Full Version: First Scientist Named to Head EPA
From http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/...a.ap/index.html
For the first time since its creation, a scientist will be the chief administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
As a sidebar, I have to give Bush credit for this selection. The previous people he had put in this position or some of the senior positions beneath it either were submarined (Christine Whitman) to the point of being completely ineffectual or were basically lawyers or lobbyists (sometimes both) that had been representing the very people that the EPA was regulating.
While this selection does give me some degree of hope, it does open a few questions:
1) Is this a sincere attempt to right some of the damage from that was done in Bush's first term? (from an environmental perspective)
2) Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
For the first time since its creation, a scientist will be the chief administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
QUOTE
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.
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.
As a sidebar, I have to give Bush credit for this selection. The previous people he had put in this position or some of the senior positions beneath it either were submarined (Christine Whitman) to the point of being completely ineffectual or were basically lawyers or lobbyists (sometimes both) that had been representing the very people that the EPA was regulating.
While this selection does give me some degree of hope, it does open a few questions:
1) Is this a sincere attempt to right some of the damage from that was done in Bush's first term? (from an environmental perspective)
2) Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Mar 4 2005, 10:36 AM)
1) Is this a sincere attempt to right some of the damage from that was done in Bush's first term? (from an environmental perspective)
2) Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
2) Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
Overall I like Bush's second term appointments much better than his first term's. If only he can repeat himself and displace Rumsfeld I'll like his nominations even more...
The fact that the scientist will head the EPA doesn't guarantee that EPA's impact will be more significant than during 2000-2004 years. Like you noted, Ms. Whitman was completely ineffective. But it's definitely a good start. The CNN says that the new nominee worked for EPA for a number of years; that could be both good and bad. An outsider could have brought some fresh air to the agency, but Ms. Whitman's tenure proves that being an outsider is not enough; let's hope that the person who knows all the backdoors and traps of government bureaucratic machine will be more effective at this post.
1) Is this a sincere attempt to right some of the damage from that was done in Bush's first term? (from an environmental perspective)
Well, I admit it is very difficult not to be a cynic about the Bush administration. This seems like a good move, but it makes me wonder how long this guy will last - what's gonna happen when (and I do say when, not if, since it has already happened with this administration) he is faced with having science replaced with propaganda? Will he resign? Go along? And who is he? What's his science background?
As for this first question, no. Because I really don't think that Bush and his posse think they did any damage at all during the first term.
2) Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
Maybe. There's so many factors. As this president has already shown, the white house can hamstring the EPA. Bush and his cronies are too vested in the monied interests fighting business regulations of all kinds, including environmental. He's not going to let the EPA suddenly start doing its job!
Well, I admit it is very difficult not to be a cynic about the Bush administration. This seems like a good move, but it makes me wonder how long this guy will last - what's gonna happen when (and I do say when, not if, since it has already happened with this administration) he is faced with having science replaced with propaganda? Will he resign? Go along? And who is he? What's his science background?
As for this first question, no. Because I really don't think that Bush and his posse think they did any damage at all during the first term.
2) Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
Maybe. There's so many factors. As this president has already shown, the white house can hamstring the EPA. Bush and his cronies are too vested in the monied interests fighting business regulations of all kinds, including environmental. He's not going to let the EPA suddenly start doing its job!
Is this a sincere attempt to right some of the damage from that was done in Bush's first term? (from an environmental perspective)
No. Johnson may be a scientist, but he is light years away from being a friend of the environment. His record dovetails nicely with the Bush administration’s view of environmental policy. Below is a sample of some of the programs Johnson has presided over as head of the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS).
Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
You would think so, but I don't believe Stephen Johnson is that scientist. At the risk of arousing some posters' ire, I have to say I think Johnson is a partisan hack before he is a scientist.
No. Johnson may be a scientist, but he is light years away from being a friend of the environment. His record dovetails nicely with the Bush administration’s view of environmental policy. Below is a sample of some of the programs Johnson has presided over as head of the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS).
QUOTE
In 2000, Johnson supported the decision to spray New York City neighborhoods with Malathion…
<snip>
While at the EPA, Johnson repeatedly defended the production of genetically modified crops, downplaying their potential heath and environmental dangers.
<snip>
As EPA acting deputy administrator, Johnson instructed agency officials to prioritize economic concerns in their environmental decision making. Source
<snip>
While at the EPA, Johnson repeatedly defended the production of genetically modified crops, downplaying their potential heath and environmental dangers.
