« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
For those who've been watching the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush administration, you're familiar with the following pattern: the EPA, over the objection of its own scientists, issues a new rule that weakens environmental controls, but when pressed for an explanation, EPA officials explain that the new rule has nothing to do with easing the restrictions on polluters. No -- the change is merely a clarification, or a technical fix to some nonsense bureaucratic rule, or the inescapable conclusion drawn from a sober appraisal of the law.
And here we go again. Here's the rule change (note the dissent from EPA scientists):
The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency scientists and park managers who oppose the plan.The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks.
And here is the explanation -- from a former EPA official who has departed to head the the environmental strategies group at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani (yes, that Giuliani) no less:
Jeffrey R. Holmstead... helped initiate the rule change while heading the EPA's air and radiation office. He said agency officials became concerned that the EPA's scientific staff was taking "the most conservative approach" in predicting how much pollution new power plants would produce."The question from a policy perspective was: Do you need to have models based on the absolute worst-case conditions that were unlikely to ever occur in the real world?" Holmstead said in an interview Thursday. "This has to do with what [modeling] assumptions you're required to do. This is really a legal issue and a policy issue."
The new rule changes how pollution levels in parks are measured -- instead of frequent measures, the new rule "would average the levels over a year so that spikes in pollution levels would not violate the law." Just a common sense fix, you might say. But as one environmental advocate explains, "It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour.'"
It looks like the EPA is really competing to not only be the most politicized of the agencies in the Bush Administration, but also to create the most lasting damage.
Josh
Zachary
Expect a flood of this from the departing Bushies. They will be laying the land mines of odious policy designed to persist long after they are gone. Not content with having their way for only 8 years, the remaining Bushies will try to control the future.
Biggest land mine to yet be laid before 1/20/09-
Bombing Iran.
May 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eeek! My pocketses been done picked!!!
Musta been while I wuz watchin dat shiny little Flag Lapel Pin. Gotta memmer not to do dat!
Whaddya mean, I'z gotta pay Finance Charges on dat swollen Current Balance? Feh! Just charge it!
May 16, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can this rule be changed by the next administration? How long would? it take
May 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Acording to the article: 'the change is merely a clarification, or a technical fix to some nonsense bureaucratic rule, or the inescapable conclusion drawn from a sober appraisal of the law.'
If they can do it we can do it. You're right the important question is: how long?
At this point the place to put pressure is on those who decide to build those plants. How willing will they be to invest money if they know their new plants might get shut down in the near future?
May 16, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agency Rules can be changed by future Administrations.
That said, Agency rulemaking is a complex process that almost always involves a "public comment period." This is required under law.
Whether the current Administration is properly handling public comments is one question.
But that of course that public comment would only be window dressing - since they're not listening to anyone anyway.
May 16, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Undoubtedly. But the point is to get facts-on-the-ground on the ground. A power plant can't be very easily unbuilt, or even uncontracted.
May 20, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
These folks have to soil everything! It's like people who never got potty trained.
May 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and his cabinet will have a lot of work to do. But with a democratic house and senate it will be easy. These people are only helping to more thoroughly ruin the Repuglican party. It took 50 years for America to forget what the GOP did before 1929, this time around it may take longer.
Keep up the bad work. The next several generations can only hate you more!
May 16, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
We had a similar thing happen with our state children's healthcare program in Florida. Serious tax cuts in the last couple of years have dried up all the money to pay for the program. Discontinuing it or massive budget cuts to the program are a political non-starter (yes, even in Florida) so the Republican controlled state government went about re-writing the eligibility requirements. Voila! 250,000 kids disappear from the rolls. Problem solved. To be fair, this did not end up going all the way. Just an example of the rank hypocrisy that passes for legislating in this state.
May 16, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best government big-industry money can buy!
May 16, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
To all of the beneficiaries of Bush's policy changes - don't get too excited, we are taking notes and all of this will be reversed the moment our new Democratic President is sworn in. Don't bother investing in all that undeveloped land near national parks, you will not be able to use the way you imagine. If you were smart, you'd start supporting the Democrats because you will be answering to them for the next 40 years and although you won't always like it, it can be made less painful, and most likely profitable in the long term, if you are helpful and cooperative. Some of you won't and I assure you: you won't be remembered or missed.
Sincerely,
We The People
May 16, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
From a wonkish perspective, the explanation is even more mendacious than it first appears. The EPA and other federal agencies dealing with pollution and toxins almost always set different limits for short and long-term levels. So you already have a method for saying that you can have short spikes that exceed the longterm limit, just as long as the spikes themselves aren't too big.
So this isn't like saying you can occasionally do 75 in a 55 zone. It's like saying that you can occasionally do mach 2 in a 55 zone.
