One Take on the President's July 8th Speech on the Environment. . .

The Yonkers Power Plant, a work in progress again. 

Earlier this month, on Monday, July 8^th, the President offered up a speech highlighting his administration's environmental policy. What follows is a look at some of the key themes and the policies highlighted in that speech.

The President started with two basic points, two basic goals of his administration:

The first is to ensure that America has the cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet. And number two - that you can achieve these while growing the economy. He stressed that the two are not mutually exclusive as previous administrations have suggested.

What followed in the speech was a detailing of policies his administration has embraced to achieve and maintain clean air and clean water. Likewise he touched upon his administration's management of public lands, the cleanup of super-fund sites, forestry, and the embrace of innovation and new technologies.

So let's run through some of this list, some of the policies he has embraced. We will start with the clean air and the water he emphasized and then following the speech also comment on the clean up of Superfund and brownfield sites, and the management of public lands. I will then explore some areas that were not touched upon in the speech, but that do demand some attention.

He begins with water, asserting that “today, the United States is ranked — listen to this — number one in the world for access to clean drinking water — ranked number one in the world.” That is obviously not quite true. If you go to The Global Open Data Index, they have collected the data from governments across the globe and they arrive at the conclusion that we get an 85% and are tied for second place along with seven other countries. Exaggeration is a common theme in this speech, which really should not be a surprise. And regardless, 85% and being tied for second is pretty good for a country that entails the better part of a continent and 330+ million people. I guess the point is that at 85% there is room for improvement.

Another statistic that he discusses early on is the cost of electricity. This highlights his concern for both a good economy and environment, and his assertion that they are not mutually exclusive. He points out that the price of electricity is far lower today in the US both historically and in comparison to other countries.

“Other countries -- their pricing on electricity is so high, not even to be affordable. At our level, we are doing numbers that nobody has seen before. Nobody believes what we're doing and what we're producing electricity and other things for. Punishing Americans is never the right way to produce a better environment or a better economy.”

Again, if you do a quick search on the web you realize we are not the cheapest. China and India are both at 8 cents per kilowatt hour, Canada and Mexico are both at 10 cents. The US is at 12 cents. Still relatively cheap as compared to Denmark, Germany and Spain which are somewhere between 30 and 40 cents per kilowatt hour. These number were courtesy of OVO Energy and there are other sources. The point is that we are being provided with information regarding clean water and electricity that is less than true. If you truly value clean air, clean water and the cost of electricity, I would have to believe we would want an accurate view of where we stand regarding them. It simply goes to credibility.

The same situation regarding air pollution. The President asserted at one point that “air pollution -- particulate matter -- is six times lower here than the global average.” I searched various databases and we like most industrial nations have improved the situation since 1970. Things have improved. We are again not the best. We are pulling B's, maybe even B+'s.

The concerning thing regarding these instances is that this is the President of the United States making these claims at the beginning of a speech detailing his administration's accomplishments regarding the environment. They basically introduce and frame the topics covered in the speech, and they are simply not true. Yet, many people will simply take them as true, as fact, because the President made the claims. One could innocently believe that the President would not lie or make up things in a major speech.

Regardless, we do know just from their introduction, true or false, that the President believes that the two most important pieces of our environmental policy involve the quality of our air and our water. Further, he believes that these two must not be achieved at the cost of the economy. Not only that but he believes that good environmental policy and good economic policy are not antithetical, that they are not mutually exclusive. Of course the flaws of what he initially presented haunt us here. Upon what are we to judge his claims regarding the relationship of the economy and the environment?

Let us stop beating a dead horse and grant that he has simply exaggerated the claims. If we do not grant this, then we might as well stop here and call it a day – why consider a speech that is based upon false premises, aside from it being offered by the President of the US. Let us grant that though we are not the best in any of these categories, the numbers regarding the environment of the US and likewise the pricing of our electricity are satisfactory. All indicate that we are more than in the game and that improvements have been made, and that there is more work to be done.

Now before going into the area and policies he wants to highlight, let me point to another area of interest – Global Warming. I bring it up because he does. He does not name it but he does allude to it. The term is not referenced anywhere in the speech. Yet in his introductory comments regarding air pollution he points out that “ Since 2000, our nation's energy-related carbon emissions have declined more than any other country on Earth. Think of that. Emissions are projected to drop in 2019 and 2020. “

He continues “Every single one of the signatories to the Paris Climate Accord lags behind America in overall emissions reductions. Who would think that is possible? For this reason, in my first year in office, I withdrew the United States from the unfair, ineffective, and very, very expensive Paris Climate Accord. Thank you.”

The President told us above that the core of his environmental policy was clean air and water. That and making sure that policies regarding these do not harm the economy. There was no reference to global warming yet it is largely in the debate and science of global warming that carbon emissions are relevant. I am not sure why he introduced this data point. His speech ignores global warming. Why bring up a data point regarding that which you do not believe exists and that you are not talking about?