<snip>
As EPA acting deputy administrator, Johnson instructed agency officials to prioritize economic concerns in their environmental decision making. Source
QUOTE
Attorneys representing farm workers in Washington and other states yesterday sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to adequately protect workers and the environment from the use of toxic pesticides.
<snip>
"The EPA knew there were unacceptable risks, yet went ahead and decided (in 2001) to register the pesticide ... ignoring its own data that showed how to produce apples (for example) at a profit in a way that didn't poison people," said Grant Cope, an attorney for Earthjustice. Seattle PI
<snip>
"The EPA knew there were unacceptable risks, yet went ahead and decided (in 2001) to register the pesticide ... ignoring its own data that showed how to produce apples (for example) at a profit in a way that didn't poison people," said Grant Cope, an attorney for Earthjustice. Seattle PI
QUOTE
Ever been so strapped for cash that you'd swallow pesticide for $460? That's what dozens of college-age Nebraskans did in 1998 after reading a school-newspaper ad urging students to "earn extra money."
<snip>
"Are there clear boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable human research?" asked EPA assistant administrator Stephen Johnson. The academy is mulling over the question. Time
<snip>
"Are there clear boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable human research?" asked EPA assistant administrator Stephen Johnson. The academy is mulling over the question. Time
QUOTE
12/1/2004: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Bush appointees, is seeking input on a new proposed study in which infants in participating low income families will be monitored for health impacts as they undergo exposure to known toxic chemicals over the course of two years. The study entitled Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) will look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by children ranging from babies to 3 years old. Organic Consumers
QUOTE
Total EPA funding would decline from $8 billion, which Congress allocated in the current budget year for the agency to protect the nation's air, water and land. In 2004, the EPA had a budget of $8.4 billion.
Acting EPA administrator Steve Johnson defended the plan as "a strong request that allows us to keep up the pace of environmental protections" and said the cuts were part of the administration's larger deficit-cutting plan. The White House is facing a record federal budget deficit.
Most of the EPA cut proposed for 2006 is from a reduction in funding for a revolving fund that states use to upgrade sewage and septic systems, and storm-water run-off projects. Funding for the fund fell $361 million, or 33 percent, in the Bush administration budget proposal. Liberty Lost
Acting EPA administrator Steve Johnson defended the plan as "a strong request that allows us to keep up the pace of environmental protections" and said the cuts were part of the administration's larger deficit-cutting plan. The White House is facing a record federal budget deficit.
Most of the EPA cut proposed for 2006 is from a reduction in funding for a revolving fund that states use to upgrade sewage and septic systems, and storm-water run-off projects. Funding for the fund fell $361 million, or 33 percent, in the Bush administration budget proposal. Liberty Lost
Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
You would think so, but I don't believe Stephen Johnson is that scientist. At the risk of arousing some posters' ire, I have to say I think Johnson is a partisan hack before he is a scientist.
First off, before I answer, I would like to see data and numbers proving that Bush has already harmed the environment.
I think it is a sincere attempt... although I think Bush goes too far to appease the left.
I think it is a sincere attempt... although I think Bush goes too far to appease the left.
Sleeper, here is a sample of the last 2 months available at the National Resource Defence Council on the Bush Environmental Record. There is much, much more.
Each of these is a link to a detailed explanation (and numbers) of the subject matter.
