The Bush Administration's newest tactic for policymaking is to ignore emails.

The New York Times reports today that White House officials simply refused to open an email from the EPA last year because they knew it contained a policy recommendation they didn't like -- part of the Administration's on-going battle with scientists at the EPA over global warming issues.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.'s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

Instead of officially acknowledging the email and responding to it in a normal bureaucratic manner, the White House instead launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to pressure the EPA to drop the recommendation's essential conclusions.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., "showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases," one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. "That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work."

The White House lost its battle in the Supreme Court. It's stonewalling efforts by lawmakers on Capitol Hill to investigate the policy-making process. And now there's evidence that it is not only rejecting but even ignoring efforts by the EPA to adhere to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

At least one EPA official quit over the email incident.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.'s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because "no more constructive work could be done" on the agency's response to the Supreme Court.

He added, "The next administration will have to face what this one did not."

Before he left for Washington for the first time, former President Harry Truman got a piece of memorable advice: "Work hard, keep your mouth shut, and answer your mail."

Maybe President Bush never got that same advice.

Remember that young Bush campaign worker who landed a job in the NASA public affairs office, where he was accused of blocking the country's top scientists from talking publicly about global warming?

His name was George C. Deutsch and he was one of several officials accused a couple years ago of manipulating the public disclosure of scientific research about climate change.

Well, NASA's own inspector general looked into the matter and -- whaddya know -- the Bush administration's critics were right.

A 48-page report from the agency's own watchdog, released yesterday, concluded that political appointees in the NASA press office were downplaying scientific conclusions about global warming by withholding certain press releases and limiting reporters' access to top scientists who might veer off message.

"Our investigation," the report said, "found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public."

The report said most evidence supported contentions that politics was "inextricably interwoven" into operations at the public affairs office in that period and that the pattern was inconsistent with the statutory responsibility to communicate findings widely, "especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest."

The NASA press office came under scrutiny a couple years ago after the agency's leading climate scientist, James E. Hansen, and other agency employees, publicly complained about restrictions imposed on their public comments and distortions of their scientific conclusions.

What today's story leaves out are some great details about the characters involved in shielding the public from the taxpayer-funded science.

Deutsch, who got his job at age 23 and once told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned after revelations the he had lied on his resume and did not, in fact, graduate from Texas A&M University.

How'd he get such a prominent position? According to the Times:

Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington last year after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee, according to his résumé.

Another political appointee, Dean Acosta, who was NASA's deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and now works in the private sector of the aerospace industry, criticized the IG's report about his former office.

"My entire career has been dedicated to open and honest communications," Mr. Acosta, who now is director of communications for the Boeing space-exploration business, wrote in an e-mail message. "The inspector general's assertions are patently false. The report itself does nothing but raise questions about a three-year investigation that has yielded nothing but flimsy allegations aimed at hard-working public servants."

After House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called Rep. Henry Waxman's gavel-banging outburst "outrageous threats and intimidation" and demanded an apology, the diminutive Waxman laughed and had this to say: "Just look at me," he said. "How can you not quake in my presence?"

From the AP:

A Senate panel voted narrowly Wednesday to overturn EPA's decision blocking California and more than a dozen other states from limiting greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

The bill by California Democrat Barbara Boxer passed the Environment and Public Works committee 10 to 9, sending it to the full Senate.

One committee Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, broke with others on his side of the aisle and voted "no." A Republican, John Warner of Virginia, voted "yes," allowing the bill to pass.

In December, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson turned down California's request for a Clean Air Act waiver that would have allowed the state to require automakers to cut global warming emissions by 30% in new cars and light trucks by 2016.

Boxer's bill would deem the waiver approved.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has reacted angrily to Chairman Howard Waxman's gaveling down of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) yesterday during a hearing with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Here's the statement from Boehner:

"Chairman Waxman's behavior in the Oversight & Government Reform Committee yesterday was appalling and beneath the dignity of the House. His abuse of power is further proof that House Democrats have broken their promise to run the most open and honest Congress in history. Moreover, his outrageous threats and intimidation against a fellow Committee colleague were not only unbecoming for a Member of Congress, but frankly, unbecoming for anyone who hopes to be treated as a professional. Chairman Waxman owes an apology to Mr. Issa, his Committee colleagues, and anyone who witnessed his shameful behavior. But more importantly, he owes the American people an apology because these types of heavy-handed threats have no place in the people's House."