Perhaps he was saying in short that we have done enough? Even without trying, we have exceeded all others, so we left the Paris Climate Accord, Perhaps that was his point? Onto the next subject.

He returns to his theme of the balance or the dance of the environment and the economy. He talks of his new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, (the USMCA). He highlights that there is a provision in that agreement regarding clean up of plastic waste in the oceans. He talks of having “refocused the EPA back on its core mission, and, last year, the agency completed more Superfund hazardous waste clean-ups than any year of the previous administrations and set records in almost every year.” He references Super-fund clean ups in Michigan and Missouri.

He continues on this theme mentioning that “we've also directed $65 million in brownfield grants to clean up even more contaminated sites in 149 American communities. Think of that -- the vast majority home to lower-income citizens.” What is that actually saying though when you consider that the agency currently has 13,758 employees, versus the 17,359 employees it had during the first term of President Obama. The agency is now at, according to The Washington Post, the lowest number of employees since 1987. 

In short, it seems that the EPA is doing more with less people? That is a good thing, right? Perhaps. The question becomes, are the standards, which historically slowed the clean-up process down at the EPA, now being embraced at all? Can the EPA actually navigate the challenges of such cleanups done properly with the staff cuts they have embraced? Can we do what is required to insure that these lands and waterways are now clean or are we simply writing checks to now facilitate us building on, living in, and working on contaminated sites? Sites that continue to pollute our water? Meanwhile, in the speech he boasts that the vast majority of the sites they are cleaning up are in proximity to lower-income citizens. It is no doubt a good thing that these sites are being addressed, but it is an open question whether the methodology and the solution applied are sufficient. Only time will tell.

From Superfund and brownfield cleanups, which hopefully will improve the quality of our water the President goes to his signing America's Water Infrastructure Act. A law he describes as supporting American drinking water infrastructure and other critical projects. It is an infrastructure bill focusing on dams, levees, reservoirs, pretty much anything involving water. So this is a good thing. Supporting our infrastructure and our various water systems. The only thing to note is that this legislation is not his. This is not innovation. It is simply continuing the work of the US government. These bills have been passed routinely. He is continuing a tradition. Regardless, it is now signed law and it is a good thing.

He also points to a $100 Million piece of legislation that will protect the ecosystems of the Everglades. This legislation is vital to the inhabitants of southern Florida. It basically protects their source of drinking water. Further, it is a response to the red tide that is challenging much of Florida. Again these issues have challenged Florida for the past twenty years and this is a continuation of an ongoing project. He is again continuing the work initiated by earlier administrations, Republicans and Democrats. Again, in the end he has signed legislation giving sizable sums to Florida to deal with this issue and that is a good thing.

Another area that the President referenced in his speech several times is the clean up of the oceans. The removal of the thousands of tons of plastic bottles, containers, and the like that have found their way into the oceans, creating that island of plastic off the coast of Mexico and California. He passed a bill to specifically deal with this, plus also language can be found elsewhere, such as the new NAFTA agreement. His main contribution here, however, is that he is now requesting that his State Department bring this issue to the attention of countries that are engaged in these practices-dumping plastic into the oceans. (And it must be said that such behavior, the dumping of plastic into the ocean, seems like the final piece of an old George Carlin bit regarding the earth desiring plastic, sadly.) Regarding this administration, we finally find a use for diplomacy. Regarding the monies appropriated for the matter, however, it is again a renewal of existing funding.

Lastly there are the public lands. He did sign what he claims to be the largest public lands packages in a decade, designating 1.3 million acres as public lands. That is bigger than the state of Rhode Island. Which is pretty amazing! Of course then you have the executive orders that preceded this legislation. There is the the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, where the former was trimmed or reduced by roughly 1.1 million acres, roughly 85%. And the later, the Grand Staircase, lost 800,000 acres.

Add to this the 10 million acres being reallocated for mining in the Sagebrush focal areas. These 10 million acres of Federal and adjacent lands found in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming are famous for their Sagebrush Grouse, a bird. These areas distributed across these six states were deemed significant in protecting the Grouse and the sagebrush, basically the arid lands, the near deserts, founds in the American west. In some ways they represent the American west.

The Sagebrush focal areas were not touched upon in the President's speech. They do, however, challenge one of the central themes of his speech – that we can do both good business and protect the environment simultaneously. Remember that in the speech he asserts that the two, the economy or business, and environment are not mutually exclusive. It does not have to be an either or. Yet it seems here that his administration has chosen the economy over the environment, mining over the grouse.

And that is the classic conflict between the economy, doing business, and the environment. It seems to stare us in the face here. Now this President not surprisingly chose to go with business and ignore the environment. It would seem that this decision to open the lands to mining simply challenges his claim that no decision is required regarding business and the environment, that the two can be balanced.

