According to a recent report released by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), President Donald Trump’s administration has not been collecting nearly as many fines for breaches of environmental law. Whereas the previous three presidents (Obama, Bush Jr. and Clinton), received an average of $30 million in fines during their first six months in office, Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have pulled in not-even half that. As of July 31st, the administration has collected $12 million as a result of consent decrees issued by the DOJ. That’s a 60 percent decrease relative to the previous administrations.
Educated Guess
When companies are found to be in violation of environmental law they are often issued an injunction requiring them to address any defects in their equipment to prevent further harm to the environment. This is also known as injunctive relief. According to the report, since the 90s, the EPA has put forward estimations as to how much money would be sufficient to cover those expenses. Trump’s EPA estimated that $197 million would suffice for 10 cases. The EPA under Obama went much higher, estimating that companies would need to spend $1.2 billion for 22 cases.
Untimely Deaths
One of the more horrifying effects of the current EPA’s lack of action is the very immediate consequence of premature death. As noted in the report, sulfur dioxide has been linked with heart disease and certain lung conditions. In quantitative terms, eliminating 1,000 tons of sulfur dioxide can save 17 lives. To that end, past iterations of the EPA have put forward estimations regarding reductions in sulfur dioxide pollution. These estimations are based on consent decrees given to violators of environmental law. After the first six months of Obama’s presidency, the EPA expected a reduction of nearly 40,000 tons of sulfur dioxide resulting in between 178 and 397 fewer deaths. Trump’s estimation? A 627-ton reduction in pollution resulting in between four and ten fewer premature deaths.
The Response
The EPA’s response, given in part by Patrick Taylor, deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, indicated a refusal to take any responsibility for the report’s figures. “[They] say much more about enforcement actions commenced in the later years of the Obama administration than it does about actions taken in the beginning of the Trump administration,” Taylor said referring to the report.
Close Ties
Taylor’s statement ignores the fact that EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has a buddy-buddy relationship with oil, gas and electric companies. Thanks to thousands of emails released in February, the scope and nature of this relationship has come to light. In one email, a representative of Americans for Prosperity thanked Pruitt for “push[ing] back against President Obama’s E.P.A. and its axis with liberal environmental groups.”
Other emails showed Pruitt to be directly collaborating with industries. Certain companies sent proposals to the then-Attorney General of Oklahoma, suggesting ways to convince regulators to pull back on restrictions pertaining to oil and gas pollution.
Bad Omen
According to former officials, this report does not bode well. Bruce Buckheit, a former director of the EPA’s Air Enforcement division, said companies will likely be emboldened by the report’s figures. “We see in the data a clear signal to industry that they need not be concerned about federal environmental enforcement,” he told NPR.
Eric Schaeffer, who heads up the EIP, noted in a statement that the President’s pledge to pursue “law and order” policies clearly had nothing to do with the violations of environmental law by major companies. He added, “If this drop-off in environmental enforcement continues, it will leave more people breathing more air pollution or swimming in waterways with more waste.”
Of course, the Trump administration’s failure is only a failure to those in favor of a healthy environment. Sadly, for the current EPA, the recent EIP report most likely communicates a positive outcome.
Leave a Comment