task0778
Diamond Member
First, a little background:
There are two main science advisory boards at EPA, both of which can hold significant sway over policy and regulation. The 1st is the Science Advisory Board and the 2nd is the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), and it is the BOSC that we are concerned with in this thread. The BOSC is comprised of 18 scientists who are appointed for a 3 year term that may be renewed for another 3 years. There were 9 scientists whose 1st term was up at the end of April; they were not fired or dismissed, but their 2nd term was not approved by the new EPA management team. Obviously all 9 were appointees by the Obama Administration, and all 9 were doubtless supporters of the AGW alarmist point of view.
Some Repubs have in the past accused these 2 EPA boards of massaging the data to maximize grant access and the public funds. But certainly the steps taken by the EPA in recent years based on the recommendations from these boards have not been favorable to the interests of farmers, ranchers, and agricultural businesses large and small. So, the EPA under Scott Pruitt will be replacing where and when it can current bureaucrats with those a little more disposed to less gov't intervention. And in some cases those new scientists will be employed by or connected in some way to the big oil and energy or agricultural companies. Hopefully the composition of the 2 EPA boards will lead to a greater consideration of the economic impacts of certain rules and regs than has been the case over the past 8 years. And hopefully without exposing the environment to foolish risks either.
There are two main science advisory boards at EPA, both of which can hold significant sway over policy and regulation. The 1st is the Science Advisory Board and the 2nd is the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), and it is the BOSC that we are concerned with in this thread. The BOSC is comprised of 18 scientists who are appointed for a 3 year term that may be renewed for another 3 years. There were 9 scientists whose 1st term was up at the end of April; they were not fired or dismissed, but their 2nd term was not approved by the new EPA management team. Obviously all 9 were appointees by the Obama Administration, and all 9 were doubtless supporters of the AGW alarmist point of view.
Some Repubs have in the past accused these 2 EPA boards of massaging the data to maximize grant access and the public funds. But certainly the steps taken by the EPA in recent years based on the recommendations from these boards have not been favorable to the interests of farmers, ranchers, and agricultural businesses large and small. So, the EPA under Scott Pruitt will be replacing where and when it can current bureaucrats with those a little more disposed to less gov't intervention. And in some cases those new scientists will be employed by or connected in some way to the big oil and energy or agricultural companies. Hopefully the composition of the 2 EPA boards will lead to a greater consideration of the economic impacts of certain rules and regs than has been the case over the past 8 years. And hopefully without exposing the environment to foolish risks either.