In a showdown between irresistible force and immovable object, the immovable object won.

Under withering questioning this afternoon from exasperated House government oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson held his ground, repeating the same non-responsive answers until the usually unflappable Waxman finally lost his temper.

Waxman was asking Johnson whether he had ever discussed two ozone rulings with the President. Johnson has previously testified that he had discussed California's emissions waiver, but now refused to say whether he had discussed the ozone rulings. The White House's involvement in overruling science-based recommendations from EPA staff in favor of more politically expedient alternatives is now the focus of Waxman's investigation.

As Waxman continued to press this line of questioning, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the highest ranking Republican present at the hearing, protested that Waxman was asking questions out of turn, prompting Waxman to threaten to have Issa removed from the hearing room.

This sort of song and dance from Johnson is now routine. He's managed to skate through multiple Senate and House hearings now, confirming his critics' impressions that he's a deceptive political hack, but avoiding actually answering the questions.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, perhaps the Administration's most accomplished stonewaller, goes before the House government oversight committee today to testify -- again -- about his refusal to grant a waiver for California to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions despite unanimous staff support for such a waiver.

So far, Johnson has been a most reluctant witness, going so far as to schedule overseas trips to avoid attending congressional hearings. But Rep. Henry Waxman's committee staff has continued digging, reviewing thousands of documents and interviewing witnesses outside the public eye. Yesterday, in advance of Johnson's appearance, Waxman released a 20-page memo and supporting documents on what his committee has found so far.

The headliner of the memo is that a top EPA official conceded in sworn testimony that he believed that Johnson changed his mind about supporting the waiver after he talked to the White House:

In one deposition, EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett told congressional investigators that Johnson in August and September was "very interested in a full grant of the waiver," then said he thought a partial grant of the waiver "was the best course of action."

California has the right to enact tougher air pollution laws under the Clean Air Act but must secure a waiver from the EPA.

Johnson denied California's request in December. When asked whether the administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision, Burnett said, "I believe the answer is yes."

With a flourish, the EPA dismissed the news that Johnson has initially supported the waiver. "I equate this to deciding whether to wear a red tie or a blue tie in the morning," an EPA spokesperson told Reuters. "It doesn't make much difference until I put the tie on. To go through and suggest that maybe (Johnson) had a different opinion during the process -- none of that matters."

As the Post's Juliet Eilperin notes, the details of the White House involvement remain murky:

It remains unclear how exactly senior Bush officials intervened in the decision. Burnett said he was instructed not to answer questions about the White House's involvement, and the White House maintains that Johnson was not influenced by his talks with White House officials.

"As Administrator Johnson said in his statement, he made an independent decision and his decision was based on the facts and the law," said Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Given Johnson's previous refusals to divulge what he and the White House discussed, don't expect Waxman to make much progress with Johnson in today's hearing. The real fireworks may be between committee Democrats and Republicans. Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) called yesterday's majority memo "a knee-jerk conclusion of nefarious intent by the White House derived from a manifestly incomplete investigation."

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.

It's gotten to be pretty routine. An EPA official goes up to Capitol Hill and straight-facedly insists that the agency is all about transparency and science, and Democratic senators respond by calling it a lie.

But this morning, it wasn't EPA chief Stephen Johnson who made the trip. This time the EPA sent Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development George Gray instead. Why couldn't Johnson make it? Gray didn't seem sure, but explained to an angry Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that Johnson had been having back problems. In March, Boxer implied that Johnson had planned an official trip to Australia in order to avoid having to attend in Congressional hearings in April. Maybe all that flight time wasn't good for his back.

But the Democrats didn't hold up on Gray. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Boxer went round and round with him, as he continued to insist that "transparency is key" to the EPA's decision process and that the administrator's decisions were based on science. Boxer was most direct, saying at the end of his testimony that Gray's insistence that only science had been considered "is a big lie.... You've tried to defend the indefensible, and you have failed as far as this senator is concerned."

