环保署执法力度大减：案件积压与监管缺失

Hello everyone, I am host Xiaonan. The topic we are discussing today is very heavy, but also very important, which is the huge change in enforcement intensity by the US Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA.

Exactly. According to a new report released by a watchdog group called the "Environmental Integrity Project," in the first year of President Trump's second term, enforcement actions against polluting companies have seen a cliff-like drop.

To what extent has this "drop" reached? The data is astonishing. The report shows that in the first 12 months after Trump took office again, there were only 16 civil lawsuits filed by the Department of Justice as referred by the EPA.

Only 16 cases? This number sounds indeed very small.

Yes, if compared to the first year of the Biden administration, this number dropped by 76%. Even compared to Trump's own first term, there were 86 cases at that time. And the first year of the Obama era had 127 cases.

This is simply worlds apart. So, what is the reason for this drastic decline in enforcement intensity? Is it due to a change in policy?

The main reason is indeed a change in policy direction. From day one, the Trump administration has pushed an aggressive "deregulatory" agenda. They declared an "energy emergency" and attempted to streamline regulations targeting fossil fuel companies.

I heard that the current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin launched what is called the "biggest deregulatory action in US history" in March.

That's right, this includes 31 measures aimed at rolling back restrictions on air and water pollution. More critically, they are pushing a new strategy called "compliance first."

"Compliance first" sounds seemingly nice; does it advocate solving problems through cooperation?

On the surface, yes. This was proposed by senior EPA official Craig Pritzlaff. In a memo, he emphasized prioritizing working with companies suspected of violations to correct problems, rather than directly launching formal enforcement actions that could lead to fines.

But this sounds like "untying" the polluters. If there are only verbal warnings without substantive punishment, will companies really obey the law?

This is exactly the core issue that environmentalists are worried about. When Pritzlaff previously served at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, he was criticized as a "reluctant regulator."

You mentioned Texas; I remember a famous INEOS chemical plant explosion happened there. Is this related to his management style?

Very much related. That chemical plant accumulated nearly 100 violation records over a decade, but regulators did not take decisive action, instead allowing these violations to constantly "backlog."

Is this the typical example of the "case backlog" mentioned in our title today?

Yes. Regulators at the time claimed that handling multiple issues combined in a single enforcement action would be more "efficient." But the result? The plant exploded in 2023, injuring workers and even sparking a fire that burned for a long time.

So, the so-called "efficiency" actually led to serious safety hazards. Now that this model is brought to the federal level at the EPA, won't this cause case backlogs and environmental risks on a national scale?

The non-profit organization "Public Citizen" pointed out bluntly that this is not efficiency, it is failure. This strategy created a complex backlog of cases that the agency is still struggling to resolve to this day.

Besides the reduction in the number of lawsuits, are there changes in the amount of fines?

Yes. The report points out that after adjusting for inflation, the total fines issued by the EPA were 8 million dollars less than the same period under the Biden administration. This was criticized as merely a "slap on the wrist" punishment for polluters.

It's like a hit on the palm, painless and itchy-less (irrelevant). For those large industrial enterprises, I'm afraid this has no deterrent effect.

Indeed. Moreover, it is not just a policy issue; personnel loss is also a big problem. At least one-third of the lawyers in the Justice Department's environmental division have left, and the EPA has also laid off hundreds of employees responsible for monitoring pollution.

This means that even if they wanted to enforce the law, there might not be enough hands to do it.

Exactly. Harvard Law School lawyer Erika Kranz believes that this is not just an adjustment of enforcement priorities, but looks more like an abandonment of the agency's core mission.

If there are no "environmental cops" on patrol, compliance will naturally erode. Ultimately, the victims are the ordinary residents living near these factories.

Yes, the quality of air and water is directly related to public health. Although court cases usually take a long time to see final results, the current trend is already very clear: the government is retreating significantly from the stance of holding polluters accountable.

This is indeed a worrying signal. We will continue to pay attention to the development of this situation to see if legal groups will file lawsuits against this administrative inaction in the future.

Thank you everyone for listening. If you care about environmental issues, please continue to follow our program. See you next time.

Goodbye.