RE: 'He also placed a veteran of the chemical industry in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety office, where she made industry-friendly changes to how the agency studied health risks.'
This appointment had no impact whatsoever on increasing the risk of chemical transport by rail. It should also be noted that …
RE: 'He also placed a veteran of the chemical industry in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety office, where she made industry-friendly changes to how the agency studied health risks.'
This appointment had no impact whatsoever on increasing the risk of chemical transport by rail. It should also be noted that his appointee was also a toxicologist, as opposed to the lawyers usually appointed. This particular appointee actually knew how the sausage was made, and had dedicated much of her career to coercing regulatory Agencies to adopt best practices recommended by the Academy of Sciences aimed at increasing transparency in risk assessment. This includes; systemic evaluation of the quality of the data used in assessment, documentation of all data in comprehensive weight-of-evidence evaluation, and fully documenting the sources of uncertainty in assessment and placing bounds on estimates used in assessment with best-case / worst-case assessment outcomes and probability included where possible. These 'industry-friendly' measures draw the ire of government regulators and NGO advocates for stricter regulation because the uncertainty is currently characterized as 'risk' which is great for messaging and bright lines make it easier to set standards without the policy debate. There is also legit concern that documenting all of the uncertainties in assessment will be used as a rationale for inaction by industry being regulated. It is messier but it is better science and a more honest basis for policy debate. It is way easier to target the source of changes as industry paying their shill to do their bidding than attacking the substance of changes made. The environmental advocacy business propagates the notion that nobody in industry has anything to add to debate. It is self-serving, and disappointing that The Bulwark just picked this up off of Politico and ran with it.
Regarding the blame game. Not much commentary on what is being shipped by rail and why. Cancelling pipelines hasn't led to less oil being used, or limited Canadian production, it has put more pressure on rail-lines that carry 54000 crude oil tank cars a month in the USA. Maybe newer and better pipelines would be a safter means of transport of some of the materials being shipped across the country.
RE: 'He also placed a veteran of the chemical industry in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety office, where she made industry-friendly changes to how the agency studied health risks.'
This appointment had no impact whatsoever on increasing the risk of chemical transport by rail. It should also be noted that his appointee was also a toxicologist, as opposed to the lawyers usually appointed. This particular appointee actually knew how the sausage was made, and had dedicated much of her career to coercing regulatory Agencies to adopt best practices recommended by the Academy of Sciences aimed at increasing transparency in risk assessment. This includes; systemic evaluation of the quality of the data used in assessment, documentation of all data in comprehensive weight-of-evidence evaluation, and fully documenting the sources of uncertainty in assessment and placing bounds on estimates used in assessment with best-case / worst-case assessment outcomes and probability included where possible. These 'industry-friendly' measures draw the ire of government regulators and NGO advocates for stricter regulation because the uncertainty is currently characterized as 'risk' which is great for messaging and bright lines make it easier to set standards without the policy debate. There is also legit concern that documenting all of the uncertainties in assessment will be used as a rationale for inaction by industry being regulated. It is messier but it is better science and a more honest basis for policy debate. It is way easier to target the source of changes as industry paying their shill to do their bidding than attacking the substance of changes made. The environmental advocacy business propagates the notion that nobody in industry has anything to add to debate. It is self-serving, and disappointing that The Bulwark just picked this up off of Politico and ran with it.
Regarding the blame game. Not much commentary on what is being shipped by rail and why. Cancelling pipelines hasn't led to less oil being used, or limited Canadian production, it has put more pressure on rail-lines that carry 54000 crude oil tank cars a month in the USA. Maybe newer and better pipelines would be a safter means of transport of some of the materials being shipped across the country.