Gray proved himself a fine substitute for Johnson, however. When the senators pressed him on why Johnson had gone along with the White House and overruled the recommendation of the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in setting a higher level for smog-forming ozone in the air, Gray wanted everyone to understand that it was "actually a very good example" of the "way in which the uncertainty of science plays an important role in decisions." Gray counseled that "science does not give us a single or precise answer."

But Whitehouse didn't seem to be buying it. "The people that you chose to be the experts unanimously supported this recommendation.... These were the best scientists in the country and you ignored them." Gray responded that Johnson hadn't "ignored" them -- he'd just come to a different conclusion. He did allow, however, that in addition to "scientific considerations," there had been "science policy considerations," which are a "part of moving the scientific process forward." But the EPA wouldn't discuss it's communications with the White House, he said, saying that it was important to keep "discussions with the rest of the federal family" private.

It's not the first time that the politicization of the Environmental Protection Agency has forced comparisons to Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department, and it surely won't be the last.

On the Senate floor this afternoon, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee (where he joined in the interrogations of Gonzales and other Department officials) as well as the Senate environmental committee (where he's sharply questioned EPA chief Stephen Johnson), said the comparison is inevitable. Yesterday's news that the EPA's top environmental regulator in the Midwest had been fired over her efforts to force Dow Chemical to clean up chemical spills, he said, "looks like déjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with its political agenda more than it values the trust or best interests of the American people." Here's video:

Whitehouse said that the Senate environmental committee will be holding a hearing on EPA oversight next Wednesday.

From The Chicago Tribune:

The Bush administration forced its top environmental regulator in the Midwest to quit Thursday after months of internal bickering about dioxin contamination downstream from Dow Chemical's world headquarters in Michigan.

In an interview with the Tribune, Mary Gade said two top political appointees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington stripped her of her powers as regional administrator and told her to quit or be fired by June 1.

It appears that the relationship between the EPA political appointees and the career employees is not getting any better.

You may remember that one of the ongoing battles between the EPA and Congress is over California's petition to institute tough limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. EPA chief Stephen Johnson blocked the move, despite the unanimous recommendation of his staff, and has fought Congress' attempts to investigate. California and 17 other states have sued in response. But the administration had more than one trick up its sleeve....

From The San Francisco Chronicle:

When the Bush administration announced proposed regulations Tuesday to raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, even some environmentalists applauded. But then they read the fine print.

Tucked deep into a 417-page "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" was language by the Transportation Department stating that more stringent limits on tailpipe emissions embraced by California and 17 other states are "an obstacle to the accomplishment" of the new federal standards and are "expressly and impliedly preempted" by federal law.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown called it a covert assault on California's rules. Environmentalists said the language will be used by automakers in their legal challenges to two recent federal court rulings that sided with the states.

Via Dan Froomkin.

From the AP:

The Union of Concerned Scientists said that more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work....

Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had witness the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document.

Just another indication that the EPA has been possibly the most politicized agency in the Bush administration (a bold claim, I know). And what does the EPA have to say about it?

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work.

Update: You can see the report here. In response to the UCS survey, one scientist at an EPA regional office wrote: "Do not trust the Environmental Protection Agency to protect your environment."

Update: In a letter to EPA chief Stephen Johnson today, House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) warned Johnson that he can expect some questions about this when he testifies before the committee in May. That letter is below.

Update: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), calling the report "a scathing indictment of the Bush administration's repeated efforts to twist, misuse, and ignore scientific facts in favor of special interests" has also let it be known that the Senate environmental committee will be digging in on this.

Read more »

EPA chief Stephen Johnson has deployed a variety of methods to thwart Congressional scrutiny. There's been old fashioned stonewalling. Testimonial gobbledygook. And of course fleeing the hemisphere.

But there's another recurring method: refusing to turn over internal EPA documents because they would "confuse" the public. Back in January, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wanted documents that show Johnson ignored his staff when he blocked California's attempt to institute tough greenhouse gas limits on cars and trucks. The EPA said no, in part because "further disclosure could result in needless public confusion about the Administrator's decision." In other words, EPA experts said one thing and Johnson had said another. You can't have that getting out (even though it did).

Staffers from the Senate environmental committee, which Boxer chairs, were finally able to see the documents, but only in EPA offices, and only then after peeling off layers of white tape which the EPA had used to redact the offending portions of the documents.

