A Government Of Laws And Not Of Men

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"The Bush administration has decided not to take any new steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before the president leaves office, despite pressure from the Supreme Court and broad accord among senior federal officials that new regulation is appropriate now.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to announce today that it will seek months of further public comment on the threat posed by global warming to human health and welfare -- a matter that federal climate experts and international scientists have repeatedly said should be urgently addressed.

The Supreme Court, in a decision 15 months ago that startled the government, ordered the EPA to decide whether human health and welfare are being harmed by greenhouse gas pollution from cars, power plants and other sources, or to provide a good explanation for not doing so. But the administration has opted to postpone action instead, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Post."

Hmm: I wonder if I could try that...

"Liberal blogger hilzoy has decided not to take any new steps to reduce her driving speed on the highways, despite pressure from the Maryland State Highway Patrol and broad accord from other drivers and experts on driving laws that a speed reduction is appropriate now. She announced today that she will seek months of comments about the appropriateness of driving 85mph on the interstates.

The Highway Patrol, in a decision 15 months ago that startled hilzoy, ordered her to reduce her speed to 65mph. But hilzoy has opted to postpone action instead, according to interviews and documents obtained by the Washington Post."

Somehow, I don't think that would go over very well. And I don't think it would help much if I ordered my speedometer to tell me that I was just doing the limit, and refused to open its emails when it told me I was not:

"To defer compliance with the Supreme Court's demand, the White House has walked a tortured policy path, editing its officials' congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.

The decision to solicit further comment overrides the EPA's written recommendation from December. Officials said a few senior White House officials were unwilling to allow the EPA to state officially that global warming harms human welfare. Doing so would legally trigger sweeping regulatory requirements under the 45-year-old Clean Air Act, one of the pillars of U.S. environmental protection, and would cost utilities, automakers and others billions of dollars while also bringing economic benefits, EPA's analyses found.

"They argued that this increase in regulation should be on the next president's record," not Bush's, said a participant in the lengthy interagency debate, referring principally to officials in the office of Vice President Cheney, on the White House Council on Environmental Quality, on the National Economic Council and in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Several EPA officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that throughout the process, White House officials instructed the agency to change their calculations with the aim of reducing the "social cost of carbon," a regulatory term that reflects the economic burdens stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.

Career EPA officials argued that the global benefits of reducing carbon are worth at least $40 per ton, but Bush appointees changed the final document to say the figure is just an example, not an official estimate. They prohibited the agency from submitting a 21-page document titled "Technical Support Document on Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions" as part of today's announcement.

"The administration didn't want to show a high-dollar value for reducing carbon," said one EPA official, adding that the administration cut dozens of pages from a draft that outlined cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases.

Some officials said the administration has also minimized the benefits of tighter fuel-economy standards by assuming that oil will cost $58 a barrel in the future, compared with its current price of $141.65. While the EPA calculated in a May 30 draft that stricter standards would save U.S. society $2 trillion by 2020, officials revised that figure last month -- using the $58 estimate -- to predict that they would save only between $340 billion and $830 billion.

The proposal that the EPA will unveil today, known as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, stands in stark contrast to the agency's original Dec. 5 finding -- backed up by a lengthy scientific analysis -- that global warming is unequivocal, that there is "compelling and robust" evidence that the emissions endanger public welfare and that the EPA administrator is "required by law" to act to protect Americans from future harm."

That is what we ordinary folk call "lying".

Comments

[cleek]

yeah well, whatcha gonna do...

when the leader of your opposition declares up front that they're not going to pursue punishment beyond the dreaded Sternly-Worded Letter, where's the incentive to bother obeying the law?

[Jesurgislac]

When both candidates for the next President support (and one actually votes for) legislation to ensure that the criminal actions of the current President won't be prosecuted, what's the incentive to obey the law?

[mightygodking]

While I am as disappointed at Obama's cave as everybody else, Jes, it is kind of crazy talk to suggest even minutely that George W. Bush was waiting on implied permission from him to break the law.

[Jesurgislac]

I don't believe I suggested that, mightygodking.

With the new FISA legislation, the principle that the President rules above the law that Bush & Co adopted, is now openly supported by Obama (and, one presumes, also by McCain - since if he could remember what he thought about FISA it would probably be "I support Bush's decision").

The US has been heading towards this for thirty-five years or more, of course. But it's now the law: the President can tell you to break the law and you cannot be prosecuted, because the President's command overrides the laws.

Bush assumed the right to do that: Obama voted it into legislation: your President is now your king.

[felix culpa]

It’s maybe just their back-up, in case they can’t follow through on their mandate to bring the world Apocalypse starting with a holocaust on the Plain of Megiddo, popularly referred to as Armageddon.
Dubya wants to go down in history, if there is to be any, as the President who told the World to go to Hell.

He’s doggedly consistent.
And maybe he’ll succeed, after all.

[Jesurgislac]

...and I wrote both the above comments before reading Glenn Greenwald's latest.

[Equal Opportunity Cynic]

Well, the Founders were clearly just a bunch of extremist liberals with no appreciation for the needs of the executive to keep us safe from harm. I just wish Fox News had been around in the late 18th century to keep the public better-informed about its own safety. It might have saved an unsightly 200-year digression where the liberal rabble rousers stirred up the populace to refuse to accept its God-given role as little people.

Good thing we're back to the divine order of things.

[John Thullen]

In other news, the EPA estimate of the dollar value of a human life dropped from $7.8 billion to $6.9 billion over the last five years of the Bush Administration.

This estimate is used to calculate the cost and need for regulation, among other items. The less a person costs, the less justification for regulations.

I just mortgaged myself for the $7.8 billion figure. I'm a subprime human.

This just in: the estimate of the worth of a fetus remains priceless. An adult person is worth walking around money, adults being merely depreciating fetuses.

I'm against abortion but pro-choice, but these calculations from the various constituencies of the Republican Party are .... ghoulish.

Very sick people elected very sick people.

I repeat: ghouls!

[crionna]

Liberal blogger hilzoy has decided not to take any new steps to reduce her driving speed on the highways

You're able to justify driving? How nice for you.

[John Thullen]

million.

Yet more deflation.

[John Spragge]

Guys, this "Bush invented American lawlessness" meme has started to get old. I despise Bush as much as anyone, but if you want to know how deep (and far) the rot goes, google "Andrew Jackson" with "trail of tears", and if you want and example of lawless government that persists to this day, google fort Laramie Treaty 1868. George W. Bush has long antecedants.

And take comfort in this: what one Congress enacted, another can repeal, the FISA act covers civil and not criminal liability, and only covers a set of relatively minor offences. Should officials from this administration find themselves in the Hague for war crimes, or before an American court a decade hence for environmental cimes, FISA won't provide them with much of a fig leaf.

[russell]

George W. Bush has long antecedants.

Jackson et al are long dead. Can't do a thing about them now.

Bush is with us, here and now.

Thanks -

[Gary Farber]

"But it's now the law: the President can tell you to break the law and you cannot be prosecuted, because the President's command overrides the laws."

This doesn't seem to be particularly true.

A special case of "the President asked some people to break the law, and they won't be prosecuted" seems to be true.

But getting from one to the other seems to need a bridge that doesn't, in fact, exist.

But IANAL, so if any actual American lawyers actually agree with Jesurgislac's formulation, I'll certainly be very interested.

And surprised.

Of course, maybe this is just another typical case of me being all nit-picky about minor things like what is and isn't legal.

[Anthony Damiani]

Honestly, there are days one just wants to give up on the whole thing.