by Lewis Loflin
Climate change advocates insist "the science is settled," but climate has always shifted naturally—sometimes dramatically—and pinning it all on human activity requires solid proof. Too often, that proof stays out of sight, especially at the EPA, where data and methods behind major regulations remain undisclosed. This lack of transparency fuels reasonable doubts about the agency’s approach.
On March 29, 2017, the House passed the HONEST Act (H.R. 1430) with a 228-194 vote, largely split by party. The bill aimed to make EPA research—funded by taxpayers and used for costly rules—publicly available. The Associated Press reported Democratic concerns that it would limit the agency’s use of confidential medical data and raise privacy issues. Yet, redacting personal details while sharing the science seems feasible. If the public pays for it, the public should see it. The bill faltered in the Senate after a 2018 House repass, leaving EPA practices untouched.
The idea was simple: research driving regulations that affect jobs and lives should be open to review. Those unwilling to share shouldn’t get public funding or expert status. It’s about fairness, not obstruction.
The EPA holds vast authority, crafting and enforcing rules that reach deep into daily life. Its decisions can reflect political priorities over scientific clarity—much like Al Gore’s ideological take on environmentalism. The HONEST Act sought to lift the curtain on this, requiring data that might show if policies stem more from agendas than evidence. For some, it’s a tool to bypass legislative hurdles, favoring centralized control over open debate.
The Hill on March 29, 2017, called it a move to "restrict EPA’s use of science," but that misses the mark. Open data strengthens science—it’s secrecy that weakens it.
Environmental research, including the EPA’s, often leans on assumptions rather than rigorous evidence. Prof. J. Scott Armstrong, a forecasting expert independent of government grants, has noted: "Fewer than 1% of papers in scientific journals follow the scientific method." His work on polar bear populations hit a wall when the government withheld data—even from researchers. His talk at https://youtu.be/P0i3HnA0TI4 (26-minute mark) highlights this pattern. If the science holds up, why keep it hidden?
The EPA’s guarded approach suggests a reliance on untested claims, not facts—a trend that undermines confidence in its conclusions.
Opponents said the HONEST Act would tie the EPA’s hands, arguing it couldn’t regulate without private data. But the FDA handles sensitive data with redactions—why not the EPA? CNN’s Van Jones warned transparency could harm the planet, yet if the science is sound, openness should bolster it. Resistance hints at uncertainty, not strength.
The EPA’s rules—like fines over vague wetland definitions—affect real people. Without access to the evidence, how can we assess their merit? Agencies shouldn’t wield power without accountability.
CO2 sits at 410 ppm and climbing—measurable. Pollution burdens cities like Delhi—tangible. These are issues we can address with technology and clear policy. But the EPA’s opaque methods often prioritize political fixes over practical ones. Disclosure could shift focus to what works—like cleaner energy or targeted cleanup—rather than broad rules built on shaky ground.
In 2025, President Trump is pushing to reform the EPA, aiming to curb its power and scale back its reach. His administration seeks to prioritize energy production and economic growth, challenging what they see as overregulation. This echoes the HONEST Act’s spirit—demanding transparency and questioning unchecked authority—though it takes a broader approach, targeting the agency’s structure itself. Whether this brings clarity or just shifts the balance, it’s a move to rethink how environmental policy is made.
The HONEST Act offered a chance to expose the EPA-government-industrial complex, where public funds drive hidden policies. It didn’t succeed, but the need persists: if the science is real, let’s see it. Trust hinges on that.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