May 16, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The lasting legacy of Bush's politicization of the federal bureaucracy is more than just the laws. Laws can be rewritten with the stroke of a pen. What's been lost is personnel. People who actually believe in what the EPA is doing (or the FDA, or the FCC, or the...). People with years and years of institutional memory in their heads. So many of these people have left in disgust after being told to say and/or do things they know to be untrue and/or contrary to the founding purpose of their agency. It will take a generation to unseat Bush's implants and lure back a work force committed to providing the service for which a given agency was created in the first place. At least a generation.
May 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't congress or the House committee make this right? Get rid of the guy, overrule him, etc.
Shouldn't they be able to pull out all the stops on any attempt to circumvent the law, re-write the law, or break it in these remaining months?
There have been so many investigations and I give the congress credit for not just blowing things off. But can't they do anything when loyal Bushies blow THEM off?
It's as if Johnson could say "I'm lying, I'm protecting the oil companies, not the environment, that is my job and there's nothing you can do about it."
And he'd be right.
May 16, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few years back, @ the Clinton to Bush 2 transistion, I worked on a contract supporting the EPA and got to know the people inside the box. I heard something that I thought was really strange.
Seems that during Bush 1, there was a person assigned to that facility whose only job was to monitor the people inside the EPA. I was told this person actually would enter a stall, lock the door, and seat himself so no one would realize there was someone in the stall. His objective was to listen in on the chatter between EPA employees taking a leak to track who was pro-repug and who was liberal leaning concerning government policy within the agency.
Seems to me, Bush 2 is taking the extra steps that Bush 1 wouldn't...by-passing everyone and everything and recreating science and policy to suit their needs.
May 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That and monitoring everyone's work and personal e-mail accounts.
May 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then deleting the paper trail of stuff they don't like (e.g. criminal activity)
May 16, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
When is Administrator Johnson scheduled to appear before Congress again? Think he'll show up or will he schedule another trip to Australia? or maybe Brazil... or Paraquay, to check out property next to Bush's... or anywhere he can't be served with a subpoena...
Why is Johnson still in office???
ITMFA
May 16, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last major law passed about the National Park Service (1998 or 1999) included explicit language to the effect that park superintendent's annual evaluations SHALL include evaluation of trends in their parks natural resources. Said natural resources explicitly include clean air and visibility, and those 2 attributes are much easier to measure than fluctuations in wildlife, vegetation, & such. [In places like Great Smoky Mountains, visibility is being scored hourly from webcams.] Expect to see NPS park superintendents fighting like hell over anything being allowed near their parks under these new EPA regulations, even though they have no power or authority to throw around. Their promotions & even job security are at stake.
May 16, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When is Administrator Johnson scheduled to appear before Congress again? Think he'll show up or will he schedule another trip to Australia? or maybe Brazil... or Paraquay, to check out property next to Bush's..."
The Bushit-Paraguay nonsense is stupid. Having committed war crimes, and in view of the fact that it doesn't appear that the US prosecutes its own who commit war crimes, it won't be safe for Bushit to travel anywhere outside the US.
But, yeah, I get the implication: because Bushit is a Nazi, he owns property in Nazi-haven Paraguay, and therefore Paraguay will protect him from the rule of law.
There's an alternative to such lazy cliched conspirabunk: education, and critical thinking.
May 17, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
JN- I follow your thoughts above, but wouldn't that imply that Bush would be the one needing to critically think? Pretty sure thats not gonna happen.
Evie
May 18, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: billrm's last post and those of dndobson and JimmyBobby - the damage caused by having one of EPA's own run the Agency into the ground is hard to overstate. The panicky attitude among staff during the Reagan-Gorsuch period was different from the present stupifying, numbing pain now rampant. In that earlier time staff didn't know what to expect and there was strong support for the Agency on the Hill and among the public when the bad stuff became known. The expectations accompanying appointment of an EPA career scientist as Administrator by George II were sky-high, only to be dashed. And during that earlier time there wasn't such a clear understanding of the time-critical nature of the most dangerous environmental problem facing modern civiliation -global warming.
We don't have 40 years (or even 20 years) to do what we need to do to put things right. In government, science has to become respected to a degree not seen since the U.S. undertook the Manhattan Project in 1942. Loss of devoted staff at EPA caused by the combination of "graying" and morale-crushing management decisions is only part of the problem. We need to create a 21st Century Manahattan Project on energy - the technology exists to generate and use solar energy to the extent we need. Only the political will to make that happen is lacking - at the moment.
The optimist in me sees a remarkable reawakening of political and intellectual power among the people along with recognition of the crisis we face. A new "Greatest Generation" has its work cut out for it - creating and exercising the political power needed to save civilization. This new Generation can count on a lot of help from the last one.
Scarlet Pumpernickel
May 19, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink