Policy Over Pancakes

According to NASA, damages resulting from climate change have the potential to devastate the US, with citizens experiencing life-altering and even life-threatening changes, especially in the West, South, and Southwest (“Effects”). The EPA reports that the global warming potential of methane is “more than 25 times that of carbon dioxide,” and in the US, the oil and natural gas industry is the largest industrial source of harmful methane emissions (“Understanding”, Daly). With the social, economic, and environmental costs of climate change and air pollution constantly rising, the US must collaborate with oil and gas companies to reduce methane emissions in order to remain a global leader in environmental action and act as a steward for future generations.

As of 2017, the EPA no longer requires oil and gas companies to report methane emissions data, information about production equipment, and emissions control practices. However, without emissions data, the EPA cannot hold companies accountable for their environmental impact, nor can it track and reward potential improvements in controlling emissions. Furthermore, without information about the steps that companies are currently taking to curtail their emissions, the EPA cannot collaborate with them to build on that work. In fact, the EPA used the information gathered in the previous requests to refine its New Source Performance Standards, making them both more effective at reducing methane emissions and more sensitive to what companies could reasonably achieve.

To ensure that the US can continue to serve as a domestic environmental steward of the environment and to encourage private industry to participate in positive climate action, policymakers must follow the mandate set forth in the Clean Air Act to control air pollution and extend it to once again require companies to report methane data.

Administrator Pruitt asserted that collecting these data would be too costly for the industry (EPA Media Relations). However, the initial information request integrated feedback from both informal and formal discussions with industry addressing both the usefulness of the information and the potential burden on companies, and the final request narrowed the burden and lowered the costs of collecting the data to $3,000 per covered entity (Carper et al.). In fact, the EPA could even use the data for the benefit of oil and gas companies, supporting their business by incentivizing them to comply with methane regulations through tax breaks or public recognition. Moreover, in May 2017, a Republican-controlled Senate voted with Democrats to reject efforts to repeal the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) methane waste rule, indicating strong bipartisan support for regulations reducing methane emissions (DeGette).

By once again requiring companies to report these data, the US can better cooperate with the oil and gas industry to curb methane emissions. Strong, thoughtful climate action protects and serves all US citizens, and policymakers must continue to seek reliable data to inform the government’s response to the growing crisis of climate change. Only then can the US continue to act as a leader in global climate action.

Sources Cited

Carper, Tom, et al. Letter to Scott Pruitt. 6 Apr. 2017, www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b6ec4e09-9ab1-40fa-96ad-a5c56aff7949/letter-to-epa-administrator-pruitt-on-icr-withdrawal.pdf.

Daly, Matthew. “EPA withdraws Obama-era request for data on oil, natural gas.” AP News, www.wsj.com/articles/epa-withdraws-obama-era-requirement-for-companies-to-provide-methane-data-1488500610. Accessed 26 Sept. 2019.

DeGette, Diana, et al. “DeGette Calls on Pruitt to Reissue Canceled Information Request on Methane Emissions.” 27 June 2018, degette.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/degette-calls-on-pruitt-to-reissue-canceled-information-request-on.

“The Effects of Climate Change.” NASA, climate.nasa.gov/effects/.

EPA Media Relations. “EPA Withdraws Information Request for the Oil and Gas Industry.” 2 Mar. 2017, www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-withdraws-information-request-oil-and-gas-industry?mod=article_inline.

“Understanding Global Warming Potentials.” EPA, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials. Accessed 10 Oct. 2019.

In light of water crises in Flint and Newark, the EPA has issued long-awaited revisions to its 1991 Lead and Copper Rule. For the first time, water utilities will be required to test for lead in the drinking water at our nation’s schools and childcare facilities. But this improvement does not rectify the two main problems with the new regulation: an outdated lead action level and a sluggish replacement rate for lead pipes.

 

Lead infrastructure has had cascading impacts on the drinking water supply and public health. Six million lead service lines, which connect buildings to water mains, still bring water to our taps today. The World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control, and American Academy of Pediatrics unanimously agree that no safe amount of lead exposure exists. The accumulation of lead in adolescents frequently causes irreversible damage to the brain and nervous system and triggers severe learning and behavioral problems. For these reasons, the new regulation is not commensurate with the dangers lead poses.

 

In particular, the current lead action level of 15 ppb does not reflect the best available science and ignores international standards. The action level only requires water utilities to take corrective steps once lead levels register above the 15 ppb limit. However, the EPA’s own maximum contaminant level goal, or the amount of safe exposure, is zero. So leaving the action level unchanged is incongruent with protecting public health. Additionally, water systems exceeding the 15 ppb limit will now have 20 extra years to replace lead service lines. That’s because the EPA lowered the replacement rate from seven percent to just three percent, leaving the next generation of American children to consume contaminated tap water at their homes, schools, and daycares.

