Blurker Gone Bad

Stephen Johnson, the head of the EPA, is being asked to resign by several Democratic senators.

Johnson's sworn testimony is apparently contradicted by an EPA whistle-blower, who indicates that the decision to deny California's request to set up their own internal standards for greenhouse gas emissions was not a decision that was made solely by Johnson, but was swayed by the Bush administration.  Johnson went against a unanimous decision by his staff to grant this request, as well as his own original stand on the issue after receiving communication from the White House.  (FYI- seventeen other states were planning on adopting California's new standards once the EPA gave the go ahead)

Then he lied about it to Congress.

On Jan. 24, Johnson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under oath that he had made the decision on his own after determining there was no compelling evidence to justify California's plans. "The responsibility for making the decision for California rests with me and solely with me," Johnson said at the time. "I made the decision. It was my decision. It was the right decision."

Yesterday, however, former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett -- who resigned last month and has since divulged key details about how President Bush and his deputies have influenced the agency's decisions on climate policy -- testified before the committee that Johnson had concluded that California's request was legally justified -- until White House officials ordered him to reverse the decision.

Apparently, you can do pretty much anything you want in DC, but the minute you lie about it to Congress, you're in for a world of hurt.  Johnson deserves it for what he's continued to do to the EPA over the past three years. 


A few very talented people have been writing about this today, so I will hand you link salad.  However, I am fairly irritated that this story is not getting more play on the main news outlets.

The Environmental Protection Agency agreed to weaken an important part of its new smog requirements after being told at the last minute that President Bush preferred a less stringent approach, according to government documents.

The memos and documents indicate that EPA officials had wanted to make the public welfare standard more stringent than the health standard, although still not as protective as some scientists had recommended.

But the White House insisted on making both standards identical, according to the documents. When EPA officials balked, the issue went to Bush, who sided with his budget office.

The White House defended Bush's action.

"This is not a weakening of regs (regulations) or standards," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday. "But it was an effort to make the standards consistent. There's no question we have an interest in how federal regs impact communities."

"Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private advocacy group. "It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference."

I've been whining about GWB's record on the environment since his 2002 State of the Union address in which he proposed the ironically named Clear Skies legislation which "reduced" pollution levels by allowing industry to police themselves, effectively destroying the Clean Air Act .  I have refused to watch any SotU speech since.

Let's just take a look at the environmental records for the top three potential presidents (from the League of Conservation Voters):

Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John McCain


Any questions?

Global warming is back on the menu!

The majority said the agency (the EPA, eb) must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.

"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Stevens said. He was joined by his liberal colleagues, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, and the court's swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The lawsuit was filed by 12 states and 13 environmental groups that had grown frustrated by the Bush administration's inaction on global warming.

In his dissent, Roberts focused on the issue of standing, whether a party has the right to file a lawsuit.

Even better, the Supreme Court ruled against Duke Energy:

The Supreme Court gave a boost Monday to a federal clean air initiative aimed at forcing utilities to install pollution control equipment on aging coal-fired power plants.

In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled against Duke Energy Corp. in a lawsuit brought by the Clinton administration, part of a massive enforcement effort targeting more than a dozen utilities.

Most companies settled with the government, but several Clinton-era cases involving more than two dozen power plants in the South and the Midwest are still pending. The remaining suits demand fines for past pollution that if levied in full would run into billions of dollars.

The justices ruled that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, overstepped its authority by implicitly invalidating Environmental Protection Agency regulations in a way that favored Duke. The case now returns to the lower courts.

Around this time last year, a study was undertaken in order to determine whether or not polar bears should be given some type of endangered status.  I'm happy to see that the Secretary of the Interior is asking to list polar bears as a threatened species.

CNN) -- Polar bears may be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act because of a loss of habitat that jeopardizes their survival, the Interior secretary said Wednesday.

"Polar bears are one of nature's ultimate survivors, able to live and thrive in one of the world's harshest environments," said Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne in a teleconference with reporters.

"But we are concerned the polar bears' habitat may literally be melting," he said.

After a public comment period and additional study, the Department of the Interior will make a final decision on the polar bear's status in 12 months.

The announcement by the Bush administration comes in response to a lawsuit filed by three conservation groups, who sued the Department of the Interior in an effort to protect the polar bear from the effects of global warming.

I would really like to see the science of Global Warming get a foothold in the administration this way.  However,

Kempthorne said the proposal to consider polar bears threatened involved the receding sea ice that the animals use for hunting. While he acknowledged that the melting ice is the result of climate change, Kempthorne stressed that the broader aspects of global warming are beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that enforces it.

More at the article.


I think, however sad it may be, that the fact that polar bears are attractive and well-loved species may help this country push our way into curbing greenhouse emissions more than all of the increases in childhood asthma, allergies, and emphysema put together.  You go, polar bears!  Save our planet with your deceivingly cuddly good looks!  :)

Take a look at some of these email responses to the article.

Polar bears may get endangered status

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday that protection may be warranted under the Endangered Species Act, and began a review process to consider if the bears should be listed.

The agency will seek information about population distribution, habitat, effects of climate change on the bears and their prey, potential threats from development, contaminants and poaching during the next 60 days.

This could bode well for much of the Alaskan wildlife.  I'll be keeping an eye out for the decision.

If the polar bear were listed as a threatened species, federal regulatory agencies would be required to consider how their decisions affect polar bears.

A listing could affect industries seeking permission to release greenhouse gases or decisions such as setting fuel economy standards for vehicles, Siegel said.

Keep the faith!