taken steps toward making the EPA’s information more reliable and complete by enacting the Honest and Open Science Treatment Act of 2017 – abbreviated as the HONEST Act. The will prevent the EPA “from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible” (U.S. Congress). It will also require public access to all research, effectively eliminating “secret science”. While this bill might increase the reputation of the EPA among average Americans, it will ultimately reduce EPAs influence - and is contradictory in that it will increase expenses, due to written EPA review required in response to submitted scientific work.

Science, however, cannot always come to a sound conclusion without any loose ends. “Scientific replication is not attained by simply repeating the exact details of an experiment — that is for a grade school science class”, argues Dr. Bernard Goldstein, a former EPA assistant administrator during the Reagan Administration. In his article, “The HONEST Act is Actually Dishonest and Will Hurt the EPA”, Goldstein argues that “replication is best achieved when the findings of the initial study are supported by other studies approaching the same question in different ways”. By this definition, then, the HONEST Act is preventing honest replication.

The other major argument against the EPA is that it’s regulatory capabilities, which Ebell describes as a” regulatory onslaught”, reduces the amount of available jobs on the market. It’s true that the EPA has shut down some businesses responsible for tainting America’s landscape and waterways. Since one of President Trump’s primary objectives is to create jobs, it’s understandable that he would oppose business regulation. Yet, his goals to reduce the EPA’s budget will not only reduce jobs in the EPA itself, but also in competitive renewable energy businesses such as solar power. Stringent environmental regulations encourage competition and growth the of renewable energy sector – this competition also leads to technological innovation. Trump may be eliminating more jobs than he creates, although we can’t tell for sure just yet. 

According to the Article “The Solar Industry Keeps Adding Jobs” by Justin Worland, “the number of jobs in the U.S. solar industry grew by 25% last year as the energy sector continued its march away from fossil fuels to renewable energy”. This “march away from fossil fuels” is something Trump overlooked to achieve votes. The coal industry is a dying industry, one that will eventually be outpaced by renewable energy, even if coal is temporarily revitalized. With this information, one could infer that new EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s emphasis on monitoring the actions of an agency (the EPA), over monitoring our environment, is ultimately a stance that considers short term monetary gains over the long-term prosperity of the American people. Eliminating existing jobs, creating pollution, and halting innovation doesn’t sound like anything a rational government would allow. The EPA’s “regulatory onslaught”, as described by Mr. Ebell, seems preferable to the horde of issues that will otherwise develop in coming generations if the EPA were crushed. 

The horrific conditions prior to the establishment of the EPA, gave the government a responsibility to place limits on free enterprise, for the sake of our freedom of choice. Sure, a few rich individuals lost their fortunes - because we have chosen to live in a society free of smog, toxic waterways, and inefficient automobiles. We have the freedom to be in a public space, and not be worried about secondhand smoke. For all the regulations the EPA has imposed on a few corporations, the agency has completely liberated the average American from a legion of health problems. The EPA’s budget should only be cut where there has been evidence of misallocation – and it’s staffing and influence should only continue to grow. 

 The current bipartisan controversy surrounding the EPA and its influence, has forced me into the political realm, as the EPA is an issue of governmental authority. I contend that all the previous discussion about government is not meant to persuade you to change your political stance – I neither identify as Democrat nor Republican. Rather, I ask that you can see the issue of environmental protection as an issue ultimately transcendent of politics. I challenge you to view the environment through the lenses of Nixon and his colleagues – we should use our limitless human influence to shape the environment for the better, as it has shaped us. We have a duty to protect the environment: for this generation, for every future generation. 

How would you like to be remembered?
