Greens keep singing the blues, Whitmans parting comments

[charrison]

Linkage

Interesting read.

...

For too long the environmental debate has centered on counting the number of new laws we've passed and new regulations we've written, on tallying up how much in fines, fees and penalties we've levied on polluters. Focusing on those aspects -- measuring process instead of progress -- may be easier, but it has made it difficult to adapt environmental policymaking to changing times and challenges.

When the environmental debate turns on questions of process, attempts at innovation have a hard time getting out of the starting gate. An attempt to modernize a law is cast as an effort to undermine it. A good-faith effort to try new methods of achieving better results is characterized as a retreat from existing commitments.

That is why I was disappointed that so many of those people who make their living as Washington environmentalists immediately and instinctively attacked our report. Because it contradicts their public stance that the state of our environment, without exception, is bad and getting worse, they apparently found it important to shoot the messenger before they could even digest the message.


...

Unfortunately for the tenor of the public debate over environmental policy, too many in the environmental lobby want to hear only the bad news -- they see only evil, hear only evil and speak only evil. That is why we are treated to bizarre spectacles such as what happened this spring when the Natural Resources Defense Council praised a Bush administration proposal to limit emissions from diesel engines on tractors, bulldozers and other off-road vehicles. "Heresy," cried their allies, who were appalled at the thought that any environmental group would actually support something the Bush administration was doing


One of the lessons I learned during my 29 months at the EPA is that until the tone of the debate over environmental policy changes, the next generation of environmental progress will be made more difficult than it should be. If environmental groups are truly interested in progress, not politics, they should let the facts speak for themselves and look for ways to support efforts to get to a cleaner environment.

 

[Fencer128]

Do you have a link to the report that is mentioned?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Do you have a link to the report that is mentioned?

Cheers,

Andy

Probably on the EPAs website somewhere

 

[flavio]

WASHINGTON - The White House directed a major rewrite of an assessment of climate change, removing references to health and environmental risks posed by rising global temperatures, according to internal draft documents made public Thursday

The changes demanded by the White House were so extensive that the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," according to an April 29 EPA staff memo. It characterized the revised draft as an embarrassment to the agency.

More......................

 

[Fencer128]

Thanks, I found lots of info. This is an interesting follow up to the thread we were debating in a while back (I'm sure you remember ). According to the EPA's latest models the outlook for the environment under new legislation looks good.

However.... I still see no cost projection for this legislation vs the existing legisaltion in an enforcable capacity. I would like to see an EPA FAQ/report/etc on clear skies vs existing legislation that made it ultra-clear that the reason that clear skies is ok (even though it's standards are not as strict as existing legislation) is because:

1. Existing legislation is voluntary.

2. The cost of taking existing legislation, making it compulsary and then touting it as the new legislation is too great to bear.

I think it would help move the environmental debate forward a great deal if these were clearly outline with facts and figures to conclusively back them up. At the moment I personally feel like I'm taking their word on these points a little too blindly for myself to have the faith I need to say - "Yes - this is the best way".

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

WASHINGTON - The White House directed a major rewrite of an assessment of climate change, removing references to health and environmental risks posed by rising global temperatures, according to internal draft documents made public Thursday

The changes demanded by the White House were so extensive that the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," according to an April 29 EPA staff memo. It characterized the revised draft as an embarrassment to the agency.

More......................

you left out

According to EPA officials and internal documents obtained Thursday, most of the original section on climate change was scrapped after the White House directed significant changes and deletions that emphasized the uncertainties surrounding the climate change debate.

 

[Fencer128]

I hope that you didn't miss my other post that was caught between yours and flavio's there.

According to EPA officials and internal documents obtained Thursday, most of the original section on climate change was scrapped after the White House directed significant changes and deletions that emphasized the uncertainties surrounding the climate change debate.

Is it right that the government is dictating how a scientific document should be written? Surely the experts at the EPA should know the facts at least and probably better than the White House?

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Thanks, I found lots of info. This is an interesting follow up to the thread we were debating in a while back (I'm sure you remember ). According to the EPA's latest models the outlook for the environment under new legislation looks good.

