This is anti-scientific and on-brand, but really problematic from the Trump EPA. It's going to be critical to undo this as soon as we get the new administration sworn in and no longer have to fight in Congress to defend the enlightenment. Brief thread: nytimes.com/2021/01/04/cli…
1/ Do not be fooled by the title. This rule would prevent most public health data from being used to write environmental rules, and thereby intentionally limit EPA's knowledge.
2/ As the NYT article notes, this idea was initially developed by Chris Horner in 1996, then a lobbyist for Big Tobacco who recommended they should "address process rather than scientific substance".
3/ For more background on that, see my questioning of EPA's Dr. Orme-Zavaleta here from a little over a year ago.
4/ A key point that was part of this exchange is that existing EPA rules, which were crafted in more pro-scientific eras come up for periodic review. So even though this rule applies prospectively, it is an assault on the entire edifice of EPA regulation.
5/ Watch this space. We'll be working w/ House and Senate colleagues and the Biden White House to overturn this as quickly as possible. But until then...
6/ ...let's all commit to no longer question whether or not the Enlightenment was a step forward in human progress. Scientific knowledge and scientifically-informed public policy is good. I wish that wasn't partisan. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
