In How Politics Hurts the EPA’s Important Mission, Lisa Jackson, a legitimate source of information as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, expresses her frustration at how politics has obfuscated the EPA’s goals for the public. She states that there has been misleading information put out that has had real impact on public opinion and policy. For instance, the assertion that the EPA is putting together a “train wreck of regulations” for business and the economy is drawn from a report on regulations the EPA decided not to propose. These proposals didn’t affect any citizen of the U.S. or even to congress. Jackson also argues that the EPA’s initiatives instead help create jobs for research and development, increase efficient use of natural resources, and decrease the cost for consumers due that acquired efficiency.
    This editorial caught my eye because I did a project on “Global Climate Change” in middle school, coming to the conclusion at that time that there was far to little data in support of Global Warming for the cultural uprising that had ensued. There were a lo of sad-looking polar bears, but not a consistent, world wide increase in temperature conclusive enough to say humans are causing the ice caps to melt. Jackson makes a few good points, but I find the majority of the editorial is an emotional plea with the public. I prefer facts so I can actually look at the tangible effects of actions and hopefully choose the best course of action due to an in depth knowledge of the subject matter.
    For me, Jackson’s most amusing line was when she said decision making should not be based on scare tactics. Though this is true, she uses her fair share of scare tactics in this editorial as well. The references to sludge covered rivers, airborne Mercury, and other such events are aimed at shocking the public opinion to the EPA’s side. Though I understand the usefulness of such a pathos driven strategy, (it is hard to get legislation passed when up against a group that makes a concerted, long-term effort to besmirch your reputation and misconstrue your motives) I believe that one’s rhetoric should send a consistent message and not contradict itself, or worse prove hypocritical.
    In general, I prefer a clean, natural world and support efforts to that end. As a matter of fact, my travels are often interrupted by picking up trash along the way. I enjoy the outdoors and want to keep it pristine. I support the endeavors of the EPA, but I also understand, to a certain extent, the financial burden that environmental regulation places on businesses, especially if a business is small and without the resources to fund research. A balanced forward moving progress is the goal that I think we should aim for. That’s why we have compromise, and compromise in large groups is what creates politics. It is an unfortunate eventuality when politics turns dirty instead of constructive and collaborative, but that is life.