Lee Zeldin as EPA Administrator: A Deregulatory Revolution and Its Risks

Lee Michael Zeldin’s January 2025 confirmation as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has triggered the most sweeping rollback of environmental protections in the agency’s history. Installed during President Trump’s second term, Zeldin’s tenure is marked by a radical deregulatory agenda that favors economic growth and fossil fuel interests over climate science, public health, and environmental justice.

---

Deregulation as Doctrine

Within weeks of taking office, Zeldin unveiled the “Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative,” a deregulatory blitz that erased 31 major environmental rules in a single day. This initiative aims to dismantle longstanding safeguards in pursuit of what Zeldin terms “energy realism” — a euphemism for expanding fossil fuel production and reducing regulatory hurdles.

Key actions include:

• Repealing vehicle emissions standards that had helped reduce greenhouse gases and urban pollution

• Weakening pollution controls on coal and natural gas power plants

• Narrowing the scope of the Clean Water Act, reducing protections for rivers, wetlands, and drinking water sources

• Fast-tracking permits for oil, gas, and mining projects, often at the expense of environmental review

Environmental advocates warn these rollbacks jeopardize public health and the environment by prioritizing short-term corporate profits over scientific evidence.

---

Climate Denial by Policy: The Endangerment Finding Under Siege

Perhaps the most consequential move is Zeldin’s effort to repeal the 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” which legally classified greenhouse gases as harmful to public health under the Clean Air Act. This ruling underpinned decades of federal climate regulation.

Zeldin claims repealing it will save $54 billion annually in compliance costs, calling it a “correction of regulatory overreach.” Legal experts and scientists counter that overturning the finding would strip the federal government of its ability to enforce climate protections and likely violate established legal precedents. Lawsuits challenging the repeal are already in preparation.

---

Budget Cuts and the Gutting of EPA Science

Zeldin’s deregulatory campaign is matched by a dramatic downsizing of the EPA itself. The Trump administration’s 2025 budget slashed the agency’s funding by 55%, gutting its scientific capacity.

Among the casualties:

• Cancellation of $3 billion in climate justice block grants aimed at addressing environmental disparities in low-income communities

• Elimination of clean energy funding for rooftop solar programs

• Cuts to Superfund site cleanups and environmental justice research

The Office of Research and Development, the EPA’s scientific core, has been dismantled, with thousands of staff reassigned or laid off. The agency now emphasizes “state collaboration” and “industry efficiency,” shifting regulatory power to often under-resourced states and industry self-policing.

---

Conspiracies, Culture Wars, and Science Under Siege

Zeldin’s EPA has also ventured into controversial territory, endorsing investigations into weather modification and “geoengineering transparency,” areas often linked to conspiracy theories. Internally, climate education materials are under review, and there are reports of pressure on universities to defund or redirect climate research away from contentious topics.

This ideological shift threatens to politicize science and erode the integrity of federal partnerships with academic institutions.

---

Implications for Higher Education

Though the EPA does not directly govern education policy, its policies and budget cuts send shockwaves through higher education, especially at public and land-grant universities focused on environmental science and agriculture.

• EPA grant funding for climate and environmental research faces severe cuts, jeopardizing ongoing projects and future STEM initiatives.

• Scientific partnerships between universities and the EPA are imperiled, risking a loss of federal research infrastructure.

• Climate policy education is increasingly vulnerable to ideological scrutiny and defunding pressures.

• Programs designed to encourage STEM participation among underserved communities are at risk of collapse without federal support.

These trends threaten to dismantle vital components of the STEM pipeline and undermine America’s ability to educate the next generation of environmental scientists and policymakers.

Lee Zeldin’s EPA represents a historic pivot away from climate action and environmental protection toward deregulation, austerity, and ideological control. The long-term consequences for public health, environmental justice, and higher education remain deeply uncertain — but the alarm bells are ringing loud.

Sources

• Environmental Protection Agency. “Administrator Zeldin Announces Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative.” epa.gov. March–July 2025.

• Winston & Strawn LLP. “EPA Launches Historic Deregulatory Plan.” March 2025.

• The Washington Post. “EPA Moves to Overturn Endangerment Finding.” July 29, 2025.

• Associated Press. “Democrats Say EPA Budget Cuts May Kill People.” July 2025.

• The Guardian. “EPA Halts $3 Billion Climate Justice Program; Lawsuit Looms.” August 5, 2025.

• The Week. “How the EPA Plans to Nullify Climate Science.” July 2025.

• New York Post. “Zeldin Aims to Cut ‘Woke’ Climate Spending, Slash Energy Costs.” July 2025.

• Times Union (Albany). “Editorial: EPA’s Dangerous Ignorance.” July 2025.

• CNN Interview. “Zeldin Defends Record, Faces Tough Questions.” July 2025.

