This is a real plan, by people who have been in the government, for how to systematically take over, take away rights and freedoms, and dismantle the government in service of private industry.
See this page in the PDF
Environmental Protection Agency
and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain political positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were
purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and
private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to congressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental
associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key committees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees
and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.*®
Needed Science Policy Reforms
Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk communications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should:
• Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body.
• Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act*’ for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources.
• Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis.
• Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.