Sunday marked the 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This is an appropriate time to look back on what happened to government openness and access to information in the aftermath of the attacks. It seems that after 9/11, government officials stopped believing that Americans could be trusted with information – about their communities, about risks and dangers they could face, and about government actions on their behalf. Withholding information from citizens is a slippery slope for any democracy, yet over the past decade, government secrecy has expanded under the misguided belief that sacrificing citizen access to government information would somehow make us more secure.
On Aug. 23, federal agencies released their final plans for conducting retrospective reviews of regulations as directed by a January executive order from President Obama. Overall, the final plans closely reflect the preliminary plans released by agencies in May. Agencies stuck to their missions and did not cave to political or industry pressure to undermine their responsibilities to establish and enforce standards to protect the public.
The Obama administration's efforts to protect scientific integrity moved forward recently with the submission of five finalized agency policies and 14 draft policies, but progress has been slow and haphazard. The administration recognizes that sound, uncensored science is critically important to protecting public health and the environment. The administration also understands that agencies should foster a culture of scientific integrity that includes effective policies and oversight to protect science from political manipulation and research misconduct. However, it has yet to undo the damage wrought by the previous administration.
On Aug. 4, 17 federal agencies signed a memorandum of understanding that aims to address and reduce the disproportionate harm from environmental degradation that affects indigenous, low-income, and minority communities. The "
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted several new rules designed to reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants and improve public health, but some of the standards still await final approval. Environmental and public health advocates have applauded the tougher standards, and a number of industry groups have said they are well positioned to comply with the new rules. The rules will provide businesses with the regulatory certainty that firms say they need to invest in modern pollution-control technologies. Moreover, major power and energy companies 
Three recently published studies discuss the relationship between regulations and economic development. One study focuses on the job-creation potential of an individual environmental rule, and another touts the economic benefits of clean energy investments. The third study debunks a widely quoted but inaccurate report on the economic costs of regulations. All three reinforce an argument that public interest advocates have made for decades: government standards and public investments in clean energy protect health and safety and encourage job creation.