Lee Zeldin At EPA: An Appointment To Be Thankful For

Trump’s new EPA is poised to roll back a lot of costly environmental rules. Let's hope it happens.

If there’s one quality progressive journalists and environmentalists lack, it’s subtlety. In the absolutist worldview of CNN reporters and Greenpeace activists, corporations are unfailingly greedy; more regulation is always needed to restrain their avarice and protect the planet from their products, which are inevitably harmful in the long run.

Nothing confirms this assessment of the journos and activists who make up the environmental industrial-complex better than the recent news that Donald Trump has nominated former Congressman Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) to head his EPA. Zeldin, as we noted in a recent article, has a long record of voting against almost every regulation green NGOs and their congressional allies propose, so naturally their reactions to his nomination “have ranged from skeptical to outraged,” as The New Republic’s Heather Horn lamented.

Amusing as these responses to Zeldin’s nomination are, they’re relatively thin on details. Except to opine that he’s a Trump “loyalist” with no environmental qualifications (whatever those are), the press hasn’t tried to anticipate what Zeldin could do at EPA or seriously explain how his policies might impact the environment and the economy.

All we need to know, apparently, is that the former representative is pro-industry, “a man staunchly on the side of polluters,” according to one New York newspaper. This is indicative of the "us vs them" world (in the battle of good against evil) that characterizes the media, activists and left-wing politicians.

But what does that description mean in practice? His critics are probably correct in broad terms: If confirmed to run the EPA, Zeldin will likely shift the agency to a more relaxed regulatory footing. And since this is the season of Thanksgiving, we think a Zeldin-run EPA is on balance a possibility worth celebrating. Here’s what the incoming Trump EPA could look like on an issue-by-issue basis

Targeting regulatory burden

Zeldin has emphasized reducing burdensome regulations. He has criticized the EPA for its overweening management of various industries, especially the energy sector, and would likely seek to reduce such regulations, making it easier for businesses to operate without stringent oversight.

This regulatory philosophy drives environmentalists up the wall, but Zeldin’s perspective is grounded in solid economic theory and a large body of real-world evidence. It’s been well documented over the years that environmental rules have adverse effects on trade, employment and productivity across industries.

Industry critics inevitably retort that regulation drives innovation in “clean technologies,” which will be profitable in the long run. However, that hasn’t proved true of any of the heavily subsidized technologies (e.g. solar, wind, EVs) that are supposed to replace our current energy and transportation systems. Overall, “the resulting benefits do not appear to be large enough to outweigh the costs of regulations for the regulated entities,” according to one recent review of the evidence.

A related and critical point is that industries have to be profitable in order to invest in new technologies and comply with environmental rules. It’s not a coincidence that the wealthiest countries tend to have the cleanest environments, because they’re the societies that invest their excess resources in sustainability initiatives. Zeldin’s willingness to limit the economic consequences of environmental rules is precisely what enables the US to mitigate pollution so well.

Opposition to aggressive climate regulations

With these considerations as the backdrop, it’s likely that Zeldin will block ever-expanding climate rules and encourage fossil fuel production. He has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration's aggressive climate policies, and as EPA Administrator, he would probably attempt to scale back many of these initiatives, such as Biden's goal to cut emissions by 50-52% by 2030. The New York Times agrees, anticipating that the EPA under Zeldin would work alongside other federal agencies to repeal “pollution limits on automobiles, power plants and factories,” and “give oil and gas companies easier access to federal lands for drilling.”

That projection seems plausible based on Zeldin’s voting record. For instance, he opposed the Obama Administration’s stricter vehicle emissions standards, arguing this would reduce costs for automakers. In the wake of Trump’s rollback of Obama-era fuel efficiency rules, the EPA under Zeldin is positioned to further scale back emissions standards for cars and trucks.