Now the House global warming committee is after Johnson for his agency's failure to comply with a Supreme Court decision that declared that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases. Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) issued a subpoena for documents that show that the EPA had complied with the Court last December. EPA staff completed work on the matter (as they've told Congressional investigators), but the political leadership has been sitting on it since then.

But Johnson, who's deployed a succession of transparent delaying tactics to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, doesn't want to fork them over. His associate administrator writes:

Read more »

After seven years of foot dragging and stonewalling by the Environmental Protection Agency, has the administration finally seen the light? From the AP:

President Bush is giving a Rose Garden speech on Wednesday on climate change to lay out the way he thinks the U.S. can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

White House press secretary Dana Perino says that Bush will not outline a specific proposal, but instead will spell out a strategy for long-term goals for curbing emissions....

In his remarks, he also will talk about legislative proposals on Capitol Hill that the administration has expressed opposition to, as well as regulatory issues.

So, in brief, no. The Washington Times reported on Monday that Bush would begin pushing on global warming because Bush administration officials "fear a coming regulatory nightmare."

In other words, the stonewalling and foot dragging, though masterfully executed by EPA chief Stephen Johnson, won't be able to buy much more time. The Supreme Court ruled one year ago that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that it had to act. Johnson may soon run out of string on that one. And several states are suing the EPA over his decision to block California's institution of tough emissions limits on cars and trucks.

So "regulatory nightmare" or "regulatory train wreck," as White House spokeswoman Dana Perino prefers, is a way of saying that the resulting limits would be too low for their taste.

So what will the White House support? Something that threads the needle with a solution that is not so weak that Democrats will not support it, while somehow placating conservatives who would prefer that there be no mandatory limits. Perino describes the administration's aim as a "reasonable and responsible action." Should be fun.

As we've often observed before, EPA chief Stephen Johnson has a remarkable capacity for withholding information. And now he's make a strong bid to making the EPA the most subpoenaed Bush administration agency.

Today, House oversight committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued his third subpoena to the EPA this year. Waxman's committee has been investigating Johnson's decision, made against the unanimous recommendation of his legal and technical staff, to block California's attempt to institute tough greenhouse gas limits for cars and trucks.

Waxman says that his staff "has found evidence that EPA officials met with the White House" about the rule, but that "EPA has refused to disclose the substance and extent of its communications with the White House." Waxman's subpoena seeks about 100 EPA documents involving the White House.

Johnson has thus far stonewalled Congressional attempts to get more information about those White House meetings, telling Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that he couldn't disclose anything about them because "I value the ability to have candid discussions that are part of good government."

The lesson is clear. If you want the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency to do something to help fight global warming, you better sue. And if you really want it to do something, you better sue again.

Today, officials from 18 states and a number of environmental groups, filed a petition to force the EPA to do what the Supreme Court said one year ago. In the landmark ruling -- itself the result of a lawsuit against the EPA -- the court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and that it had to act. Except it didn't.

It's become clear that EPA staff did, in fact, do the work to determine the agency's response. But EPA chief Stephen Johnson and the White House put a lid on it last December, and since then nothing has happened -- except that Johnson has deployed a succession of transparent delaying tactics.

The states and groups want the court to force the EPA to issue its "endangerment" finding within 60 days.

Now, don't confuse this lawsuit with another lawsuit by several states and environmental groups against the EPA. Earlier this year, California and 17 other states sued to reverse Johnson's decision to deny California's petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Johnson made that decision against the unanimous recommendation of his staff.

There was another familiar development today. The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming voted to issue a subpoena for EPA documents showing the Agency's progress in making the "endangerment" finding and proposing national emissions standards. That's the third subpoena issued this year by Congress for EPA documents.

It's official: no Bush Administration official, current or former, can hold a candle to EPA chief Stephen Johnson when it comes to chutzpah.

Alberto Gonzales, to be sure, would normally be stiff competition. But for all his lies, half-truths, and careful distortions, Alberto Gonzales somehow lacked something in the way of chutzpah. Maybe it was the way he sometimes stuttered out his answers, his un-recollections, and apologies. Johnson, by stark contrast, does the job with bureaucratic sangfroid.

