If it were up to me, I'd want the people who own power plants and chemical factories to wake up every morning in cold dread that someone from the Environmental Protection Agency might drop buy to see what corners we've been cutting recently. That way, I suspect, fertilizer plants would be less likely to blow up and take entire towns with them. I'd want them hearing the footsteps of dozens of bargain loafers and the doom-ridden clicks of a hundred briefcases opening. But, what the hell, nothing's up to me any more. From The Hill:

A July 11 memo shared with EPA regional administrators outlined a new enforcement policy that would do away with the tactic in order to enhance cooperation between the agency, states and the regulated industry. “A ‘no surprises' principle is the foundation of joint work planning and will minimize the misunderstandings that can be caused by the lack of regular, bilateral communication,” wrote Susan Bodine, assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assistance.

Do they teach banal bureaucratic bullshit in colleges these days, because we're raising people who are very good at it. I fear that too many of those "misunderstandings" that so concern Ms. Bodine involve rivers turning purple and birds dropping from the trees in agony. There are some people who agree with me.

Environmentalists are criticizing the policy change for limiting the tools EPA enforcement officials can use to make sure power plants, chemical facilities and other emitters are not illegally polluting. “Taking the element of surprise away from inspections decreases their effectiveness, for obvious reasons,” Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and a former EPA enforcement attorney, said in a statement. “I fear that EPA’s ‘no surprises’ posture masks a ‘see no evil’ approach to corporate polluters.”

Of course, this is of a piece with the general assault on environmental laws that has been in overdrive ever since Camp Runamuck took over in 2019. This administration's EPA believes most chemicals to be harmless until proven guilty. Of course, by the time that happens, your kid may have sprouted a third arm. From The New York Times:

The decision by Andrew R. Wheeler, the E.P.A. administrator, represents a victory for the chemical industry and for farmers who have lobbied to continue using the substance, chlorpyrifos, arguing it is necessary to protect crops. It was the administration’s second major move this year to roll back or eliminate chemical safety rules. In April, the agency disregarded the advice of its own experts when officials issued a rule that restricted but did not ban asbestos, a known carcinogen. Agency scientists and lawyers had urged the E.P.A. to ban asbestos outright, as do most other industrialized nations.

In making the chlorpyrifos ruling, the E.P.A. said in a statement that the data supporting objections to the use of the pesticide was “not sufficiently valid, complete or reliable.” The agency added that it would continue to monitor the safety of chlorpyrifos through 2022...The Obama administration announced in 2015 that it would ban chlorpyrifos after scientific studies produced by the E.P.A. showed the pesticide had the potential to damage brain development in children. That ban had not yet come into force when, in 2017, Scott Pruitt, then the administrator of the E.P.A., reversed that decision, setting off a wave of legal challenges.

Ah, what did they know, anyway?

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io