QUOTE
EPA shirks the growing electronics-waste dilemma (01/21/05)
Industry buys access to Bush inauguration (01/20/05)
EPA extends stormwater pollution exemption for oil and gas industry (01/19/05)
EPA forced to crack down on taconite factory pollution (01/17/05)
Airing the EPA's dirty laundry deal (01/13/05)
Clear Skies would let plants pollute more, study concludes (01/13/05)
FWS gives butterfly plant a bit of a break (01/11/05)
President Bush touts "environmental benefits" of nuclear power (01/10/05)
Off-road vehicles banned from tortoise habitat (12/30/04)
Bush oil and gas drilling policy forces taxpayers to pay a heavy cleanup price (12/26/04)
National forest rules rewritten to help timber industry (12/22/04)
Lamprey loses out on ESA listing (12/22/04)
Industry rewrites government article on perchlorate dangers (12/19/04)
Bush administration officials accused of downplaying danger of water diversion to fish populations (12/19/04)
Bush administration impedes progress at international global warming talks (12/18/04)
Interior Department official sides with industry over wildlife protections (12/18/04) NRDC
Industry buys access to Bush inauguration (01/20/05)
EPA extends stormwater pollution exemption for oil and gas industry (01/19/05)
EPA forced to crack down on taconite factory pollution (01/17/05)
Airing the EPA's dirty laundry deal (01/13/05)
Clear Skies would let plants pollute more, study concludes (01/13/05)
FWS gives butterfly plant a bit of a break (01/11/05)
President Bush touts "environmental benefits" of nuclear power (01/10/05)
Off-road vehicles banned from tortoise habitat (12/30/04)
Bush oil and gas drilling policy forces taxpayers to pay a heavy cleanup price (12/26/04)
National forest rules rewritten to help timber industry (12/22/04)
Lamprey loses out on ESA listing (12/22/04)
Industry rewrites government article on perchlorate dangers (12/19/04)
Bush administration officials accused of downplaying danger of water diversion to fish populations (12/19/04)
Bush administration impedes progress at international global warming talks (12/18/04)
Interior Department official sides with industry over wildlife protections (12/18/04) NRDC
Each of these is a link to a detailed explanation (and numbers) of the subject matter.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Mar 4 2005, 10:21 AM)
First off, before I answer, I would like to see data and numbers proving that Bush has already harmed the environment.
I think it is a sincere attempt... although I think Bush goes too far to appease the left.
I think it is a sincere attempt... although I think Bush goes too far to appease the left.
As Daffy has shown, the data is ubiquitous on this. I wonder, would you really like to see it? It's readily available if you really do.
As for your second statement - yeah. That must be why the left loves him so much. I know I admire him for appeasing my beliefs so often [/sarcasm]. As his environmental record shows, the only group Bush is interested in appeasing is corporate big money. This is to the detriment of honest Republicans as much as to the "left."
All of those listed were policy changes... Where is the empirical data to show the actual effects of the policy changes?
QUOTE(Sleeper)
All of those listed were policy changes... Where is the empirical data to show the actual effects of the policy changes?
I have produced sources and data to back my claims. I suggest that if you are unconvinced that you provide sources to back your claim that Bush has not harmed the environment.
No... I asked for data showing harm has been done, which has not been provided I might add.
There is a difference in making a policy change and the result of that policy.
There is a difference in making a policy change and the result of that policy.
Here's a beginning.
Now, I'm sure you'll be quick to pooh-pooh these results and ask for raw data, which I don't have access to. Feel free to find statistics refuting this.
QUOTE
On Bush's watch, America's environment deteriorated in many critical areas - including the quality of air in cities and the quality of water that people drink - and gained in very few.
Knight Ridder compiled 14 pollution-oriented indicators from government and university statistics. Nine of the 14 indicators showed a worsening trend, two showed improvements and three others zigzagged.
Statistics that have worsened:
Superfund cleanups of toxic waste fell by 52 percent.
Fish-consumption warnings for rivers doubled.
Fish-consumption advisories for lakes increased 39 percent.
The number of beach closings rose 26 percent.
Civil citations issued to polluters fell 57 percent.
Criminal pollution prosecutions dropped 17 percent.
Asthma attacks increased by 6 percent.
There were small increases in global temperatures and unhealthy air days.
Source
Knight Ridder compiled 14 pollution-oriented indicators from government and university statistics. Nine of the 14 indicators showed a worsening trend, two showed improvements and three others zigzagged.
Statistics that have worsened:
Superfund cleanups of toxic waste fell by 52 percent.
Fish-consumption warnings for rivers doubled.
Fish-consumption advisories for lakes increased 39 percent.
The number of beach closings rose 26 percent.
Civil citations issued to polluters fell 57 percent.
Criminal pollution prosecutions dropped 17 percent.
Asthma attacks increased by 6 percent.
There were small increases in global temperatures and unhealthy air days.
Source
Now, I'm sure you'll be quick to pooh-pooh these results and ask for raw data, which I don't have access to. Feel free to find statistics refuting this.
This is rambling off-topic. Let's try to stay focused on the questions for debate:
1) Is this a sincere attempt to right some of the damage from that was done in Bush's first term? (from an environmental perspective)
2) Would a scientist in this position be more likely to aggressively enforce existing environmental regulations?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.