Last April, the Supreme Court found in a landmark ruling that the EPA could no longer avoid regulating greenhouse gases. It had to make a decision. Even then, it was apparent to all observers what the EPA's finding must be. The EPA's scientists, wonks and lawyers went to work on it. And they found, not surprisingly, that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, which means they must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Johnson himself reviewed that work, disputed part of it, but agreed with the overall thrust of the finding. The EPA then, having dotted the i's and crossed the t's, sent the finding to the White House in December. And there things stopped.

So the finding is finished. It is sitting on the shelf at the White House. Also sitting on a shelf is the EPA's 300-page draft of a rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. But such regulation can go nowhere until the endangerment finding is made official.

We reported earlier this month that Johnson was transparently stonewalling. His stated rationale then was that the energy bill which the president signed into law last December had complicated things, a transparently bogus argument, since the only law at issue is the Clean Air Act.

But as Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) noted in a statement last night, the Heritage Foundation has been floating an alternative strategy for stonewalling: the EPA should call for public comment on the rule. Such a move would delay any endangerment finding for months. And, The Los Angeles Times reports, "during an economic downturn, seeking comprehensive public comment and a 'go-slow' approach would be far better," the think tankers reasoned (presumably they're all for environmental regulation during boom times). At the very least, the move would push the issue into the next administration, which is really all pro-business conservatives can hope for.

And yesterday, that's exactly what Johnson did. As he proudly proclaimed in his letter (pdf) announcing the move:

"This approach gives the appropriate care and attention this complex issue demands. Rather than rushing to judgment on a single issue, this approach allows us to examine all the potential effects of a decision with the benefit of the public's insight. In short, this process will best serve the American public."

His spokesman was similarly proud:

"No matter what is shouted or screamed from the rooftops, this is truly a historic moment. No administration has taken this step to evaluate this new pollutant."

And that's what I call chutzpah.

Keep in mind that Johnson has also -- against the unanimous recommendation of his staff -- blocked California's attempt to pass stiff greenhouse gas limits. After all, what good would it be for him to stonewall instituting limits at the EPA if California and 16 other states went ahead with their proposed limits? No good at all.

So what will EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson be doing for two weeks in April in Australia -- besides not testifying before Congress, that is? EPA Deputy Press Secretary Tim Lyons finally got back to us:

"The Administrator is set to discuss shared environmental goals and challenges with our global partners, while learning about their innovative approaches to carbon sequestration, water treatment and management, methane capture, pesticide risk reduction, and resource sustainability."

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson will not be rushed, no sir. We gave you the rundown earlier this month of how Johnson had managed to ignore a landmark Supreme Court ruling. The EPA could no longer avoid taking a stance on whether greenhouse gases were covered by the Clean Air Act. And it's become crystal clear from statements that Johnson has made where the agency will come down on the issue.

But of course Johnson has avoided just that. And now he says that, a year after the ruling came down, he needs a couple more months to think on it. From the AP:

The government made clear on Thursday it will not be rushed into deciding whether to regulate emissions linked to global warming, as the Supreme Court directed nearly a year ago.

Such action "could affect many (emission) sources beyond just cars and trucks" and needs to be examined broadly as to other impacts, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency wrote lawmakers.

Stephen Johnson said he has decided to begin the process by seeking public comment on the implications of regulating carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, on other agency rules that cover everything from power plants and factories to schools and small businesses.

That process could take months and led some of his critics to suggest he was shunting the sensitive issue to the next administration.

The man continues to impress with his chutzpah.

Hardly a week goes by where EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson isn't interrogated by lawmakers, sued by states and environmental groups, or undermined by his own angry staff. So you can understand the urge to get the hell out of Dodge.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), one of Johnson's main persecutors as the chair of the Senate environmental committee, has got wind that Johnson is leaving for a prolonged trip to Australia. She is, typically, dubious. "I understand that you and a substantial number of EPA staff members are planning a trip to Australia, and that this trip has made you unavailable to testify before this Committee on certain important matters through much of April," she writes in a letter to Johnson today.

