Rebuttal to Environmental Protection Agency
by: Mandy M. Gunasakara

Rebuttal to Project 2025: Environmental Protection Agency by Mandy M. Gunasekara

Mandy M. Gunasekara’s vision for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as outlined in Project 2025, emphasizes rolling back environmental regulations, reducing government oversight, and prioritizing economic growth over environmental protection. While she frames these changes as necessary to promote business growth and reduce regulatory burdens, her approach undermines the EPA’s core mission of safeguarding human health and the environment. By weakening essential protections, Gunasekara’s proposals would lead to increased pollution, exacerbate climate change, and disproportionately harm vulnerable communities that are already suffering from environmental degradation.

Her plan poses a direct threat to decades of progress in reducing air and water pollution, addressing climate change, and promoting environmental justice. By favoring short-term economic interests over long-term sustainability, Gunasekara’s vision would set back critical environmental protections and increase public health risks, especially for low-income and minority communities.

Rolling Back Environmental Regulations: A Dangerous Move

One of the primary goals of Gunasekara’s Project 2025 vision is to roll back environmental regulations that she deems overly burdensome to industry. This includes reducing the scope of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, both of which have been instrumental in improving the quality of air and water in the United States over the past several decades. These laws are not arbitrary burdens on businesses; they are essential protections that prevent harmful pollutants from entering the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Gunasekara’s plan to weaken emissions standards for industries, including power plants, oil refineries, and factories, would result in increased levels of pollutants like sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These pollutants contribute to respiratory diseases, heart conditions, and premature deaths. Rolling back these protections would disproportionately affect communities located near industrial areas, many of which are low-income and predominantly communities of color. These communities already experience higher rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and other health issues related to pollution. By reducing regulatory oversight, Gunasekara’s vision would allow polluters to operate with fewer restrictions, leading to more pollution and higher health risks for these vulnerable populations.

Similarly, weakening water protections under the Clean Water Act would put drinking water sources at greater risk of contamination. Industrial discharge, agricultural runoff, and chemical spills could more easily enter rivers, lakes, and groundwater if environmental standards are lowered or enforcement is reduced. This would particularly harm rural communities and communities that rely on natural water sources for drinking, agriculture, and recreation. The Flint water crisis is a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of weakened water protections and inadequate government oversight.

Ignoring Climate Change: A Dangerous Gamble

One of the most alarming aspects of Gunasekara’s vision is her dismissal of the urgent need for climate action. While the scientific consensus is clear that human activities—particularly the burning of fossil fuels—are driving global climate change, Gunasekara’s proposals prioritize fossil fuel expansion and downplay the role of the EPA in addressing climate-related issues. Her plan to roll back regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the energy and transportation sectors, would lock the U.S. into a fossil fuel-dependent future and significantly undermine efforts to combat climate change.

Climate change is already having devastating impacts across the globe, from rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events to prolonged droughts and widespread biodiversity loss. In the U.S., communities are facing increased risks from hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and heatwaves, all of which are becoming more severe due to climate change. The economic and human costs of these climate-related disasters are immense, and they will only increase if we fail to take meaningful action to reduce emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources.

Gunasekara’s proposals to weaken regulations on power plant emissions, fuel efficiency standards, and methane leaks from oil and gas operations would result in higher levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. This would exacerbate global warming, making it more difficult to meet international climate goals and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The EPA plays a crucial role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and weakening its authority would be a major setback in the fight against climate change.

Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Communities

Gunasekara’s deregulation agenda would disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color, which are already bearing the brunt of environmental degradation. These communities are more likely to live near polluting industries, busy highways, and other sources of environmental hazards. They are also more vulnerable to the health impacts of pollution and climate change, due to limited access to healthcare, inadequate infrastructure, and historical disinvestment.

Environmental justice has been a growing focus of the EPA in recent years, with efforts to address the disproportionate burden of pollution on marginalized communities. However, Gunasekara’s vision for the EPA largely ignores these concerns. By rolling back environmental protections and reducing enforcement of existing regulations, her plan would exacerbate existing environmental injustices, leaving vulnerable communities with even fewer protections from industrial pollution and environmental hazards.

For example, the rollback of air quality standards would lead to dirtier air in urban areas, where low-income residents and communities of color are already exposed to higher levels of pollution. Similarly, reducing water quality protections would put rural and Indigenous communities at greater risk of water contamination, as many of these communities rely on natural water sources that are already threatened by industrial activities and inadequate infrastructure.

Economic Short-Sightedness

While Gunasekara frames her vision as a way to boost economic growth by reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, this approach is economically short-sighted. The long-term costs of environmental degradation, public health crises, and climate change far outweigh any short-term economic gains from deregulation. Pollution-related illnesses lead to higher healthcare costs, reduced worker productivity, and increased absenteeism. Climate-related disasters—such as hurricanes, wildfires, and floods—result in billions of dollars in damages each year and require massive public investments in recovery and rebuilding efforts.

Moreover, the clean energy sector presents significant economic opportunities that Gunasekara’s fossil fuel-centric approach ignores. Renewable energy industries like wind and solar are among the fastest-growing sectors in the U.S. economy, providing high-quality jobs and driving innovation. By investing in clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, the U.S. can create sustainable economic growth while reducing its reliance on polluting fossil fuels.

Gunasekara’s vision misses this opportunity by prioritizing short-term profits for the fossil fuel industry over long-term economic resilience. The global transition to clean energy is already underway, and countries that invest in renewable energy, energy storage, and grid modernization will be better positioned to lead the global economy in the future. By clinging to outdated fossil fuel-based energy policies, Gunasekara’s approach risks leaving the U.S. behind in the race for clean energy leadership.

Undermining Environmental Accountability and Public Trust

Gunasekara’s push for deregulation and reduced government oversight would also weaken accountability mechanisms that are essential for protecting public health and the environment. The EPA is responsible for enforcing environmental laws, ensuring compliance with pollution standards, and holding industries accountable for environmental violations. By reducing the agency’s enforcement powers and scaling back environmental monitoring programs, Gunasekara’s plan would allow polluters to operate with less oversight and less accountability.

This lack of accountability would erode public trust in both the EPA and the government’s ability to protect public health and the environment. Communities that rely on the EPA to regulate industrial pollution and ensure clean air and water would be left with fewer tools to hold polluters accountable, leading to more environmental harm and fewer protections for the public.

Gunasekara’s approach also threatens to undermine the role of science in environmental decision-making. The EPA relies on scientific research and data to inform its policies and regulations, particularly on issues like climate change, air pollution, and chemical safety. Efforts to limit the role of science in EPA rulemaking would reduce the agency’s ability to make evidence-based decisions that protect public health and the environment.

Conclusion: A Vision That Prioritizes Profits Over People

Mandy M. Gunasekara’s Project 2025 vision for the EPA represents a dangerous step backward for environmental protection in the United States. By prioritizing deregulation and industry profits over public health, climate action, and environmental justice, her proposals would weaken the EPA’s ability to fulfill its core mission and leave vulnerable communities at greater risk of pollution and environmental harm.

Rolling back critical environmental protections would lead to dirtier air and water, exacerbate the impacts of climate change, and disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color. The long-term costs of environmental degradation, public health crises, and climate-related disasters far outweigh the short-term economic gains that might result from deregulation.

Rather than weakening environmental protections, the U.S. should be strengthening the EPA’s role in addressing climate change, promoting environmental justice, and ensuring a clean and healthy environment for all Americans. Gunasekara’s vision is out of step with the reality of the environmental challenges we face and should be rejected in favor of policies that prioritize public health, sustainability, and environmental accountability.