How EPA Funds The Petrochemical Industry’s Opposition

By now, most Americans are aware of the $369 billion in new incentives subsidies for low-carbon energy projects that were contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed by congress last summer and signed into law by President Joe Biden. Fewer are likely aware of the more than $200 billion in similar programs contained in the so-called Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Law enacted in 2021.

Fewer still will be aware that a significant slice of the IRA funding is not going to projects for wind or solar or batteries or hydrogen development. Millions of IRA dollars are in fact going to fund activist organizations which partner with the Beyond Petrochemicals effort created by billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Launched in September, 2022 – the month after President Biden signed the IRA into law – Beyond Petrochemicals states on its website that its mission is to “block the expansion of more than 120 proposed petrochemical and plastic projects concentrated in three target geographies – Louisiana, Texas, and the Ohio River Valley – and will also work to establish stricter rules for existing plants to safeguard the health of American communities.”

In the next paragraph, the group spells out its strategy: “Beyond Petrochemicals will turbocharge the work being done by frontline groups and aligned organizations that are leading the fight to end petrochemical pollution in these communities.”

That’s all fine: Among the many blessings of being a U.S. citizen is that they are free to support whatever cause they wish to support and fund them with their hard-earned (for the most part) money. Taken in that light, Beyond Petrochemicals appears to be just another non-profit established by a multi-billionaire to try to achieve a goal.

None of that is in any way controversial. Even those who don’t agree with the goals of this organization should fight to support its right to exist and function in our society.

Unless, that is, the federal government decides to join the multi-billionaire in helping with the funding, if indirectly. This where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comes into this picture.

Last November, EPA awarded significant federal money to two Louisiana-based activist groups that are listed as “aligned organizations” of the Beyond Petrochemicals campaign: The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSSEJ), and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade (LBB). EPA gave $498,911 to DSSEJ, while the LBB took in $75,000. EPA funneled a much bigger award – $13 million – to the DSSEJ in April of this year.

The DSSEJ says it is dedicated to “improving the lives of children and families harmed by pollution and vulnerable to climate change in the Gulf Coast Region through research, education, community and student engagement for policy change, as well as health and safety training for environmental careers.” Good, soft language that seems entirely non-controversial.

The LBB, however, is much more pointed about its mission on its own website: “We’re on a mission to end the petrochemical industry’s destruction of Louisiana.”

The petrochemicals industry would likely respond that this so-called “destruction of Louisiana” includes creating thousands of well-paying jobs, billions in annual economic impact, paying more billions in local and state taxes and making thousands of different products used by every American in their daily lives. Those products would include the water bottles most likely used by the LBB activists to stay hydrated in the hot South Louisiana sun whenever they stage a protest at a petrochemical site, along with their cellular devices, and probably even the clothes they wear, among many other items.

But that’s all beside the point. The point here is that we wouldn’t want the EPA or any other federal agency pumping money into the petrochemicals industry to help fund the dissemination of its preferred messaging. By the same token, we shouldn’t want the feds funneling money to help support the activities of the other side.

Here, however, we see the EPA proudly boasting about doing exactly that.

This should not be the role of government in the United States. The role of government regulators should be to set standards and enforce them, and whenever the government moves outside that role, the outcomes are seldom, if ever, positive for society at large. When the EPA starts funding activist groups, but only those that support the political goals of the administration, it has wandered well outside its appropriate mission.

The EPA should learn to stay in its lane.