Subject: RE: Question for 21 September: Can we trust the EPA?
I been thinking a lot about this question today and trying to frame an appropriate response as an environmentalist. Part of me wants to just reject the question altogether, as I doubt it is right to think about EPA as a monolithic organization. Some programs are better than others; some employees are great, others, as is true in any organization, are less than enthusiastic. For the most part, I respect the employees at the Agency and I believe that they are trying to do the right thing.
Still, that doesn't mean that I'm always happy with the information the agency provides. What makes the question difficult is that I want to say that it is good and healthy and smart to be somewhat skeptical of information provided by the EPA, while at the same time not offending the folks who produce the information, because I generally believe they are on the right side. Perhaps they are sometimes hampered by what they see as political reality or the barrier of the institution's culture, but they are on the right side.
It is the job of environmentalists to stretch the agency, to ask for more information and greater access. It is our job to double check and to seek clarification. It is our job to encourage public participation and make the Agency listen. Our job is to advocate for the environment, and that often means asking the Agency to overcome the institutional culture or test the political reality.
I don't really think it is so much a matter of trust, as a disagreement about what the Agency can or can not do, about how much and what information EPA should make available, and about how aggressive EPA should be in protecting our health and our environment.
Date
|