Zeldin has generally supported increased domestic oil and gas production. He voted in favor of legislation that expanded offshore drilling and supported lifting the ban on crude oil exports. Surprisingly, however, he also opposed a 2018 Trump proposal to open most US waters to oil and gas drilling, fearing it could harm the environment in his native Long Island.

Nevertheless, the EPA under his leadership would likely prioritize policies that promote fossil fuel production. That possibility seems even more probable in light of Zeldin supporting President Trump’s 2017 decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing that it harmed American industry. There’s little reason to think his opinion here has shifted, especially with Trump once again signalling his intent to pull out of the agreement.

The media has used Zeldin’s opposition to the Paris agreement to label him a radical. But the truth is that Zeldin is not alone here, although he is perhaps more honest than most officials about his lack of commitment. As we reported recently, there is little support globally for international climate action, with developed countries collectively pledging a paltry $300 billion at the COP 29 meeting in Baku to fund global warming mitigation efforts—a fraction of the UN’s request for $7 trillion to 8.1 trillion.

In short, everyone knows COP is impotent; Zeldin seems to be one of the few people willing to say so. Perhaps that does make him radical in the current political climate.

Cutting water and air rules

Zeldin has also advocated for rolling back Obama Administration water and air quality rules targeting power plants and refineries. Since he voted against these measures while in Congress, it’s not a stretch to expect that he would use his post at EPA to further advance such changes.

The same standard applies to the Obama-era Waters of the U.S. rule, which expanded federal jurisdiction over bodies of water. Zeldin has argued that the rule was an overreach that harmed farmers, ranchers and landowners by imposing unnecessary restrictions, an opinion the US Supreme Court affirmed in May 2023. As EPA Administrator, Zeldin would likely seek to narrow the scope of federal authority over waterways and wetlands, effectively rolling back the WOTUS rule.

The alarming exception here is Zeldin’s vote in favor of a bill requiring EPA to set drinking water standards for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the wrongly maligned “forever chemicals.” Zeldin’s stance is potentially problematic because the agency has recently issued “health advisories” for PFAS levels in water that are so low most labs can’t even detect them.

Independent experts have criticized the advisories for stoking unnecessary fear and saddling communities with billions of dollars in remediation costs, all to remove trace amounts of chemicals that can’t cause harm. Here we hope Zeldin’s voting record isn’t indicative of his actions at EPA.

Pro-industry or pro-market?

There is another qualification that complicates the media’s attempt to frame Zeldin as a pro-industry stooge, namely that some of his most intense opposition could actually come from industry itself. For instance, one of the largest US oil companies recently discouraged the incoming Trump Administration from abandoning the Paris Climate Agreement, warning that it “would have profound implications for the country's efforts to reduce its own emissions and for global efforts to combat climate change.”

Established firms like that one have learned that lobbying for regulations that harm their smaller competitors can be more profitable than fighting those regulations—a curious practice economists call “rent-seeking.” Similar examples can be found in the nicotine vaping industry, where federal public health rules hurt the sector overall but benefit its biggest companies, legacy tobacco makers of course.

Put simply, Zeldin is poised to advance mostly pro-market (as opposed to pro-industry) regulatory stances. His nomination may represent a challenge to what Firebreak editor David Zaruk calls “the second slowest zebra” phenomenon. For years, too many companies have followed this defensive PR and lobbying strategy in which they capitulate to their critics’ demands so long as they can remain in business. Their competitors, the slowest zebras, may be eaten in the process, but that’s of no concern.

Conclusion

Ideally Zeldin’s appointment will shake more companies out of their conciliatory slumber and into realizing that they can reshape the regulatory environment to benefit industry more generally. Given the Republicans resounding victory in the election, it’s clear that voters have limited tolerance for busybodies who want to manage every aspect of American life. The public will often respond positively if companies stand up for themselves when attacked by trial lawyers and activists.

Only time will tell if this sea change comes to fruition. But given Zeldin’s track record and this being the holiday season, we’re hopeful that there are some major environmental policy changes on the horizon.