Yet, if you go back to the original decision, when they reverse the Obama policy, which had protected the grouse, the claim was exactly that – no such protections were not needed. The claim, when they reversed the Obama policy, was that the Obama administration had over-reacted. The Trump administration, it was claimed, was protecting the grouse, the sagebrush and would also do the mining. In short, they had claimed they could do both, just as the President was asserting in this speech.

So we now have 10 million acres of arid lands available to be mined, the millions in profits that will result from this, plus the preservation of a species, and the preservation of a vast chunk of what is simply the American west. All of this was somehow supposedly balanced, allowing for all to survive and thrive. This seems like a major success for this President, and yet he chose not to introduce this victory into a speech focusing on exactly this point? This appears to be the case.

So where do we stand? In the end, this President is kind of maintaining the status quo? Maybe? He is claiming to be protecting America's air and water quality. He did in fact signed several pieces of legislation into law that do support, maintain and even improve parts of our infrastructure relating to water. So something is being done there.

Regarding air, however, aside from the claim that we have clean air, he did not really speak to it. He did not touch upon air quality. At best, perhaps, he pointed to an achievement that was achieved by those prior to him, involving carbon, which really is not relevant here.

Which leads me to point to things that were not in the speech. Things such as the Sagebrush focal areas. The massive wildfire that was burning in Alaska as he gave the speech was likewise not mentioned. The relationship of science and research to the stewardship of the environment was not introduced. This as he relocates several hundred USDA scientists from Washington to St Louis, which may cost the organization half its research staff.

Nor was there any discussion of the "Joshua Principle", which had been embraced by Scott Pruitt at the EPA regarding scientists being given a seat at the table regarding policy. Basically allowing local community members and businesses to have a say in regulatory decisions, but not scientists and researchers. Likewise, there is the elimination of “secret science” at the EPA. Basically, this is the process arrived at by the EPA to do peer reviewed science and research required for new chemical compounds, but also respect the patent holder. The results are not publicly available - secret science. The administration is not happy with this process in light of transparency. An alternative, however, has not been found but I do hope that we are not going to simply take the word of the manufacturer going forward.

In short, regulation was not touched upon in the speech. Nor did the President reference any of his executive orders, which there have been several. He did not reference his executive order instructing the EPA, and the NHTSA to review the emission standards put in place by the Obama Administration. Obama had put in place standards that would further reduce carbon emissions and improve gas mileage going forward, but they have now been basically eliminated.

Nor did the President reference his executive order allowing coal burning power plants to continue to carry on without investment in scrubbing technologies. These technologies would make them far cleaner, removing not only carbon but also sulfur from our air. Carbon is the leading cause of global warming, and sulfur dioxide is the responsible for both acid rain and various respiratory ailments. Both of these executive orders will, if implemented, have an impact on air quality. Nothing was said regarding either. 

Add to these the initiative to eliminate EPA regulations regarding mercury emissions at coal plants. Likewise the modification of the Affordable Clean Energy rules, again at the EPA, and this time involving fine particulate matter. Again mostly resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, and associated with respiratory ailments, heart attacks and strokes. Regarding this last one, they question the mathematical models used by the Obama administration that arrive at roughly 1400 lives cost by such pollution. This is another illustration of the administration disputing the role of science and in this instance the mathematical  models used to arrive at those numbers, and ultimately the regulatory regime implemented. 

So the speech was highly selective on what was introduced. Global warming was not discussed. The achievements, the successes, were basically involving infrastructure funding bills that involved ongoing projects and initiatives initiated by prior administrations. Basically we celebrated the writing of checks to states, and local governments for infrastructure improvements.

The speech ignored the fact that though this administration has opened up massive tracts of public lands it likewise closed and eliminated far more. In light of such emissions, the speech's goal of illustrating how this administration has found a way to have both a good economy and environment was not lived up to.  Rather, the President chose to simply ignore such topics.

This choice to ignore certain topics is seen even more so as the speech did not touch at all on the regulatory aspects of the environment. Considering the record of this administration regarding environmental regulation, it simply would have been difficult if not impossible to assert that the President is balancing the economy and environment. His administration regarding environmental regulation simply favors business over the environment. There has been no balance regarding the two in regard to regulation. It is in fact an either or and in fact he has chosen the economy. He has chosen business.

Lastly, the President did not touch at all on his attitude and beliefs regarding science and environmental policy. And he does have some interesting views regarding science and its relation to policy. His administration's views regarding scientific research and those who do it are different from their predecessors. They seem not to trust science. They seem to not want to consider it in relation to policy. We see this in relation to global warming, and we see it in numerous instances above. If anything, the speech was further evidence of this attitude or position.

It has taken me two weeks to wrap my head around the various aspects of the speech and these policies. I was actually encouraged by somethings. In general, however, the speech fails to accurately represent this administration's environmental policy. Further, the speech does not accurately represent the intent or the ability of this administration to balance the economic and the environmental spheres. I doubt this administration has any such intention.