Twitter | Search | |
John Walke
Realize that the the Trump administration's attacks on health safeguards & science ( to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules, ) parrot tobacco industry tactics. A former tobacco lobbyist, , claims to have inspired the Trump .
A new agency rule would restrict the science that can be used in drafting health regulations by requiring researchers to turn over confidential health data.
The New York Times The New York Times @nytimes
Reply Retweet Like More
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience
2. In *1996*, a tobacco industry lawyer defending Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) wrote the anti-science playbook that the Trump is following: 1. Focus on process, not substance; 2. Focus on science "transparency" & its 'ability to be reproduced'—or else science is barred.
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
3. Elevate a "non-specific business base" like to support the attacks on science. NAM has been a strong supporter of efforts to censor EPA's consideration of the best available science in the name of 'transparency.' &
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
4. *Even in 1996,* tobacco industry attorneys saw their distorted vision of 'sound science' as the key to rebuffing regulation of Environmental Tobacco Smoke *and stronger safeguards against deadly fine particle (PM2.5) pollution & ozone*—the same target of the Trump EPA attacks.
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
5. The deeply cynical tobacco strategy sought to have courts "discern if EPA followed the requisite steps"—concocted by political opponents of safeguards—"rather than if it achieved the 'right' answer." Just like the Trump 'process-oriented' strategy.
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience and 2 others
6. It's striking how much the leaked proposal obtained by the follows the tobacco industry playbook by focusing on process—"EPA's internal procedures" for considering (ignoring) the best available science, not scientific substance. (pp. 2-4)
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience and 2 others
7. Like the tobacco industry playbook, the Trump leaked proposal bends over backwards to deny that EPA is 'proposing to interpret provisions of, or proposing to exercise substantive rulemaking authority delegated to it by, a particular statute" EPA administers.'
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience and 2 others
8. My favorite is the leaked draft saying, 'this proposed attack on science doesn't regulate anyone, but those interested in EPA regulations, may be interested in it.' Ya think? 600,000 commenters opposed the Trump EPA attack on safeguards & science.
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience and 2 others
9. But here's where the Trump shoots itself in the foot, with one hand, while knee-capping its duty to consider the best available science, with the other hand: EPA cannot claim it's 'doing substance' under any of its 8 environmental statutes.
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience and 2 others
10. The original Trump Censored Science proposal, signed by former EPA head, Scott Pruitt, relied *exclusively* on its 8 environmental laws for authority. Now, EPA will rely on *none* of those laws, shifting to an absurd 'process' law for authority.
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience and 5 others
11. The Trump 's newfound pretense that a 1966 "federal housekeeping" law authorizes its attacks on safeguards & science is beyond absurd. Any EPA politico backing this stupidity, from to to , is abdicating their duty to uphold the law.
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience and 5 others
12. But here's the good news: 's shift to this 1966 housekeeping law for its ridiculous claim of legal authority is a sign of desperation, an admission of helplessness &, finally, confirmation of the abject failure of the Censored Science rulemaking. has lost, already.
Reply Retweet Like
John Walke Nov 12
Replying to @EPA @JunkScience and 6 others
13. To learn more about the direct links between the tobacco industry's cynical campaign for 'sound science' to defend tobacco, & the Trump 's Censored Science rulemaking, read these excellent comments to by (D-RI). The End.
Reply Retweet Like