Bush names Stephen Johnson new EPA head

[DealMonkey]

Stephen Johnson is your atypical Bush apointee -- a career scientist with the stated goal of "...promoting and maintaining the utilization of sound science while using collaborative, innovative approaches to solving environmental problems." Let's hope Johnson doesn't have to face what previous EPA leaders have:

As a candidate in 2000, Bush promised to end [the] denial and regulate carbon dioxide. But he quickly walked away from that pledge after gaining the White House, embarrassing his first EPA head, Christine Todd Whitman, who vowed that the administration would stick by its commitment.

Perhaps with Johnson heading the EPA we can de-politicize that agency who over the first Bush term pulled some interesting manuevers. While I don't foresee Johnson directly opposing any of the anti-regulatory efforts of the administration, at least we can get back to relying on solid science.

Nice choice 😀

Bush names new EPA head

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush elevated Stephen Johnson, the acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday, nominating him to fill top job permanently.

Bush called Johnson "the first professional scientist to lead the EPA."

Bush announced the nomination of Johnson, a career government employee who has been with the agency for 24 years, in a ceremony in the White House Roosevelt Room.

"He knows the EPA from the ground up and has a passion for its mission," Bush said. If confirmed by the Senate, Johnson would become the first professional scientist to head the agency and would be its 11th administrator.

"He will listen to those closest to the land because they know our environmental needs best," Bush said of Johnson, 53.

Johnson had become EPA's temporary head only about six weeks ago.

He assumed the position with the stated goal of promoting and maintaining the utilization of sound science while using collaborative, innovative approaches to solving environmental problems.

The EPA implements and enforces the nations federal environmental laws and regulations; the agency has over 18,000 employees nationwide and an annual budget of $8.6 billion.

Johnson, is a native of Washington, who has held a variety of positions at EPA, particularly working in pesticides and toxic substances.

Bush proposed $7.6 billion -- a 5.6 percent decrease -- for EPA when he sent his budget proposal for fiscal 2006 to Congress on February 2.

He requested more money for the program that cleans up a third of the nation's Superfund toxic waste cleanup sites, those for which the agency has been unable to pin the costs on a polluter. Superfund would grow by 2.5 percent, to nearly $1.28 billion.

He also would add 36 percent to programs for redeveloping lesser contaminated sites known as "brownfields," bringing that budget to $121 million. He also would spend $50 million for improving the health of the Great Lakes, more than double the amount proposed for this year.

 

[CycloWizard]

You bash him even when he does something you agree with? How quaint.

It's pretty ridiculous to say the EPA ever didn't rely on science to do what they're supposed to do. You're assuming that the problems with the environment are already fully understood, which they're not by any stretch. Hopefully some of the people who bash Bush on the environment will come to realize that there is another side to the coin, that no one wants to destroy the environment. Environmental concerns are always balanced with economic concerns. Putting too much weight on one will inevitably cause things to fall out of balance.

 

[cwjerome]

It would be nice to see the EPA become less political, but where some people see Bush playing politics, I also see a lot of junk science and political buffoonery from leftist groups and people trying to influence policy. I think the old punitive style of the EPA has been coming to an end, and that's a good thing. There's better ways... I say the issues of pollution and the environment are primarily technological and scientific problems, not political.

 

[conjur]

Too bad Johnson is all for increased levels of chemicals in our drinking water.


:thumbsdown:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Too bad Johnson is all for increased levels of chemicals in our drinking water.


:thumbdown;

That's how drinking water works... We add chemicals that will limit your life expectancy to about ~120 years because something else will probably kill you long before that. The actual chemical makeup isn't decided on the federal level, though - only quality metrics are. The chemicals used are decided on a more local level, which is why in one county, the water can be really bad and across the street it's really good. The locality decides which chemicals they need to use based on their input water source, which changes on a daily (even hourly) basis.

 

[conjur]

Johnson supports using humans in experiments for test of affects of chemicals:
http://www.newfarm.org/news/2005/0205/021005/chem_people.shtml

 

[conjur]

Be prepared for more of the same:


EPA Distorted Mercury Analysis, GAO Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15244-2005Mar7.html

The Environmental Protection Agency distorted the analysis of its controversial proposal to regulate mercury pollution from power plants, making it appear that the Bush administration's market-based approach was superior to a competing scheme supported by environmentalists, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said yesterday.

Rebuking the agency for a lack of "transparency," the report said the EPA had failed to fully document the toxic impact of mercury on brain development, learning, and neurological functioning. The GAO urged that these problems be rectified before the EPA takes final action on the rule.

The analysis follows a critical report by the EPA's inspector general that suggested that agency scientists had been pressured to back the approach preferred by industry.

"The administration is showing a blatant disregard for the health of children, the health of women of childbearing age, but they are also showing a blatant disregard for the law," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who had asked for the analysis. "To not change would be the height of arrogant disregard."

 

[dannybin1742]

You're assuming that the problems with the environment are already fully understood, which they're not by any stretch. Hopefully some of the people who bash Bush on the environment will come to realize that there is another side to the coin, that no one wants to destroy the environment. Environmental concerns are always balanced with economic concerns. Putting too much weight on one will inevitably cause things to fall out of balance.

yes but you have not realised is that bush never listened to the head of the epa, what makes us think her will listen to the new one?

and what don't we understand about the environment?

bush and his lackies ALWAYS side with business on any environmental issue

you're right, no one is purposely trying to destory the environment, but they don't seem to care about the impact their actions have on the environment, especially when money is involved. look at tom delay, his whole first campaign to get elected was about "the epa is BAD" simply because his business was shut down because he was not using epa oked pesticides (or poisons), the regulations are there for a reason

this balance you speak of was there during clinton, but its pretty much gone now

That's how drinking water works... We add chemicals that will limit your life expectancy to about ~120 years because something else will probably kill you long before that. The actual chemical makeup isn't decided on the federal level, though - only quality metrics are. The chemicals used are decided on a more local level, which is why in one county, the water can be really bad and across the street it's really good. The locality decides which chemicals they need to use based on their input water source, which changes on a daily (even hourly) basis.

are you sure? i was under the immpression that when they refer to chemicals, they mean things like sulfur containing compounds, mercury...etc. things that get into the water, but not by us physically treating the water with it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
are you sure? i was under the immpression that when they refer to chemicals, they mean things like sulfur containing compounds, mercury...etc. things that get into the water, but not by us physically treating the water with it.

Every chemical (or at least ALMOST all) that is added to your drinking water by your drinking water supplier is a known carcinogen. They are dosed in levels that shouldn't have any significant impact on your life expectancy unless you live to be insanely old anyway. I'm guessing you're talking about wastewater rather than drinking water, as mercury concentrations in drinking water are required to be infinitesimal. Sulfur compounds would be instantly noticeable - just smell your water. If it smells funky, you have sulfurous compounds floating around - this is a major problem at wastewater treatment plants, but I can only think of one instance where it's arisen in drinking water.