My Photo

« Thou shall not make for yourselves an idol | Main | Mighta been the Whiskey; Mighta been the Gin... »

February 20, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200d8345659e469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Isengard on the Potomac:

» What Does EPA Stand For? from Calpundit
WHAT DOES EPA STAND FOR?....Over at Obsidian Wings, Edward Winkleman suggests that the goal of the EPA should be, you know, environmental protection. That is, they should be in favor of making the environment better, not rolling back regulations that... [Read More]

Comments

Careful, you're going to raise Bird Dog's temperature.

Careful, you're going to raise Bird Dog's temperature.

hmmmm...I blame Bush's rejection of Kyoto for BD's rising temperature....

Hmmm... the mission statement perhaps to the contrary, I've always assumed that it was environmental groups' role to be the "other side in the tug of war", and the EPA's job to find a balance between the competing interests. Not to say that it's striking the right balance under this administration, but surely it has a duty to weigh the costs of a proposed regulation against the benefits?

Bush's rejection of Kyoto? Hmm, I thought that in 1997, the Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution (95-0) stating that the administration should not sign a treaty that results in serious harm to the U.S. economy or limits emissions from developed countries without including emission limitations for developing countries. cite

Edward, I am for progressive environmental standards, but they must be equal worldwide. It seems to me that your argument about history would support that. Sure, developed countries should roll-back, but why sign a treaty that allows the developing countries chance to get into bad habits that would then also have to be rolled back?

Crionna,

I should have used a emoticon on the Kyoto quip...it was meant as a joke.

I'm not criticizing Bush for Kyoto alone (I agree standards need to be applied as equally as possible), but rather his systematic negligence.

I don't see much energy being spent by his administration to promote his alternative to Kyoto, so I think I'm safe in assuming he doesn't care that much about it.

Bush's rejection of Kyoto?

Kyoto was a deeply flawed, and Bush (and 97 Senators) were right to reject it. Bush has implemented plenty of environmental policies that deserve criticism (or are open to dispute), but his rejection of the Kyoto Accord is not one of them.

Kyoto was a deeply flawed, and Bush (and 97 Senators) were right to reject it. Bush has implemented plenty of environmental policies that deserve criticism (or are open to dispute), but his rejection of the Kyoto Accord is not one of them.

Obviously my joke about Bird Dog's rising temperature was poorly chosen, as it's blurring my overarching point...I retract the joke...

Fair enough. Personally, the macro-economics of a world standard that leaves out China and India are unfathomable to me.

The problem, IMHO, is that ownership of the companies that do the damage has left the hands of the incredibly rich few and now resides with funds. The fund managers keep their jobs with results which drives them to push executives to do anything and everything to grow profits. The result seems to me to be a quicker draw on layoffs, willingness to exploit every loophole in tax and environmental law and much less concern about employees and customers.

So I'd have to believe that the trend will continue until individuals within groups like CALPERS care as much about how the companies they invest in operate environmentally as they do about their portfolio value, no?

kenB,

it has a duty to weigh the costs of a proposed regulation against the benefits?

I think there's an argument to be made on that point, yes, but that alone does not answer the reversals and staff cuts, not to mention the sheer lack of initiative...it's one thing if Bush proposes having proposed regulations re-written, but he's "halted work on sixty-two environmental standards". Just halted them.

My main point in Part I is to argue that Bush's fundamental approach to the EPA is flawed. The EPA should remain progressive in its mission.

So I'd have to believe that the trend will continue until individuals within groups like CALPERS care as much about how the companies they invest in operate environmentally as they do about their portfolio value, no?

Yes, but I can't see that happening. CalPERS has 1.4 million members. Even if 500,000 of them have an environmental epiphany, that leaves 900,000 others to out vote them.

I think perhaps CEOs should be personally liable. If you don't want to take on that liability, don't accept the position.

I think perhaps CEOs should be personally liable.

That's the problem Edward, they are! They are legally liable to enhance the value of the stock. If that means that they then use any and all loopholes to gain advantage, they do it. That's what's happening. Corps. are pushing the envelope as much as they can and then fighting in court to make sure the envelope stays pushed, while pushing even more in another direction.

Again, its the owners (us) who should be liable, but they aren't, not really, because the financial penalties for all laws IMHO are too low to have an overly adverse affect on stock value.

