The Environmental Pollution Agency

Apr 21

The agency that is supposed to protect public health and the environment from harm is turning its back on its original mission of protecting people and the planet, and instead will be catering to big business without regard to the harm it causes.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was started by Richard Nixon in 1970 to protect the environment. Leading up to its creation, there had been many environmental disasters including terrible air quality that made the air black and sickened many people, rivers being so polluted they caught on fire, the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire being one of the most prominent incidents, oil spills such as the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969, as well as other concerns about the planet. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring had a great impact on people that making them realize that human activity has a direct effect on the world around us. The first Earth Day was in 1970. All these things and more made the environment a top priority for Nixon and the U.S. Congress, leading to the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the EPA.

It’s necessary to have an agency at the federal level to protect the environment because pollution knows no borders. Having national standards prevents an industry from moving all its factories to the state with the most lenient standards, which would encourage states to keep lowering their standards to get more businesses—a race to the bottom.

As scientists learned more about the harms we were causing, the EPA expanded its responsibilities. In the 1980’s the preponderance of hazardous waste sites spurred Congress to pass the Superfund act to allow the EPA to go after polluters, and it created a pot of money to help clean up those sites. I live close to a superfund site, and the EPA, along with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), monitor it and occasionally meet with the residents about any unusual findings.

In the 1980s under Reagan, there was an attempt to downsize the EPA by delegating its responsibilities to the states. The budget was cut by 22% and they relaxed the rules and reduced their cases against polluters. EPA federal workers were fired and staff from the industries they were regulating were hired. Frank O’Donnell, director of Clean Air Trust, said the massive cuts to the renewable energy programs “set solar back a decade.” The US Congress held hearings about mismanagement at the EPA, particularly the Superfund program. The EPA refused to provide Congress with subpoenaed documents, and Congress wasn’t satisfied with their answers. The EPA administrator and most of her staff resigned. The next administrator hired competent professionals and worked to restore public confidence.

One of the most notable successes of the EPA was its extreme reduction in acid rain. Acid rain is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, increasing the acidity of rain. This harms plants and animals, has a corrosive effect on buildings and other structures, and harms human health. It took a while before the United States acknowledged how bad acid rain was, but in 1990 Congress updated the Clean Air Act to establish a cap and trade system in order to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. This successful program drastically reduced acid rain and the cost of complying was only one quarter of what was initially predicted.

Under the Biden administration, the EPA had beefed up its enforcement arm, collecting $1.7 billion in penalties and criminally charging 121 people for environmental crimes.

However, under the Trump administration, the EPA has stated that it will be shifting its focus from protecting the environment to being business friendly, to “lower the cost of buying a car, heating a home, and running a business” and promises to “unleash energy dominance” according to Lee Zeldin, the current EPA administrator. This is in direct opposition to the original mission of the EPA--William Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the EPA, stated that it has “no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment.”

To support businesses, the EPA is encouraging industries to apply for exemption from the Clean Air Act by streamlining the process. Zeldin has said the EPA will work to overturn emission limits on smokestacks. These emissions cause respiratory problems in humans, including premature deaths. They will work to remove restrictions on the emissions of mercury, which is a neurotoxin. They will work to remove tailpipe pollution standards, which will increase asthma and heart attacks.

Mr. Zeldin plans to cut the EPA’s spending by 65% and eliminate its scientific research by getting rid of the Office of Research and Development, which will entail firing over 1000 scientists. These jobs are all across the country. However, some argue that without this office, the EPA cannot satisfy its obligation to use the “best available science.”

Many grants sponsored by the EPA have been abruptly terminated. Locally, those include a program that hired high school students to plant trees in Southwest Philly, a program to monitor air quality around the Delaware City Refinery, and the City of Philadelphia lost a grant to combat extreme heat and to develop flood resiliency.

California currently has a waiver that allows it to have vehicle emissions regulations that are stricter than federal regulations. Other states can then opt in to these stricter rules. House Resolution 88 is working its way through Congress which would remove that waiver.

The EPA is going to work to eliminate the EPA’s legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide and will no longer take into consideration the costs to society for the effects from those emissions, such as floods, droughts, and wildfires. This will require reversing the “endangerment finding” that concluded greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health. This is the basis on which the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases.

The environmental rollbacks by the EPA and others can be followed in Columbia Law School’s Climate Backtracker.

Now here we are in 2025, and we face similar, if not more drastic, cuts in the EPA’s responsibilities and staff to those under Reagan. Sadly, I don’t know if our Congress is up to the task of calling out the EPA or any other agency for not living up to its charter.

Take action through the Environmental Defense Fund

and send Lee Zeldin a message to protect public health.