However.... I still see no cost projection for this legislation vs the existing legisaltion in an enforcable capacity. I would like to see an EPA FAQ/report/etc on clear skies vs existing legislation that made it ultra-clear that the reason that clear skies is ok (even though it's standards are not as strict as existing legislation) is because:

1. Existing legislation is voluntary.

2. The cost of taking existing legislation, making it compulsary and then touting it as the new legislation is too great to bear.

I think it would help move the environmental debate forward a great deal if these were clearly outline with facts and figures to conclusively back them up. At the moment I personally feel like I'm taking their word on these points a little too blindly for myself to have the faith I need to say - "Yes - this is the best way".

Cheers,

Andy

There was a another article good I will try to find that discusses the democratic alternative to clear skys. The two proposals are near identical, with the democratic plan having slightly faster implementation of caps(couple of years less to acheive the near the same). The democratic plan also had carbon dioxide controls, but industry at this point is quite unsure how to reach such goals(nuclear is the only good option for carbon reduction). The cost difference was $60B vs $80B or something like that. I will see if I can find it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I hope that you didn't miss my other post that was caught between yours and flavio's there.

According to EPA officials and internal documents obtained Thursday, most of the original section on climate change was scrapped after the White House directed significant changes and deletions that emphasized the uncertainties surrounding the climate change debate.

Is it right that the government is dictating how a scientific document should be written? Surely the experts at the EPA should know the facts at least and probably better than the White House?

Andy

If there was bias in the report, it should be removed. I dont think anyone knows what the expect environmental footprint man is having on this planet.

 

[Fencer128]

There was a another good I will try to find that discusses the democratic alternative to clear skys. The two proposals are near identical, with the democratic plan having slightly faster implementation of caps(couple of years less to acheive the near the same). The democratic plan also had carbon dioxide controls, but industry at this point is quite unsure how to reach such goals(nuclear is the only good option for carbon reduction). The cost difference was $60B vs $80B or something like that. I will see if I can find it.

Thanks - but I was more thinking of a comparisson between enforcing existing legislation and clear skies, as opposed to clear skies vs Dem. clear skies, as this seems to be the issue on the environmentalists agenda.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

WASHINGTON - The White House directed a major rewrite of an assessment of climate change, removing references to health and environmental risks posed by rising global temperatures, according to internal draft documents made public Thursday

The changes demanded by the White House were so extensive that the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," according to an April 29 EPA staff memo. It characterized the revised draft as an embarrassment to the agency.

More......................

you left out

According to EPA officials and internal documents obtained Thursday, most of the original section on climate change was scrapped after the White House directed significant changes and deletions that emphasized the uncertainties surrounding the climate change debate.

Yeah, I also left out.....

_Removed a reference ? and a graphic ? to a 1999 study showing global temperatures had risen sharply in the past decade compared with the previous 1,000 years. Instead it cites a study, partly sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, that disputed those findings. Connaughton said the second study was reputable and the most recent on the subject.


_Deleted a National Research Council (news - web sites) finding that various studies have suggested that recent warming was unusual and likely due to human activities, although the same 2001 NRC report had been commissioned by the White House.

If anyone else gets confused like charrison....let me point out that the link "More.............." goes to the entire article.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio

WASHINGTON - The White House directed a major rewrite of an assessment of climate change, removing references to health and environmental risks posed by rising global temperatures, according to internal draft documents made public Thursday

The changes demanded by the White House were so extensive that the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," according to an April 29 EPA staff memo. It characterized the revised draft as an embarrassment to the agency.

More......................

you left out

According to EPA officials and internal documents obtained Thursday, most of the original section on climate change was scrapped after the White House directed significant changes and deletions that emphasized the uncertainties surrounding the climate change debate.

Yeah, I also left out.....

_Removed a reference ? and a graphic ? to a 1999 study showing global temperatures had risen sharply in the past decade compared with the previous 1,000 years. Instead it cites a study, partly sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, that disputed those findings. Connaughton said the second study was reputable and the most recent on the subject.