Troubled Future: Data Centers, Crypto, and EPA Downsizing

The environmental costs of digital infrastructure and financial speculation are rising rapidly, while federal oversight remains inconsistent and under-resourced. Data centers and cryptocurrency mining now consume vast amounts of electricity and water across the United States, yet much of this resource use is poorly tracked or omitted from public emissions reporting. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has seen significant staffing losses, rule reversals, and new threats to its institutional survival.

These trends are not isolated. Together, they reflect a shift toward energy-intensive technologies, deregulation of high-polluting industries, and a weakened capacity to respond to environmental harm. The long-term consequences will be difficult to reverse.

The Energy and Water Demands of Data Centers

Data centers are expanding to meet demand for cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and digital storage. These facilities rely heavily on continuous electricity and water for cooling. Some consume millions of gallons of water per day, and projections show their electricity use may double in the next few years. Many are located in areas already under water stress.

The environmental impact of data centers goes beyond their daily operations. Construction materials, server manufacturing, and on-site diesel backup generators all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Yet these emissions are often excluded from formal greenhouse gas inventories, especially when they occur outside the facility’s geographic or corporate boundaries.

Crypto Mining as an Unregulated Energy Sector

Cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin, requires massive computing power. These operations have migrated to U.S. states with low energy prices and minimal regulatory oversight. Bitcoin mining alone now consumes more electricity annually than many countries.

The emissions from crypto mining are significant, but they are not consistently tracked. Facilities often operate below emissions reporting thresholds or through decentralized networks that fall outside EPA scrutiny. In many cases, power is sourced from fossil fuels, and companies are not required to disclose their energy mix or carbon footprint.

Residents living near crypto facilities have reported noise, pollution, and local grid strain. Yet enforcement is limited or nonexistent in most jurisdictions.

The Shrinking Capacity of the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency has lost hundreds of experienced staff since 2017, including scientists and enforcement personnel. Budget cuts, political pressure, and legal constraints have made it difficult for the agency to maintain oversight of fast-growing industries like digital infrastructure and blockchain technology.

Many environmental rules were rolled back between 2017 and 2020, increasing overall emissions and reducing safeguards for air and water. Although some regulations have been restored, the agency remains under political threat. Proposals to reorganize or dismantle the EPA altogether have resurfaced, potentially removing the last federal layer of accountability in many regions.

Greenhouse gas reporting systems still rely heavily on corporate self-reporting. Emerging sectors such as AI, crypto, and hyperscale data storage are not fully integrated into federal carbon inventories, and indirect emissions—such as those from supply chains and off-site electricity generation—are often omitted entirely.

A Delayed and Unequal Cost

The consequences of these developments will accumulate slowly but with increasing severity. Emissions released today will remain in the atmosphere for decades. Water used to cool servers will not be available to communities experiencing drought or contamination.

Those who profit from these trends—tech corporations, crypto investors, and political donors—will not be the ones facing the costs. The burden will fall on future generations, frontline communities, and the global South.

Institutions of higher education, many of which depend on cloud platforms, server farms, and AI applications, are deeply connected to this digital growth. They also have an opportunity—and arguably a responsibility—to examine the long-term impacts of these systems and hold corporate partners accountable.

Technological advancement has material consequences. The energy and water behind our digital lives are not virtual, and the lack of environmental regulation only increases the harm. Without accurate measurement and stronger enforcement, damage will continue without acknowledgement—and without remedy.

Sources
International Energy Agency, Electricity 2024
U.S. Department of Energy, Quadrennial Technology Review, 2023
Ma, J. et al., “The Water Footprint of Data Centers,” Nature Communications, 2023
Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, 2023
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Crypto-Assets Report, 2022
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2024
Government Accountability Office, EPA Workforce Report, 2021
Brookings Institution, Deregulation Tracker, 2020
Greenpeace USA, Poisoned by Pollution: Crypto Mining’s Environmental Toll, 2022
ProPublica, The Real Cost of the Cloud, 2023

When Technology Can’t Outrun Environmental Collapse: The High Cost of Crypto and Other Energy-Hungry Innovations

There is a persistent narrative that technology will save humanity from the mounting environmental crises—climate change, resource depletion, and pollution—that threaten the planet. From clean energy breakthroughs to smart agriculture, the promise is that innovation will outpace destruction. But this optimism overlooks a harsh reality: many of today’s most advanced technologies, especially those that consume vast amounts of energy like cryptocurrencies, exacerbate environmental harm instead of reducing it. The earth’s ecological limits are too strict and immediate for technology alone to fix.

A key factor missing from many discussions is the concept of externalities—costs or damages that are not reflected in the market price of goods or services. Both economic and environmental externalities mean that the true price of technologies is often hidden from consumers, producers, and policymakers alike. When a technology harms the environment but doesn’t pay for that damage, the costs are effectively “externalized” to society and future generations.