Consider, if speeding, for instance, is so dangerous, why aren't fines $100 per mile over the limit, or $1000?
If they were, would you think more carefully about speeding? I know that my $320 red light run ticket ensures that I pay more attention to the lights.

So, IMHO, instead of driving for more and more laws, you (we) should be supporting ridiculously higher penalties. Penalties should be so high that the chance of losing in court deters the pushing of the envelope. That would drive CEOs to go after safer means of increasing the value of the stock.

Von is quite correct in that the Kyoto argument is a bogus charge. I noticed that there was a rather glaring lack of any actual substance to the remainder of the charges as well which seem to be more emotional rhetoric and cheap sloganeering than anything.

What for example were the “sixty-two environmental standards” that we are supposed be concerned with? More importantly what is the source for the charges of the other (rather meaningless without explanation) statistics?

They are legally liable to enhance the value of the stock.

What if they were also personally liable for violating EPA regulations though?

Punishing a grandmother investor because the CEO is breaking the law doesn't make sense to me. She can't weild much influence on her own, even if she could be made aware of the problem.

Thorley, as I noted at the end of the post:

Upcoming parts of this series will look at specifics.

My point in part I is to indict Bush for his overall approach to the EPA's mission.

We'll look at those 62 standards...patience....

What if they were also personally liable for violating EPA regulations though?

IMHO, that would simply drive the hiring of CEOs with a higher threshold for risk, who would then demand even higher salaries. The market (for the most part) drives who keeps their job. Hammer violators with a fine large enough to hit earnings in a big way and the market will do its job on the CEO.

She can't weild much influence on her own,

You mean, besides selling her stock? IMNSHO, she's benefitting from the CEOs risk threshold and should not benefit from an investment in a company that hires the best lawyers.

Ya know, at some point its up to us, to buy a more fuel efficient car, to give to a charity, to patronize the local bookstore, to investigate the dealings of the companies in which we or our funds invest.

Edward wrote:

My point in part I is to indict Bush for his overall approach to the EPA's mission.

An indictment applies some actual substance to the charges. So far all you’ve shown us is an article from a guy who already proven that he has zero credibility when it comes to making any substantive charges against Bush’s environmental policy as evidenced by misstatements, exaggerations, and outright falsehoods in the charges he’s made:

If Kennedy's errors were confined to such common misstatements, his article would be no big deal. Alas, many of Kennedy's crimes against fact are quite serious. Right off the bat, Kennedy charges that the Bush Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "excused" coal-burning power plants "from complying with the Clean Air Act." This is simply false. The administration revised federal regulations governing when older industrial facilities must install modern air-pollution equipment to allow for upgrades and repairs without increasing emissions above permitted levels. In practice, these changes will enable facilities to undertake efficiency improvements that in many cases, will produce a net decrease in polluting emissions. Yet even assuming these reforms to the "new source review" regulations effectively exempt power plants from the upgrade requirements, power plants, and other industrial facilities remain subject to numerous regulatory requirements under the Clean Air Act, including caps on emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and provisions, controls to attain ambient air-quality standards, and mandates designed to prevent "upwind" facilities from causing air-pollution problems in "downwind" states, among others.

Kennedy claims the administration "redefine[d] carbon dioxide" to no longer be considered a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Yet carbon dioxide has never been regulated as an air pollutant under federal law. Clinton EPA officials suggested carbon dioxide could be so regulated under the act, yet took no action to regulate such greenhouse gases even when faced with potential litigation from environmental groups. Contrary to Kennedy's suggestion, Congress never authorized federal regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, whether under the Clean Air Act or any other federal law. To the contrary, Congress has voted against such regulations time and again, including when the Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto Protocol.

Kennedy accuses the administration of proposing to "remov[e] federal protections for most American wetlands and streams." Here again Kennedy is all wet. In 2001, the Supreme Court struck down federal regulations that purported to regulate isolated wetlands and other waters not connected to the navigable waters of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA claimed they could regulate such lands due to the occasional presence of migratory birds. Such a regulation, the Supreme Court held, exceeded the scope of the Clean Water Act and may even be unconstitutionally broad. In response, the administration proposed revising federal regulations to ensure their consistency with the Court's ruling. Failure to do so would be irresponsible. After all, federal regulations cannot protect wetlands if they get struck down in court.

