EPA chief's goals: 'Explain the science' and obey the laws

At a Monitor-hosted breakfast with reporters, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said she did not intend to be the 'energy policy person,' but someone who applied existing law.

Michael Bonfigli /The Christian Science Monitor
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy speaks at the St. Regis Hotel on Monday.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was confirmed as the US Environmental Protection Agency's chief in July. She was the guest at the Sept. 23 Monitor Breakfast.

Her goals at the EPA:

"My whole goal will be to try to explain the science and to do what we are supposed to do under the law. I do not intend to be the energy policy person. I intend to work collaboratively with ... states."

If Congress fails to pass a funding bill by Oct. 1:

"It will mean that the EPA effectively shuts down, with only a core group of individuals who are there in the event of a significant emergency."

The EPA's recently released rules on carbon emissions from new coal-fired power plants:

"This is not an energy policy statement. This is not an ideological statement. This is the application of a currently existing law in a way that it was supposed to be applied."

Dealing with the expected challenges to the power plant rules:

"Our best defense is to do it right. To do it correctly under the law. To explain why we did it as carefully as we can. To make sure it is legally defensible, [that] it is technically accurate."

Water-quality concerns from the use of hydraulic fracturing in gas well drilling:

"On the water side, we think there are data gaps.... That does not in any way indicate that natural gas and fracking can't continue in a safe and responsible way."

The law the EPA uses to review the safety of chemicals used in commerce:

"There is a broad consensus that ... a major statute we use for these issues is broken and ineffective. We need statutory change."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.