Cryptocurrency Mining: An Externality Nightmare

Take cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin, as a striking example. Bitcoin’s “proof of work” system demands enormous computing power, consuming electricity on the scale of entire countries such as Argentina or the Netherlands. However, the market price of Bitcoin does not include the environmental cost of that energy use—carbon emissions, air pollution, and water resource depletion are externalities borne by the planet, not the miners or investors.

Many crypto mining operations cluster in regions with cheap, carbon-intensive electricity. The associated greenhouse gas emissions accelerate climate change, but these environmental costs remain unaccounted for in economic transactions. Similarly, the rapid turnover of specialized mining hardware produces vast amounts of electronic waste that is seldom recycled properly, leaking toxins into ecosystems. These negative externalities are seldom reflected in the price of cryptocurrencies or factored into regulatory frameworks.

Other Technologies and Their Hidden Costs

It’s not only crypto. Artificial intelligence training requires massive computational resources that consume significant electricity, often generated by fossil fuels. Streaming services, cloud data centers, and the explosion of connected devices—collectively the “Internet of Things”—demand continuous power, driving emissions that are not typically included in consumer bills or corporate balance sheets.

The production of smartphones, laptops, and other electronics relies on mining scarce and environmentally damaging materials like lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements. The social and ecological externalities here include habitat destruction, water pollution, and labor exploitation in vulnerable communities.

Even as companies promote efficiency gains, the rebound effect—where increased efficiency lowers costs and leads to increased consumption—means that total resource use continues to grow, magnifying external environmental harm.

Why Externalities Matter

Externalities are a core reason why technological innovation alone cannot save the environment. Without mechanisms to internalize these costs—through regulations, taxes, or market reforms—businesses and consumers have little incentive to change behavior. Technologies that appear profitable on paper may, in reality, impose devastating costs on ecosystems, human health, and climate stability.

Economic externalities can also distort investment priorities, leading to overinvestment in high-energy, resource-intensive technologies while underfunding sustainable alternatives that carry less hidden damage.

Toward a Holistic Solution

Addressing environmental destruction demands recognizing and correcting these externalities. Policies that tax carbon emissions, regulate electronic waste, and require transparency in supply chains can help internalize the true costs of technologies. Public awareness and ethical consumer choices also play a role in pressuring companies and governments.

Higher education institutions must contribute by researching externalities associated with emerging technologies and educating future leaders about sustainability challenges. Only by confronting the real costs behind innovation can society make wiser choices.

The Tech Future 

Technology is neither a guaranteed savior nor an inherent villain. It reflects the values and systems that shape its creation and deployment. Without reckoning with economic and environmental externalities, technological advances risk deepening rather than alleviating ecological crises. A sustainable future requires systemic change that prioritizes ecological limits and social justice—not just faster chips and smarter algorithms.

---

Sources:

• University of Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (2025)

• Strubell, Emma, et al. “Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP.” ACL 2019

• Carlson, Shawn. “Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption Is a Problem—But It’s Not the Whole Problem.” Scientific American, 2022

• International Energy Agency (IEA). “Data Centres and Data Transmission Networks,” 2023

• Ghisellini, Patrizia, et al. “Environmental Sustainability of Rare Earth Elements: A Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2024

• The Shift Project. “Lean ICT: Towards Digital Sobriety,” 2019

• Pigou, Arthur C. The Economics of Welfare (1920) — foundational theory on externalities

Workers are cannibalised by the capitalist class (Nancy Fraser)

The world is facing multiple crises simultaneously: Climate change, the rise of authoritarian movements, and the exploitation of labor from the Global South, among others. Professor of philosophy and politics at the New School, Nancy Fraser, says "it can’t be a coincidence" - at the root of it all is capitalism.

Climate Change: When Will We Stop Moving to the Riskiest Regions? (PBS Terra)

‘Father of Environmental Justice’ Robert Bullard on the Work Behind a Movement (Time)

 

 

“This isn’t happenstance,” remarked Gloria Walton, former TIME Earth Award honoree, on the environmental justice movement being recognized as a powerful force. “It is a reality created by the energy and love of frontline communities and grassroots organizations who have worked for decades,” Walton said, as she presented an Earth Award to the man known as the “Father of Environmental Justice,” Robert Bullard. Bullard, who was appointed to the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council in 2021, spoke of the long fight he’s waged for environmental justice in his acceptance speech. He discussed the challenges that he faced in 1979, when he conducted a study in support of the landmark case Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management Corps.— the first lawsuit to challenge environmental racism in the United States. “I am a sociologist and my sociology has taught me that it is not enough to gather the data, do the science and write the books,” he said. “In order for us to solve this kind of crisis, we must do our science, we must gather our data, we must collect our facts, and we must marry those facts with action.”

 

The Harsh Truth Behind the Los Angeles Wildfires (Stephanie Pincetl)

UCLA Professor Stephanie Pincetl is calling the wildfires in Los Angeles a biblical-level catastrophe at least a century in the making. Pincetl teaches at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and is Director of the California Center for Sustainable Communities, specializing in land use and the interaction between urban development and wildfire risks.