Related
Environmental defenders are raising alarm over Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, former New York Congressmember Lee Zeldin, who has a history of opposing critical environmental protections and clean energy job investments. Zeldin’s nomination comes as Trump is reportedly discussing moving the EPA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C., which could lead to an exodus of staff and expertise from the agency. “I really don’t think this is about government efficiency. I think this is about terrorizing the career staff,” says Judith Enck, who served as a regional administrator of the EPA in the Obama administration.
Transcript
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman.
As Donald Trump quickly moves to name his Cabinet, we turn now to look at his pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, former New York Congressmember Lee Zeldin. The Long Island Republican served four terms in the House, where he earned a score of just 14 out of 100 from the League of Conservation Voters, after consistently voting against critical environmental protections and clean energy job investments.
Zeldin’s nomination came after The New York Times reported Trump’s transition team is discussing moving the EPA headquarters outside D.C. Nate James of the American Federation of Government Employees told Politico many career EPA officials would leave the agency if it moves, adding, “it could be advertised as a relocation, but really it would be decapitation.”
We go now to Judith Enck, who served as EPA regional administrator under President Obama, now president of Beyond Plastics. We’re speaking to her outside Albany.
Hi, Judith. Thanks so much for joining us again.
JUDITH ENCK: Thanks for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about, as both a former EPA administrator and a person from New York, where Lee Zeldin was a congressmember for years — talk about what a Zeldin heading the EPA looks like.
JUDITH ENCK: Well, Lee Zeldin at the helm of EPA will be a wonderful tenure for fossil fuel companies, plastics companies, chemical companies. But it’s going to be really bad for people who want to breathe clean air, drink water that doesn’t have toxic chemicals or lead in it. And I’m particularly concerned about what a Zeldin EPA would mean for environmental justice communities, places like Cancer Alley in Louisiana, places like Appalachia and Texas, where there’s a concentration of petrochemical facilities, and today there is not enough environmental protections in place.
I’m glad you mentioned Lee Zeldin’s tenure in Congress, where he had the not very impressive score of 14% voting record when he was in Congress. But let’s go back even further. Some people don’t know that Lee Zeldin was a state senator in Albany. And his record was so bad that a statewide environmental group gave him the distinguished 2011 Oil Slick Award. And he earned that Oil Slick Award because he introduced bills that would have, for instance, reduced funding for mass transit, provide dirty water in his Long Island district. And he just really stood out when he was in Albany, and then he took that environmental perspective to Washington, where his record was equally bad.
I do want to talk a little bit about his run for governor against Democrat Kathy Hochul, because some people are saying it kind of doesn’t matter what Zeldin’s policy positions are because he’s just going to do what Donald Trump tells him to do. But make no mistake: Lee Zeldin is in lockstep agreement with the Trump administration anti-environmental agenda.
When he was in Congress, he did a few good things that’ll be interesting to watch, very few. He opposed offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. I don’t know what that means, though, for offshore wind development. He was a member of the Republican Climate Solutions Caucus, and they never did anything. And in breaking news, he supported protections for shellfish in Long Island Sound. Those are the only three positives that I could dig up on his environmental record. So, I have to agree with the guest from the ACLU who said this is going to be worse than anything we have ever seen at the EPA.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about Project 2025, that Trump disavowed, but that as soon as he was elected, people were saying, “Of course this is what the plan is.” Talk about the plan including over 150 pages with, to say the least, damaging environmental plans.
JUDITH ENCK: Yeah, this is very concerning. Project 2025 is 900 pages, and 150 are dedicated to anti-environmental policies. Project 2025 calls for disbanding the EPA Office of Environmental Justice. It’s disbanding the office at EPA that deals with enforcement of critical environmental laws. They want to speed approval of chemicals. They want to weaken the Clean Air Act by removing the essential part of the statute which requires the EPA to set health-based standards when regulating air pollution.
The plan uses phrases like “the perceived threat of climate change.” They want to shut down climate research not only at the EPA, but at a dozen federal agencies. They want to see more fossil fuel development on public lands, not just private lands. So they’re advocating for drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and also drilling for fossil fuels in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Wilderness areas.
And finally, all of us, unfortunately, have learned about the tremendous health damage caused by forever chemicals, known as PFAS chemicals, where EPA plays a major role. Something EPA, finally, recently did was classify PFAS chemicals as a hazardous substance. That was kind of a no-brainer. And this plan wants to reverse that.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I wanted to ask you about moving the EPA out of Washington. Is this just a geographic thing, or what would it mean, with so many people, obviously, not moving?
JUDITH ENCK: Well, I think it’s not efficiency. I think it’s an effort to drive out the long-term career employees that work at the EPA office. I want to point out there are 10 regional offices all over the country, but the role of the Washington office is to essentially establish the rules of the road when it comes to pollution, how much air toxics are we allowed to breathe in in Cancer Alley, what toxic chemicals will be in our drinking water. So, I really don’t think this is about government efficiency. I think this is about terrorizing the career staff at EPA, making their life harder, distracting them, and, most importantly, taking them away from their day jobs, which is strictly enforcing environmental laws.
AMY GOODMAN: Judith Enck, I want to thank you for being with us, former EPA regional administrator under President Obama, now serving as president of Beyond Plastics.
Media Options