Spartz_Matrix2

Matrix 2 – EPA as a Sustainability Problem Caption: top left: the U.S. EPA is the focal point of the Matrix argument, top right: one of the main parts of the problem comes from the lack of scientific networks to allow for the best sustainable practices to be encouraged, bottom left: this is supposed to represent the lack of communication between companies as well as within companies, bottom right: overall there is lots of pollution that is supposed to be prevented that may not be

The United States Environmental Protection Agency tries to cover many environmental issues. One of the primary goals of the EPA is to ensure that the national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific Information (USEPA). It is also an integral part in creating U.S. policies on natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and industrial trade. It admits that it does not do anything with the Endangered Species Act and doesn’t do anything regarding Nuclear Waste (USEPA). Even for the topics they do cover, productive information is hard to contribute if they don’t have access to all the scientific information. “Most administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pay lip service to science, particularly during their confirmation hearings. But the truth is, despite recent reforms, the role of science at EPA still needs to be strengthened” (Elliott 45).

The EPA has 37 laboratories that work to provide scientific research, technical support, and analytical services (GOA). The problem is that some of the labs overlap in their work where multiple labs do the same research on emissions testing. There may also be gaps in the work that is produced between labs since one group may have fewer resources or have knowledge that is lacking that the other could make up for. The GOA blames this on a lack of a top official to oversee all scientific work. There are 15 senior officials each with a different organizational structure. The geographical separation of laboratories also causes coordination issues (GOA). Aside from a lack of communication within the EPA, companies don’t share all their information with the EPA either which forces the EPA to look elsewhere to make informed decisions. Elliott suggests that the position of a chief science officer be created as well as a group that would have no invested interest in either side of the argument to supplement the scientific knowledge of the situations being tested (Elliott 55-56, 59). Without access to the proper information, it would be impossible for the EPA to provide input that would help create policies that would cut down on pollution. From my experience, the EPA often has to turn to outside sources to get data that companies that may not be providing when they push for certain regulations which they will inevitably do. There currently isn’t a complete network that gives the EPA the best opportunity to get the information they need to make informed decisions. It is understood by Heyes that a company will always be the first to recognize their problems (Heyes 255). He is also of the opinion that companies will try to hide from the problems they create if penalties are higher (Heyes 252). With a more unbiased view of the situation it would most likely be easier to spot problems and create policies that might have a better chance of being followed.

After they have their information, the EPA has their way of looking at risk. The four main contributions to risk decision making by regulating agencies are assessment of costs and benefits of cleanup, determination of risks affecting the decision making process itself (inherent biases), knowledge of the political factors that affect voting as well as those that affect efficient decision making (Viscusi 1011-1012). For example, Viscusi focuses on the Superfund decision making process by the EPA. This program provides money to cleanup for hazardous waste sites by containing or removing the problem as well as treating the areas that have been affected by the waste (Viscusi 1012). The primary judge for potential risk towards the population according to the article is the likelihood of getting cancer (Viscusi 1016). My problem with this is that they can’t make informed decisions due to lack of complete information, therefore how can they say what needs to be focused on? I also have an issue with this as the environment’s health is not part of the 4 main thoughts of where money needs to go.

Overall, the EPA is a body that produces limits for emissions and other pollutants. The EPA does not have the same access to information that companies do. They have to turn to outside sources for information in order to make sure their standards are legitimate. The problem is that you never know who to trust. They are trying to cover a lot of topics which makes it more difficult to catch everything therefore they need a good network of information. Legally, the EPA as an organization works to protect the environment by setting standards that will hopefully prevent more pollution from affecting the environment drastically, but unfortunately they can’t catch everything. This also shows behavioral issues as people have their own biases that affect the information they present and some things are inevitably overlooked. Organizationally, it is impossible to know everything but there are currently lots of obstacles preventing information from being shared freely. Ideally, it would be a good system as the EPA tries to create regulation that would prevent big business from producing extra pollutants, however, for now the lack of accessibility to information causes many problems.

Works Cited: Elliott, E. Donald, "Strengthening Science’s Voice at EPA" (2003). //Faculty Scholarship Series.// Paper 2220. <[]>. Heyes, Anthony G. “Cutting Environmental Penalties to Protect the Environment.” Journal of Public Economics 60 1996 pg 251-265. “Our Mission and What We Do.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 10/30/12. Updated 8/31/12. < []>. “Science and the Environment: 25 Environmental Laboratories.” Government Accountability Office. Accessed 10/29/12. Updated 7/25/11. <[]>. Viscusi, W.Kip, James T. Hamilton. “Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions.” The American Economic Review. Vol 89, No 4, pg 1010-1027.

Matrix 2 doc and annotations: