{"id":37683,"date":"2026-06-02T04:27:59","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T03:27:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=37683"},"modified":"2026-06-02T04:40:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T03:40:03","slug":"die-frage-nach-dem-warum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/die-frage-nach-dem-warum\/","title":{"rendered":"The Question of Why"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two disasters with eleven dead, and a government that now wants to abolish the agency that asks what caused them!<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Two disasters within a matter of days reminded America of what chemistry is capable of when left to itself. At the Nippon Dynawave Packaging paper mill in the city of Longview, Washington, eleven people lost their lives. At the GKN Aerospace facility for aerospace plastics in Garden Grove, California, tens of thousands had to leave their homes. Both incidents occurred after experts and labor unions had warned for months about the consequences of the rollback of safety regulations under President Donald Trump\u2019s administration. And it is not over. Further cuts to chemical safety rules are expected in the coming months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
GKN Aerospace in Garden Grove, California, May 21, 2026<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

As early as the end of March, members of the United Steelworkers union in Washington demonstrated against a plan by the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency wants to eliminate rules that had been introduced under former President Joe Biden. Among other things, those rules required the identification of safer technologies and chemical alternatives, made certain protective measures mandatory in specific cases, required more thorough investigations of incidents, and introduced reviews by independent third parties. Phil Stagg, a process safety specialist with USW Local 13-228, warned at the time that eliminating the rule placed \u201cprofits over safety\u201d because it prioritized cost cutting over protecting workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following last week\u2019s two disasters, the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters also described the plans to weaken the rules introduced under Biden as a serious mistake that exposes American workers to greater danger. \u201cThe deadly and devastating incidents experienced by these communities in recent days demonstrate how urgently existing protections must be implemented and expanded so that people living near chemical facilities are protected from these kinds of disasters,\u201d the group said. \u201cBut instead of protecting workers and families from death, injury, and illness, Trump\u2019s EPA is exposing communities to greater harm by weakening the nation\u2019s strongest defense against chemical facility disasters.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
GKN Aerospace in Garden Grove, California, May 21, 2026<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The administration is also targeting the Chemical Safety Board, an independent federal agency whose mission is to investigate the actual causes of chemical accidents. Trump\u2019s budget proposal effectively eliminates the agency by reducing its funding to zero on the grounds that it merely duplicates work already being done by the EPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is worth pausing over, because more depends on this justification than its brevity suggests. Jordan Barab, former deputy assistant secretary at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, explained in an interview last week that the Chemical Safety Board provides invaluable insight into the actual causes of chemical disasters, while the EPA\u2019s work is limited to determining whether an accident resulted from violations of federal rules. The Board, Barab said, \u201ccan also look at other problems, other causes that are not necessarily covered by regulations or standards.\u201d He added: \u201cMany of the ways industry has improved safety came from recommendations issued by the Chemical Safety Board.\u201d There is therefore no duplication. The two agencies ask two different questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
GKN Aerospace in Garden Grove, California, May 21, 2026<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington State wrote on social media on Sunday that the Chemical Safety Board performs essential work in preventing future accidents and pledged to fight the administration\u2019s plans to eliminate its budget. \u201cI will make it a priority to ensure the agency receives the funding it needs for a thorough and unbiased investigation,\u201d Perez said. \u201cThere are also currently three vacant seats on the board, and I hope we can work with the administration to ensure that people with real trade experience are appointed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Nippon Dynawave Packaging in Longview, Washington, May 26, 2026<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

That identifies the real substance of this cost cutting measure. A regulation asks whether a law was broken. The Chemical Safety Board asks why eleven people had to die, and it asks that question even when no law was broken. These are two different questions, and only the second one helps prevent the next disaster. Anyone who abolishes the agency that asks why is not claiming there is no why. They are only declaring that they no longer want to know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Nippon Dynawave Packaging in Longview, Washington, May 26, 2026<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

A society that creates safety rules does something remarkable. It cares for people who have not yet been harmed, for deaths that have not yet happened. That concern is expensive, and for that very reason it can be listed as a cost and removed. Harder to calculate is the price of the alternative. That price does not appear on a corporate balance sheet. It appears in a paper mill in Washington where eleven families are waiting for someone who is never coming home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone looking at the United States these days can see how the rollback of environmental protections unfolds. It rarely announces itself loudly. More often it arrives wrapped in the friendly promise of less bureaucracy and greater freedom. Germany\u2019s AfD also calls in important areas for fewer government interventions in climate and environmental policy and repeatedly questions existing protections. Critics therefore warn that such an approach ultimately not only accelerates procedures but also weakens the safeguards that protect air, water, health, and nature. Environmental agencies often appear unremarkable. Their value usually only becomes visible once their resources are taken away.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cProfits over safety\u201d sounds almost too simple to be true as a phrase, yet it describes exactly what is happening here. The profit arrives today and benefits only a few. The bill comes later and is paid by others. It is a very old way of doing business. The only new thing about it is how openly it is practiced today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n