_Deleted a National Research Council (news - web sites) finding that various studies have suggested that recent warming was unusual and likely due to human activities, although the same 2001 NRC report had been commissioned by the White House.

If anyone else gets confused like charrison....let me point out that the link "More.............." goes to the entire article.

Not confused, I posted that for the people that only read the quotes.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I hope that you didn't miss my other post that was caught between yours and flavio's there.

According to EPA officials and internal documents obtained Thursday, most of the original section on climate change was scrapped after the White House directed significant changes and deletions that emphasized the uncertainties surrounding the climate change debate.

Is it right that the government is dictating how a scientific document should be written? Surely the experts at the EPA should know the facts at least and probably better than the White House?

Andy

If there was bias in the report, it should be removed. I dont think anyone knows what the expect environmental footprint man is having on this planet.

The bias came from the Whitehouse.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

There was a another good I will try to find that discusses the democratic alternative to clear skys. The two proposals are near identical, with the democratic plan having slightly faster implementation of caps(couple of years less to acheive the near the same). The democratic plan also had carbon dioxide controls, but industry at this point is quite unsure how to reach such goals(nuclear is the only good option for carbon reduction). The cost difference was $60B vs $80B or something like that. I will see if I can find it.

Thanks - but I was more thinking of a comparisson between enforcing existing legislation and clear skies, as opposed to clear skies vs Dem. clear skies, as this seems to be the issue on the environmentalists agenda.

Cheers,

Andy

Well the environmentalist are thinking the democratic plan was a good idea, and Bush's plan was bad, when in fact they are close to the same. It very much agreed with Whitman wrote in this article.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I hope that you didn't miss my other post that was caught between yours and flavio's there.

According to EPA officials and internal documents obtained Thursday, most of the original section on climate change was scrapped after the White House directed significant changes and deletions that emphasized the uncertainties surrounding the climate change debate.

Is it right that the government is dictating how a scientific document should be written? Surely the experts at the EPA should know the facts at least and probably better than the White House?

Andy

If there was bias in the report, it should be removed. I dont think anyone knows what the expect environmental footprint man is having on this planet.

The bias came from the Whitehouse.

According to you. I have no doubt everyone that worked at the EPA was bias free.

 

[flavio]

The fact that you defend Whitehouse doctoring of an EPA report is just incredible.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio
The fact that you defend Whitehouse doctoring of an EPA report is just incredible.

The fact that you claim the EPA to be free of bias is in incredible.

 

[flavio]

Your own link praises the report.....

our report uses sound, sophisticated scientific data to measure how far we've come and to suggest where we still have room to improve.

and

Our "Draft Report on the Environment" does just that by giving us a factual, nonpolitical look at where we are and where we need to go.

but when it is shown that the report was doctored your stance is "the EPA is biased" actually trying to make an excuse for the Whitehouse doctoring it. As if they know better?

You're not going to get far arguing both sides like this.

 

[Fencer128]

Seems to me you have to go with who you think the experts are on this one. Here in the UK there are currently 3 high level reviews on going because of doubt over whether the government altered intelligence information passed from MI6 to help garner support for the war.

Shouldn't the government trust its own experts?

The language also worries me:

According to EPA officials and internal documents obtained Thursday, most of the original section on climate change was scrapped after the White House directed significant changes and deletions that emphasized the uncertainties surrounding the climate change debate.

The part in bold is highly ambiguous.

The changes demanded by the White House were so extensive that the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," according to an April 29 EPA staff memo. It characterized the revised draft as an embarrassment to the agency.

The part in bold here, if correct, gives an even worse impression of the altered document.

Surely, if people want this evidence to have credibility, the government sholud task its own experts to it - and then leave it well alone. Any interference will be seen as doctoring otherwise. This is certainly how we try and run things over here anyway.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

There was a another good I will try to find that discusses the democratic alternative to clear skys. The two proposals are near identical, with the democratic plan having slightly faster implementation of caps(couple of years less to acheive the near the same). The democratic plan also had carbon dioxide controls, but industry at this point is quite unsure how to reach such goals(nuclear is the only good option for carbon reduction). The cost difference was $60B vs $80B or something like that. I will see if I can find it.

