Liberal journalists routinely describe Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler as a former coal lobbyist and climate change denier, suggesting that he is destroying the EPA from within and in cahoots with big business. But this narrative is essentially wrong and misleading on all counts.

I interviewed Wheeler recently to discuss how his agency was marking the 50th anniversary of Earth Day and his tenure more broadly. I encountered a very different man than the one youd read about in the New York Times.

When Earth Day began in 1970, Americans faced a drastically different environment than we do today, Wheeler said. I am proud of the work our nation has done, and continues to do, to be a leader in clean air and clean water progress.

Our conversation led me to ask the administrator about the most common criticisms leveled against him.

He explained that perhaps the most frustrating one is the way liberal media outlets always introduce him as a former coal lobbyist. This is an example of something that is technically true but extremely misleading.

Wheeler was, for just over eight years, an energy lobbyist. Among his many clients were nuclear power companies and, yes, coal companies and workers. But the decision made by liberal journalists to only highlight coal in their descriptor is undoubtedly an intentional and political one.

So, too, when former coal lobbyist is used as the only descriptor to introduce the administrator, this ignores Wheelers arguably much more relevant stint at the EPA early in his career and several decades of work in Congress on environmental issues. Lobbying was one job he held for a small part of his long career in environmental policy. (For what it's worth, Wheeler's qualifications are rather impressive: He holds not just a bachelor's degree in science but also a law degree and an MBA).

Something tells me that a similar EPA head appointed by a Democrat, who had once worked as an energy lobbyist with solar as a client, would instead be described by the liberal media as a career public servant and veteran legislative expert.

We also discussed Wheelers alleged climate change denial, which is simply not a thing. He does believe man-made climate change is real, he does want to reduce carbon emissions, and he strongly supports nuclear power the most efficient, emissions-free power source available and one that, bizarrely, many Democrats oppose despite claiming to believe in global warming.

Wheeler did stress that he doesnt believe climate change is the existential threat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes it out to be when she says were all going to die in 12 years or, at least, if we don't destroy our economy in the next 10 years.

The administrator also explained that, for him, the most important environmental issue right now is clean water, not climate change. On a global basis, nearly 1 million people still die every year from the lack of access to safe drinking water. (And Flint, Michigan, shows this isnt just an international issue, but still one here as well).

Wheeler was not denying climate change, of course, but it is not his top priority. If liberal journalists want to argue that Wheeler doesnt take climate change seriously enough, isnt adequately focusing on it, or doesnt support the appropriate climate change policies, this might provide the occasion to do so. It's at least a fair question to debate. But it's simply a lie to label Wheeler a climate change denier. This is an example of how the charge becomes a bad-faith smear upon anyone who isnt googly eyed at the "Green New Deal."

Examples of this bad-faith coverage of Wheeler and his EPA abound in the policy arena as well.

Take, for example, the administration's Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Its a complicated rule, but essentially, it would require that the EPA only use studies in their policymaking for which the data is made publicly available and transparent not secret. As for the chorus of privacy and methodological concerns raised, Wheeler said researchers can adjust the way they do studies, and data can be anonymized. He also pointed out that the rule allows EPA to make exceptions when necessary.

Our regulations will be better understood on both sides, Wheeler told me. I really see it as an open government proposal getting data out there for people to look at.

This eminently reasonable suggestion that the federal government does not blindly make rules based on secret data has been met with a shriek from the liberal media, which has implicitly and explicitly deemed it an assault on science. Wheeler complained that critics are misleadingly calling it the secret science rule when, if anything, its really the opposite. The agency is still taking comments and working on the final draft of the rule, but most of the engagement has been made in bad faith.

"When finalized, the science transparency rule will ensure that all important studies underlying significant regulatory actions at the EPA, regardless of their source, are available for a transparent review by qualified scientists," Wheeler said.

And while Wheelers EPA has indeed played a role in the Trump administrations broader pro-growth deregulatory agenda, the administrator also stressed to me the key pro-environment work theyve done.

For instance, he pointed out that, last year, they cleaned up more contaminated Superfund sites than in any year since 2001. He touted the work theyve done pairing the GOP tax bills economic opportunity zones with EPA-sponsored Brownfield grants to promote environmental cleanup. (For some completely unknown reason, these accomplishments made it into almost none of the news reports I reviewed while preparing for our interview.)

In our interview, Wheeler certainly didnt come across as the anti-government fanatic that the liberal media makes him out to be. While dedicated to promoting efficiency in the EPA and open to downsizing it, the administrator actually cited as his biggest concern the agencys inability to retain employees for more than a few years. (This is due in part, he said, to millennials flighty job habits.) Thats not exactly a telling sign of someone hell-bent on abolishing the EPA from within.

This disconnect between liberal media coverage and reality spreads throughout Wheelers tenure at EPA. It surely cant be good for democracy to have so many people relying on a deeply distorted portrayal of their government for basic information.

See the original post:

Liberal media gives Trump EPA head Andrew Wheeler a bad rap - Washington Examiner