The proposed changes, which cannot become final until after a period of public comment and review, come nowhere close to "removing federal protections for most American wetlands and streams." To the contrary, if adopted they would only curtail federal authority on the margins. Isolated wetlands, for instance, represent a small fraction of the approximately 100 million acres of wetlands in the United States. Moreover, just because a wetland or stream is not regulated by the federal government does not mean it is unprotected. Most states have their own wetland regulations, and many states regulate wetlands more stringently — and more effectively — than the feds.

Although Kennedy accuses the Bush administration of "more than 200 major rollbacks," he identifies few significant changes to environmental law. More often, Kennedy labels as a "rollback" the Bush administration's refusal to embrace Clinton initiatives, many of which had yet to take effect when Bush entered office. Kennedy claims Bush "weakened efficiency standards" for air conditioners because the Bush administration rejected a proposed Clinton regulation to tighten energy use requirements for new ACs by 30 percent. Yet the Bush administration went ahead and tightened AC efficiency standards nonetheless — just not as much as the Clinton administration had proposed. Such a failure to adopt more stringent regulations can hardly be characterized a "major rollback."

Kennedy is upset about the administration's purported effort to "scuttle" automobile fuel-economy standards and to "allow SUVs to escape fuel-efficiency minimums." Yet the administration has done nothing to loosen automobile fuel-economy standards or exempt SUVs. To the contrary, as Kennedy's colleagues at the NRDC acknowledge, the Bush transportation department announced a modest tightening of fuel-economy rules for cars and light trucks (including SUVs) alike. The increase may be less than Kennedy would like — though why a family man like Kennedy would support federal regulations that reduce vehicle size and crashworthiness is beyond me — but it is hardly an environmental "rollback."

In a nutshell (an apt metaphor for so many political environmentalists) is that Kennedy falsely accused Bush 43 of making “rollbacks” when in fact these were items that (a) had not been regulated before or at the extent they were being regulated now, (b) were unable to be regulated because of Congress (CO2 emissions) or the SCOTUS (some wetlands), or (c) Clinton “proposed” a standard but did nothing substantive about it (or tried to sneak it in during the final days of his administration).


Thorley, not that Edward needs any help, but given that the writer you quote says: While it is relatively easy to poke holes in an error-filled screed like Kennedy's "Crimes of Nature," it is difficult to write a proactive defense of the administration's positive agenda, as it is not clear such an agenda exists.

I'd say his point is made in the general sense.

Thank you for citing that article Thorley, it supports my main point that Bush is not being progressive about protecting the environment:

One problem with defending the Bush environmental record, however, is that it is not so clear what there is to defend. While the administration has largely avoided calling for grand new federal programs and another round of federal regulations, it has made little visible effort to rethink and reform existing environmental laws. For all the talk of "market-based" reforms and a "new environmentalism," there has been little action. While it is relatively easy to poke holes in an error-filled screed like Kennedy's "Crimes of Nature," it is difficult to write a proactive defense of the administration's positive agenda, as it is not clear such an agenda exists.

I'm still researching the damage he's doing (I know you can barely wait for it), but by your very own source, he's not enforcing the existing regulations and not improving things at all...I submit that that in and of itself is contrary to the EPA's mission.

You beat me to it Crionna...:)

"The truth is that industry has continually pushed back against regulation, and understandably so, but to balance things out, the EPA is supposed to be working to protect human health, not corporate wealth. "

I don't like this understanding of the EPA's job. The EPA should be engaged in a governmental role of trying to balance the unlimited wants of the environmental movement for regulation and the unlimited wants of corporations to be free from regulation. Approaching the problem as if the EPA is always supposed to be in the corner of environmental activists may be an excellent description of how the EPA actually functions. But it is not how the EPA ought to function.

I disagree Sebastian. There's nothing in the EPA's mission or history that supports any claim it should work to balance against the "unlimited wants of the environmental movement."

Again, from their website:

...he declared his intention to establish the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and left no doubts about its far-reaching powers. Nixon declared that its mission would center on:

* The establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental goals.

* The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling it; the gathering of information on pollution; and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection programs and recommending policy changes.