And she wants to know a little more about it such as: what it's for. "If your goal is to learn about actions to address global warming, I suggest that you visit California, which has moved ahead aggressively with greenhouse gas controls," she writes, in a bit of irrepressible snark. Johnson, against the unanimous recommendation of his staff, has blocked California's attempt to institute tougher greenhouse gas limits on cars and trucks. Boxer also inquires about the cost of the trip, noting that Bush has proposed to cut $500 million from the EPA's budget next year.

My call to the EPA wasn't returned. But an environmental committee spokesperson said that Boxer's staff have heard that the trip will last for two weeks.

The full letter is below.

Read more »

The Environmental Protection Agency's reaction to oversight has been less than friendly. Administrator Stephen Johnson's crew never misses the chance to redact the particularly embarrassing parts of agency documents. House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) has already issued two subpoenas for EPA documents when they weren't promptly forthcoming.

But now the EPA wants a little something from Waxman: transcripts for the interviews Waxman's staff has done with seven senior EPA staffers. Waxman is investigating Johnson's decision to overrule the unanimous recommendation of his legal and technical staff and block California's greenhouse gas rules.

Now, why would the agency want to know what its own employees are telling congressional investigators? A cynic might say that Johnson wants to know what his staff are saying so that he's prepared for any unpleasant questions when Waxman finally asks him to testify before the House oversight committee. After all, there's such a gulf between the EPA's staff and the political appointees that union representatives have backed out of a cooperation agreement. But the EPA says otherwise:

The EPA "has an interest in ensuring that the information provided ... by agency employees in their official capacity is accurate and complete," wrote [EPA Associate Administrator Christopher Bliley] in a letter dated March 14, a day after Waxman had issued a subpoena for 196 internal EPA documents.

It's a reasoning reminiscent of the agency's refusal to turn over documents showing that Johnson had ignored his staff's recommendation. Agency lawyers argued then that the documents shouldn't be turned over because "many of the documents are pre-decisional and thus do not reflect the Agency’s full and complete thinking on the matter." So you might say that the EPA frequently expresses discomfort with the idea of the public getting information that the EPA would rather keep mum.

If there's one thing EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson doesn't like to talk about, it's his conversations with the White House. When questioned about some decision that just happened to delight the White House, Johnson, the most disciplined adherent to talking points in recent memory, responds with a version of "the final decision was mine and mine alone" or "I have routine contacts with various officials on a wide range of issues. . . . I value the ability to have candid discussions that are part of good government."

But unfortunately, sometimes you just can't keep a lid on things. Earlier this week, the EPA issued a new rule on the allowable amount of smog-forming ozone in the air. It was a decision taken against the unanimous advice of EPA scientists, who advised a much lower standard than the one ultimately decided upon. That has come to be a sadly regular occurrence. But this time, the role of the White House -- and President Bush himself -- is clear. From The Washington Post:

EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than what the EPA's scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and on Tuesday ordered the agency to increase the limit, according to the documents.

"It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president personally to override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA's expert scientific judgment," said John Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The White House's intervention was so last minute and arbitrary that the Justice Department was evidently set to scrambling in an effort to find the legal support for it. As the Post reports, the effect of the decision will likely be long term: "Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government must reexamine every five years whether its ozone standards are adequate, and the rules that the EPA issued Wednesday will help determine the nation's air quality for at least a decade."

The White House's influence (first reported by The Los Angeles Times earlier this week) was made evident by documents that the EPA was forced to produce in support of the decision. And in those documents, you can see the different ways EPA scientists and White House officials approached the problem. One the one side, you have concern for the environment. On the other, concern for "personal comfort and well-being":

The EPA's documents suggest that senior officials and scientific advisers resisted the White House's position. Last year, the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee wrote -- using italics for emphasis -- that it unanimously supported the EPA staff's conclusion that "protection of managed agricultural crops and natural terrestrial ecosystems requires a secondary [ozone standard] that is substantially different from the primary ozone standard. . . ."

When the OMB's Susan E. Dudley urged the EPA to consider the effects of cutting ozone further on "economic values and on personal comfort and well-being," the EPA's Marcus Peacock responded in a March 7 memo: "EPA is not aware of any information that ozone has beneficial effects on economic values or on personal comfort and well being."

You can be sure that Johnson's next trip to Capitol Hill will put his talking points to the test.