Leif Fredrickson is an independent researcher. Christopher Sellers is with the Department of History, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY. Phil Brown, Lauren Richter, and Sara Wylie are with the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. Jennifer Liss Ohayon is with Northeastern University, Newton, MA. Nicholas Shapiro is with the Science History Institute, Philadelphia, PA. Marianne Sullivan is with Public Health, William Paterson University of New Jersey, Wayne. Stephen Bocking is with the School of the Environment, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada. Vanessa De La Rosa is with Silent Spring Institute, Newton, MA. Lindsey Dillon is with the Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Cruz. Jill Harrison is with the Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder. Sara Johns is with the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Katherine Kulik is with Harvard College, Cambridge, MA. Rebecca Lave is with the Department of Geography, University of Indiana, Bloomington. Michelle Murphy is with the Department of History, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Liza Piper is with the Department of History and Classics, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Am J Public Health. 2018 Apr;108(S2):S95-S103. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304396.
The Trump administration has undertaken an assault on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency critical to environmental health. This assault has precedents in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The early Reagan administration (1981-1983) launched an overt attack on the EPA, combining deregulation with budget and staff cuts, whereas the George W. Bush administration (2001-2008) adopted a subtler approach, undermining science-based policy. The current administration combines both these strategies and operates in a political context more favorable to its designs on the EPA. The Republican Party has shifted right and now controls the executive branch and both chambers of Congress. Wealthy donors, think tanks, and fossil fuel and chemical industries have become more influential in pushing deregulation. Among the public, political polarization has increased, the environment has become a partisan issue, and science and the mainstream media are distrusted. For these reasons, the effects of today's ongoing regulatory delays, rollbacks, and staff cuts may well surpass those of the administrations of Reagan and Bush, whose impacts on environmental health were considerable.
特朗普政府对环境保护署(EPA)发起了攻击,这是一个对环境健康至关重要的机构。这种攻击在罗纳德·里根和乔治·W·布什的政府中是有先例的。早期的里根政府(1981-1983 年)对 EPA 发起了公开攻击,将放松管制与预算和人员削减结合起来,而乔治·W·布什政府(2001-2008 年)则采取了更为微妙的策略,破坏了基于科学的政策。现任政府结合了这两种策略,并在一个对其 EPA 计划更为有利的政治环境中运作。共和党已经向右翼转变,现在控制了行政部门和国会的两院。富有的捐赠者、智库以及化石燃料和化工行业在推动放松管制方面变得更加有影响力。在公众中,政治两极化加剧,环境成为党派问题,科学和主流媒体受到怀疑。由于这些原因,今天正在进行的监管延迟、撤销和人员削减的影响很可能超过里根和布什政府的影响,他们对环境健康的影响是相当大的。