* Assisting others, through grants, technical assistance and other means, in arresting pollution of the environment.

* Assisting the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the President new policies for the protection of the environment.

Nixon intended the EPA to be very proactive in protecting the environment. The idea that all the responsibility for advocating improvement falls to private environmental groups is a fallacy.

Some things bear repeating:

The EPA is supposed to focus on:

The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling it; the gathering of information on pollution; and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection programs and recommending policy changes.

Strengthening...not repealing...not dropping pending regulations...not simply doing nothing...Strengthening.

Dunno Edward, maybe the EPA isn't the group you should be after. Maybe its the CEQ. Given that, Sebastian seems correct about the goal of government if one notes from the CEQ website that The challenge of harmonizing our economic, environmental and social aspirations has put NEPA at the forefront of our nation's efforts to protect the environment.

Edward, Please justify your opening statement. Specifically the use of the term "progressive." You don't really think the goal of our government should be to constantly and always improve the environment, regardless of the condition it is in at a particular time, do you?

The Clinton Admin failed to put Kyoto up for ratification.

Given all the fun and games that are going on here, I would suggest that Bush correct Clinton's error and put the Kyoto Treaty up for Senate ratification (this is something Bush should have done on day one of his Admin) before the 2004 election. In an election year, let us see how it fairs. An up or down vote, allows us to moveon one way or the other.

Until 1870, a factory releasing even small amounts of smoke onto public or private property was operating illegally.

Edward, now wouldn't that generate a monopoly situation for the people who owned river front property?

But simply on the face of it, you can't forge iron or make charcoal without releasing smoke. Guess it all depends on your definition of factory. Now how about transportation, you can't have a railroad in 50s and 60s without smoke. Interesting that they banned the steam engine from factories until 1870.

"You don't really think the goal of our government should be to constantly and always improve the environment, regardless of the condition it is in at a particular time, do you?"

Why not? The 'environment' is a public trust, and for better or worse the government is currently in charge of maintaining public trusts. I don't see why the environment can't improve, just as we attempt to improve productivity, efficiency, GDP, technology, and everything else. A strong economy and a healthy environment are not incompatible, but maintaining both requires work and cost. . work and cost that industry will be extremely unlikely to engage in without pressure. The EPA has the mandate of applying that pressure.


That said, I can understand your concern about Edward's stance generally. If the EPA followed its mandate to its natural conclusion, it would simply recommend a complete and instant shutdown of all factories in the US. That would do wonders for the environment. Obviously some balance is created even internally to the EPA. . otherwise the recommendations would be outrageous. But what that balance is and what the guidelines are seem to be undefined, and I think it's fair to have concerns that the current administration has upset that balance and given that hidden force all of the power.

All forms of air pollution except greenhouse gases have declined under Bush while forested acreage of the U.S.is still expanding.

Meanwhile, Bush actually implemented impressive environmental reforms that that diesel fuel be reformulated to reduce pollution and new diesels meet stricter emissions standards.

cites?

From some Easterblog posts:

As for "repeatedly losing out to big business, big coal and big oil," here is where Graham joins many pundits and enviros in using the Big Lie. The two-year Bush administration has made three spectacular pro-environmental decisions, and all over the howls of big interest groups. Just after taking office, Bush ordered that diesel fuel--studies show diesel fumes contribute to urban asthma and to premature deaths of the elderly--be reformulated to reduce its inherent pollutant content. This was the most important environmental advance since the 1991 Clean Air Act amendments ordered gasoline similarly reformulated, and came over the howls of the petroleum lobby.

Then Bush ordered that new diesel engines for trucks and buses meet significantly higher environmental standards. This decision came over the howls of the trucking business and of Speaker Dennis Hastert, the most important Republican in the House, in whose district sits the largest diesel-engine manufacturing plant in the nation. Later Bush ordered that "off-road" engines--the motors of lawnmowers, snowmobiles, boats, and construction equipment--be regulated for air emissions for the first time. Gasoline-powered lawnmowers today emit about 100 times as much smog-forming emissions, per hour of operation, as a new car. Regulating off-road engines is great news; it happened over the howls of the boating, snowmobile, ATV, and construction-equipment industries.

