Americans don’t generally believe in absolute power. Nobody has complete unchecked control over another. Even a toddler, whose entire world appears to be controlled by his parents, is protected against unreasonable use of that power. Parents are not allowed to sell, abuse, or neglect the child. Though he may not yet realize it, he is not subject to anyone’s absolute power.
Similarly, bosses may think they have total power over an employee’s future, but abuses of that power are treated harshly in a civilized society. Frequent examples demonstrate that even the most powerful leaders in business, politics, and entertainment fall hard when such abuse is discovered.
For thousands of years people submitted to the “divine right of kings.” Henry VIII acquired Europe’s finest castle by simply announcing that he preferred Cardinal Wolsey’s home, so it was now his own. Elizabeth I simply decided she no longer needed Sir Walter Raleigh, so had him killed on a whim (as monarchs had done for centuries). “Off with his head!”
Americans, however, fought a revolution and established this republic based on the notion that we are not subjects of any monarch. Sovereignty in this country belongs to the people, not the government, and leaders only hold power by the consent of the governed. We are entitled to know – and decide – what our government is doing, and why.
Those lofty concepts are at the heart of many hot political controversies. A prime example is Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s move to end the use of “secret science” to support regulations. Inevitably, he faces severe criticism, bureaucratic roadblocks, and legal challenges.
At issue is the question of whether a regulatory agency can implement rules with the force of criminal law, based on scientific data that are kept secret – even from the people whose livelihoods are at stake. In a criminal trial, accused people are guaranteed the right to see all the evidence against them, and to examine both the evidence and the witnesses. They are entitled to question the integrity of that evidence, and to bring forth contrary evidence.
Based on that same Constitutional principle, shouldn’t government agencies have to show the evidence upon which its rules are based – especially if violating those rules carries criminal fines and jail time? Not so fast.
Consider the 50-year debate over pollution standards, in which technology has provided increasingly sophisticated ways to identify even the most miniscule quantities of various elements in our air and water.
From its inception, EPA was tasked by Congress to determine safe levels of various pollutants, and to issue regulations to reduce pollution to those levels. At the time, for example, technology was good enough to identify 10 parts of a specific element per million parts of air. So EPA’s original rule for particulate pollution limited emissions from smokestacks and other sources to 10 parts per million. But as technology improved, it became possible to identify amounts as small as 5 parts per million, and eventually half that amount. So, EPA then proposed to limit all sources of emissions to 2.5 parts per million.
Virtually all elements, even arsenic, are found in nature, generally in low and unharmful levels. Yet scientific equipment is now so advanced that it can find a single atom of a given element in the atmosphere. Nobody would worry about that, unless it is harmful to human health. Is it?
That is precisely the issue at EPA today. We are told that particulate pollution at levels as low as 2.5 parts per million are indeed harmful to human health, based on scientific studies that EPA financed and EPA officials can read – but you can’t. They are secret, supposedly because they contain confidential medical or business records. Here’s an idea: redact the names and publish the studies. Then the public would understand the basis of rules that could transform our society, kill the energy industry, put thousands out of work, and drastically raise our utility bills.
Perhaps human health demands such draconian measures. Pruitt says the public is entitled to know, to examine the evidence. He is not trying to change science, just publish it. Transparency is a simple concept. If public laws are to be based on studies and data, the public is entitled to see it. Should we simply trust any government agency without question when it seeks to expand its power over our lives? In America, that question need not ever be asked. Government works for us, not the other way around.
A version of this column originally appeared in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel April 6, 2018.
Comments on this entry are closed.