Individuals against Recent Legislation

Recent blackouts of government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency by President Trump have lead to the rise of unofficial, yet well supported, agencies. This uprising against legislative decisions suggests a movement toward the rise of private organizations run by passionate individuals.

Keywords:  privatization, science funding, politics, environment, individualism.

Photo by Ken Thomas.

If you’ve been paying attention to the media you have probably noticed the recent hold on certain government branches’ ability to communicate with the public. This has lead to ban new posts on official government Twitter pages of these groups.

It is important to note before listing the organizations being targeted that this phenomena is not new. With each new presidency, POTUS halts many organizations’ broadcasts so to create an organized and clear message moving forward. With Trump, however, the organizations silenced for the most part seem to be directly tied to programs that focus on the environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Parks Service (NPS), along with the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy and the National Institute of Health have had their access to the public limited. Actions that have been restricted include having press releases, sharing data, or having any interaction with taxpayers at all. Official interaction that is.

Despite the order to remain quiet, employees have been reaching out, talking to reporters, and starting new “ungagged” and “alternative” social media accounts to continue connecting with the public both on what is going on politically and with their scientific research. Within two days of being told to shut down, the account @ungaggedEPA already had 62.2K followers and counting. More than just support, there have been calls to action: the Science March (mimicking the Women’s March and March of Life) along with pledges of volunteering as “rogue rangers” for the National Parks.

With all this spontaneous, yet very genuine, support for environmental organizations it’s curious to hear the rhetoric surrounding it. I won’t spend this post talking about the unethical act of not publishing scientific data, but I will highlight the discussion on continued federal funding and support of the organizations in question.

It seems clear that even without a definite national effort to protect parks, inspect food, help farmers, and fund alternative energy that individuals will care about the NPS, USDA, and EPA’s continued existence. So much so that it brings up the question of the government’s necessary role with these organizations.  

Each agency has a lot of responsibilities and a lot of crossover into science research, educational programs, and of course the economy. The EPA makes sure that food is safe to eat, that workplaces are safe for employees and the surrounding air, soil, and water to prevent pollution and dangerous emissions. The USDA distributes food and provides nourishment to schools and homeless shelters. The National Parks Service preserves historical lands and provides a lot of jobs. But other than having the laws and rules that come from these organizations being on a federal level and therefore applying to everyone in the country, what other benefits are there that directly come from the government’s involvement?

Since legislation changes anyway so the amount that government branches value these organizations varies between election years. With this presidency, for example, it seems very clear that the environment is not the concern of the government, but does that change the value of the work conducted? It’s been demonstrated that the answer is no because people do care about these things no matter what the legislation says.

For some perspective, the federal budget of the NPS has been around $3 billion. With about 300 million people in the US, if each person paid $10 out of pocket then the parks would have as much money as they have been receiving. The difference, however, between taxes and donations is that people don’t want to pay more of the former but are open to giving to people and programs that they care about and think will make a difference.

Moreover, private industries and philanthropists have already been giving to scientific research, advancing solar power technology, . That is to say the NPS could have more money than it does now. This also means the potential for more economic benefits. According to a 2011 study, for each $1 invested in the NPS the public receives $4 in economic value from the activity of the park and the hundreds of thousands of jobs around the country. Moreover, about half of that revenue made goes back to the community surrounding the parks.

A concern that I do understand is the standardization that comes from regulations and mandates coming from the federal level. This is especially true for organizations like the FDA and ones that make sure all food, water, and workplaces are safe. While the control of the safety of citizens is the role of the government, these roles are very different than funding research and subsidizing solar power, especially when solar would not survive without government subsidies.

I think that we can forget that we have the power to make the world better through rational arguments and the free market. Don’t like that a company isn’t going green? Then don’t go there and explain why it’s better to be more environmentally focused. Want to have parks conserved? Then volunteer and give your time to such a cause. I think that more people living like this, cultivating individual responsibilities, will yield a society comprised of individuals who pay more attention to their actions and really cares about the world and country in which they live.

Next week, I will have an article about the pros and cons of private funding and some of the things that would need to change for private funding to be a viable option for organizations and causes such as  the EPA.