Taken together, Bush's three pro-environmental decisions will cause the next round of progress toward clean air. Have you heard of any of them?

The use of the loosening restrictions on power-plant upgrades as evidence that Bush is horrible on the environment betrays a lack of understanding, or an outright refusal to understand, what the impact of the standards was.

Previously, power plants could not upgrade by more than a certain percent, or they had to bring their entire facility up to more stringent standards. So, rather than expand power-generation capacity by adding newer, more efficient equipment, they must simply maintain old equipment. It's a disincentive to do gradual upgrades, the result of which is that few if any upgrades are done.

Now, you might argue that the older plants should be shut down completely and renovated. But to suppose that allowing a larger percentage of renovation results in an increase in the amount of dirty power is disingenuous.

d-rod: Easterbrook is all wet. The first two of those things were Clinton rules. Bush merely decided not to overrule them. The third might be real if it ever happens, but so far it's just a proposal.

Bush has a crappy environmental record. He's done virtually nothing to actually address any existing problems, he has done his best to ignore the very real problem of global warming, and practically every decision he's made has been in the direction of loosening regulations at the behest of business. Not much to he proud of there.

So, rather than expand power-generation capacity by adding newer, more efficient equipment, they must simply maintain old equipment. It's a disincentive to do gradual upgrades, the result of which is that few if any upgrades are done.

Fundamentally untrue.

The new EPA rules allow a plant to replace equipment up to 20% of the replacement cost of the entire unit. Basically, this will have the effect of prolonging the service life of the older, less efficient, and dirtier plants indefinitely. It is an incentive not to upgrade.

In instances such as this it is helpful to follow the money. The company that was hit with the most fines under the old EPA policy on power plant renovations was Southern Co. Southern Co. was a major campaign contributor to the GOP in 2000 and 2002 to the tune of some $2.5M

Kevin - Scientists still seem to have a lot of disagreement about "global warming" and there are accusations from both sides of distorting facts. Is Easterbrook all wet? I don't know - maybe. I don't think Bush is as bad enviromentally as some want to portray him, but that's politics.

The new EPA rules allow a plant to replace equipment up to 20% of the replacement cost of the entire unit.

The original EPA rules allow a plant to replace equipment up to 20%. The replacement result in more efficient power generation (more power less pollution).

The change in the rules stopped improved efficiences or less power and the same level of pollution.

The original EPA rules allow a plant to replace equipment up to 20%. The replacement result in more efficient power generation (more power less pollution).

Absolutely not. It may result in greater power generation but certainly not less pollution.

The point you're missing, or ignoring, is that the original 1977 legislation was designed to compel power producers to replace aging and pollution-producing plants with newer and cleaner plants.

Instaed, many producers opted to shelter their plants under grandfather clauses and claim any upgrades were 'routine maintenance' and not subject to the more stringent pollution laws.

This rollback means existing plants which weren't meeting pollution standards can continue to operate indefinitely. It is actually a disincentive to upgrade to cleaner facilities.

The point you're missing, or ignoring, is that the original 1977 legislation was designed to compel power producers to replace aging and pollution-producing plants with newer and cleaner plants.

Actually, the 20% carveout was a key aspect of the legislation. And if you produce more energy with no more pollution, thus the return of the law does not creat more pollution.

Look, I don't mean to be rude, but it simply cannot be the proper function of a government agency to only 'strengthen' a certain type of concept. There is nothing in the world that can't be taken too far. Your formulation leads to the frankly stupid conclusion that the EPA should be interested in completely stopping all industry, farming, and all human impact.

And I don't want to start a huge global warming fight but I think it sufficient to note that there is huge disagreement between perfectly reputable scientists on:

Whether there is a significant amount of global warming actually occuring;

Whether human activity is a significant factor in warming;

Whether global warming is a particularly bad thing;

Whether it would be better to take steps to curb warming or to learn to deal with it better;

Whether warming is something we could significantly curb at all.

In light of the above, I am aware of no clear set of actions that ought to be taken--with the possible exception of a switchover to nuclear power for our electricity generation to cut down on coal burning. But shall we even pretend that is likely?

I didn't think so.

The new EPA rules allow a plant to replace equipment up to 20% of the replacement cost of the entire unit. Basically, this will have the effect of prolonging the service life of the older, less efficient, and dirtier plants indefinitely. It is an incentive not to upgrade.