 

To better protect public health, the EPA must require a five ppb action level. And it must mandate the removal of all six million lead services lines within the next 20 years to safeguard our drinking water. A lower lead action level will force more water utilities to undertake mandatory corrosion control and required replacement of lead pipes. Further, a five ppb action level is consistent with regulations in Canada and the European Union. As a result, federal drinking water regulations would not only be equal to those of other global environmental leaders but will be more protective than existing domestic examples, such as Michigan’s 12 ppb level.

 

Michigan has adopted other aggressive measures that the EPA should emulate. It has, for example, pledged to pull all 460,000 lead services lines — 7.5 percent of the national total — out of the ground within just 20 years. Washington state has made a similar 15-year promise. The EPA must follow suit by setting a 20-year deadline to get all harmful lead pipes out of service. The American Water Works Association, a conglomerate of 4,300 water utilities responsible for 80 percent of the nation’s drinking water, supports removing lead service lines, as does the EPA’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council.

 

I must acknowledge a hefty price tag of up to $80 billion to replace all lead service lines. Even still, this one-time investment pales in comparison to the estimated $50 billion annual cost of childhood lead exposure. For every dollar the EPA invests in controlling lead hazards, we can expect up to $221 back in health benefits, increased IQ, higher lifetime wages, better tax contributions, less special education, and reduced crime rates. It’s a return on investment similar to vaccines — and it will immunize our children against the dangers of lead. By adopting a revised lead rule as I laid out above, the EPA can serve as a protector of our nation’s children and as a responsible steward of our water.

Back in 2015, the refugee crisis made headlines every day. Fear-mongering about immigrants and refugees arguably shaped the outcome of major elections in the U.S. and Great Britain, and the international community failed to respond adequately to the crisis. Although it no longer makes daily headlines, there are more displaced individuals than ever before in recorded history, with over 70 million displaced people worldwide, 25 million of whom are refugees, meaning they are living outside of their home countries. 

Refugees differ from other immigrants because they flee their home countries not merely in pursuit of better economic opportunities, but because of an imminent danger to their lives. Wars in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Yemen, have left millions displaced from their homes. Organized crime and gang activity in Central America have caused a surge in asylum seekers fleeing countries like Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Meanwhile, the persecution of the Rohyinga minority in Myanmar has created a crisis of stateless individuals fleeing to Bangladesh, and the crisis extends into sub-Saharan Africa due to conflicts in South Sudan and the Central African Republic. Many of these displaced individuals have arrived at the doorsteps of neighboring countries to seek asylum, in pursuit of safer lives for themselves and their families. Despite these critical circumstances, the Trump Administration has made it a central goal to restrict immigration into the U.S., and has proposed cutting refugee admissions for Fiscal Year 2020 to an all-time low of only 18,000 refugees. 

Why, in this critical moment, has President Trump chosen to restrict refugee admissions to such an extent? If the United States is to continue as an example of ethical global leadership, we must do better. It isn’t unrealistic to think that the United States could resettle far more refugees. We’ve done it in the past. Historically, the United States has accepted over half of all resettled refugees. The 1980 U.S. Refugee Act, signed into law by the Carter Administration, set the precedent for the U.S.’ refugee resettlement program and established a uniform integration plan. At the program’s peak in the early 1980s, the United States accepted well over 200,000 refugees, and the Obama Administration had set the cap for Fiscal Year 2017 to 110,000 refugees before Obama left office.

Contrary to the fear-mongering that some choose to propagate, by all accounts the U.S.’ refugee program has been safe, successful, and beneficial for all. The screening process for refugees is robust and includes screening through three federal departments while refugees are still overseas, making it the most rigorous screening process of any immigration path into the U.S. and ensuring that only the most vulnerable of refugees receive the opportunity for resettlement. Once they are in the United States, refugees receive limited government support and are immediately eligible for employment, quickly reaching employment rates comparable to the general non-immigrant public in the U.S., and sometimes even exceeding the average. In addition, not one refugee admitted to the United States after the 1980 Refugee Act, which established the current screening processes, has ever killed a U.S. citizen in a terrorist attack.

The Trump Administration should embrace the legacy of the 1980 U.S. Refugee Act, and return to admitting the number of refugees accepted at the program’s peak. Due to the immense scope of the current global refugee crisis, the U.S. must exercise moral leadership and reprioritize its overseas resettlement program to mitigate the repercussions of the refugee crisis.