Thanks - but I was more thinking of a comparisson between enforcing existing legislation and clear skies, as opposed to clear skies vs Dem. clear skies, as this seems to be the issue on the environmentalists agenda.

Cheers,

Andy

selected quotes from
ens-news

Current annual emissions of SO2, a leading cause of acid rain and soot, are some 11 million tons. Some five million tons of NOx, the leading contributor to smog, are emitted annually from power plants. Power plants emit some 48 tons of mercury each year.

...

By 2018, Clear Skies is projected to have reduced SO2 emissions to three million tons, NOx emissions to 1.7 million tons and mercury emissions to 15 tons.

By contrast, the Carper bill is projected to reduce SO2 emissions to 2.25 million tons by 2015, NOx emissions to 1.7 million tons by 2012, and mercury emissions to 10 tons by 2013.

.....

The EPA estimates the annual cost of Clear Skies will be some $6.3 billion, but it could achieve health benefits of some $110 billion by 2020. Early analysis had shown benefits of $93 billion by 2020.

The EPA's analysis of Carper's bill finds it would achieve benefits of some $140 billion by 2020 at an annual cost of $8.7 billion

...

Environmentalists say it is a vast improvement over Clear Skies, but some find a few troubling provisions in the legislation.
....

We could be doing a lot more than we are doing now," Becker said. "It is time that to move on and we think multi pollutant legislation will actually help industry by providing more certainty."

"But if we had a choice between Clear Skies and nothing, we would take nothing," Becker said.

...

reuters
This is shorter version of the previous, but it added this

"We think this proposal is far superior from a public policy perspective," Holmstead said, citing the prediction that Carper's proposal could contribute to future shortages of natural gas.

We are already seeing the effects of natural gas prices going because more power plants are using clean burning gas rather than coal. My electric bill went up about 30% over last month, even though we only used about 5% more Kw, because of the natural gas shortage.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio
Your own link praises the report.....

our report uses sound, sophisticated scientific data to measure how far we've come and to suggest where we still have room to improve.

and

Our "Draft Report on the Environment" does just that by giving us a factual, nonpolitical look at where we are and where we need to go.

but when it is shown that the report was doctored your stance is "the EPA is biased" actually trying to make an excuse for the Whitehouse doctoring it. As if they know better?

You're not going to get far arguing both sides like this.

It is a draft. If there is bias from any side, it should be removed. I claim that neither side is bias free. Right now, if you want an answer about global warming, you can find a scientist with valid data to support whatever side you want sit on. I can only hope data from both sides are included in this report.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio
The fact that you defend Whitehouse doctoring of an EPA report is just incredible.

The fact that you claim the EPA to be free of bias is in incredible.

Is the whitehouse the best judge in what is bias and what is science?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio
The fact that you defend Whitehouse doctoring of an EPA report is just incredible.

The fact that you claim the EPA to be free of bias is in incredible.

Is the whitehouse the best judge in what is bias and what is science?

I think the whitehouse should get a chance to review work by any goverment agency and correct any errors that occur.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: flavio
The fact that you defend Whitehouse doctoring of an EPA report is just incredible.

The fact that you claim the EPA to be free of bias is in incredible.

Is the whitehouse the best judge in what is bias and what is science?

I think the whitehouse should get a chance to review work by any goverment agency and correct any errors that occur.

but how can they a non scientific policy makers say what is an error and what is not in a scientific report?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: flavio

WASHINGTON - The White House directed a major rewrite of an assessment of climate change, removing references to health and environmental risks posed by rising global temperatures, according to internal draft documents made public Thursday

The changes demanded by the White House were so extensive that the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," according to an April 29 EPA staff memo. It characterized the revised draft as an embarrassment to the agency.

More......................

From the original link that whitman wrote

I guess it got completely deleted

Some have condemned the report because it doesn't discuss global climate change. It doesn't, but the report does include dozens of science-based environmental indicators for air, water and land