Do you think that there's some arguable distinction between It is an incentive not to upgrade [you] and disincentive to do gradual upgrades [me]?

Sebastian, it's easy to object with the argument that perpetual "strengthening" of the environmental protection program leads to absurd conclusions where the country's overrun with weeds and only wild animals have any rights, but I've already displayed the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that there are already two sides at play (industry, which doesn't need the government's help in polluting public resources, thank you, and the EPA, which is supposed to work for the benefit of everyone, even the grandchildren of industrialists) and that a balance between them is preferable, so you'll excuse me for dismissing that red herring and moving on.

It's the apparant argument that we have too much protection in place, that the EPA should shift its focus to dropping pending regulations and scaling back the number of investigations that demands we examine the EPA's mission. Why is it even there? There's no justification for Bush's approach consistent with the reasons Nixon created the agency.

The Bush defender's argument seems to be that all this regulation is getting in the way of profits, so until the data are undeniable, we should be able to pollute as much as possible. That approach is what I'd call "frankly stupid."

The Bush defender's argument...

Think of us more as defenders of logic and reason. I don't think Bush is doing a particularly good job in a number of different areas, and I have no problem at all when he's attacked in those areas. Bush was an idiot for signing the Farm Bill. Pick on him in those areas and you'll find Moe, Timmy, tacitus, me and a host of others agreeing with you. We simply disagree in other areas. Who's in the White House is immaterial; we'd be having these disagreements (although perhaps in a slightly different context) if Gore were in office.

BTW, this isn't meant to imply that you also aren't a defender of logic and reason. We all argue for what we think is right, and calling us blind supporters of Bush is not only inaccurate but it's also immaterial. Impugning our motivations leaves the argument untouched.

Duly noted Slarti. Consider it retracted.

I meant it to be read as defenders of Bush's overall environmental record, but specifically those who argue the EPA is doing a good job under his leadership. His record is distinctly different from both Clinton's and his father's, so it's a fair area of critique.

No need for retraction, Edward. Thanks for the clarification, though.

Jonathan Adler completely obliterated RFK Jr.'s Rolling Stone rant. I wish I could find a reliable environmental concern without a political agenda one way or another. Using RFK's screed as a central theme for upcoming posts does not augur well, Edward. BTW, I also agree with Adler that it is "difficult to write mount a proactive defense of the administration's positive agenda, as it is not clear such an agenda exists."

I wish I could find a reliable environmental concern without a political agenda one way or another.

Me, too. Unfortunately, the enactment of environmental policy takes place in the political arena, where you win or lose on points scored rather than scientific merit. And, it should go without saying, the guilt for this lies everywhere.

Using RFK's screed as a central theme for upcoming posts does not augur well, Edward.

It was a good starting point to get the ball rolling, but Adler's critique is why I'm inviting Thorley's wrath in taking my time with the specifics...I'm encouraged I'm more right than wrong by the support for the central premise (i.e., you don't earn a "good" record on the environment by simply not burning down the country)...but I'll admit it if I honestly conclude Bush has done a good job here when I'm done reading...the EPA stuff is dense as hell, and there are biases on all sides to wade through.

Careful quoting that articel, Edward, it's a bit over the top.

That said, Jonathan Adler did not completely obliterate anything, really. A lot of word-parsing. He just took some of Kennedy's excess rhetoric to task, and didn't deal with most of his critiques of the Bush administration. I emailed him a response when he wrote it, but I never heard back from him.

At any rate, all rhetoric aside, the general story of the Bush administration is this:
1) Rollback, attempted rollback, or slowing down of Clinton-era rule changes
2) Wholesale expansion of drilling on public lands
3) Industry capture of the regulatory and enforcement process (I got the documentation right here)
4) Drastic cutbacks in funding for scientific research in general (with the exception of nanotechnology) and environmental research in particular
5) A unilateral withdrawal from international discussions on climate change, led by pressure from Lynsenkoist Senators and the Cheney agenda
6) Attempts to exempt a sgnificant percentage of waterbodies from the Clean Water Act

Worst environmental record ever? No everyone before Nixon was clearly worse.

Progress? No.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast