Environment from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Waxman v. Stephen Johnson, Clean Water Act Edition

Matthew Blake — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:55:07 GMT

House oversight committee chair Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) issued a subpoena yesterday to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson to provide documents on enforcement of the Clean Water Act. While it's become a familiar story line -- EPA Administrator stonewalling an oversight committee investigation -- the Clean Water saga has had some unique twists and turns.

According to Waxman's committee, Greenpeace obtained what they say is an internal EPA memorandum grousing about the agency's inability to enforce the 1972 Clean Water Act. Greenpeace has since handed the memo over to the oversight committee. The memo is said to outline how a 2006 Supreme Court case "negatively affected 500 enforcement cases" mostly involving wetlands. Waxman-- along with Rep. Jim Oberstar, (D-Mn.) chair of the House transportation committee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act-- believe the memo is legit and they've spent the last month trying to get EPA to produce documents related to it.

Rapanos v. U.S. was a rare court case without a controlling majority opinion. Charged with deciding if Michigan developer John Rapanos could build a mall on 35 acres of wetlands, the justices issued three different opinions on whether wetlands had to be a "navigable waterway" in order to merit federal regulation. Following the non-decision, the EPA has struggled to determine what bodies of water are protected under the Clean Water Act. But instead of admitting as much, EPA Asst. Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles told the transportation committee in May that Raponos has has had no ill effect-- contradicting the document he allegedly received from a fellow EPA clean water official.

The best-case scenario is that Johnson will hand over the documents and they'll reveal he's had a super-secret plan all along to enforce the Clean Water Act.

Beijing Wins 'Gold' For Green Building

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:31:10 GMT

Here's some interesting green news coming out of Beijing: the city's Olympic Village has become the first to win a green building certification.

The non-profit, non-partisan U.S. Green Building Council gave the Olympic housing a gold rating for environmental design, according to a press release (pdf here). The environmentally friendly village, home to 17,000 athletes from around the world, is contributing to improved air quality in the city.

Beijing is experiencing better air quality this month than it has in 10 years, according to The Guardian. The Olympics seem to be making Beijing -- a city that generally looks like this -- a little bit cleaner. New buildings with cleaner energy standards are part of the equation. City officials also say they are adhering to stricter air quality regulations. The Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau says it plans on adopting stricter regulations following the summer games to ensure that good conditions continue. We'll have to wait and see if officials follow through once the media glare of the Olympics subsides.

U.S. Green Building Council CEO and founder Rick Fedrizzi says his organization is making a concerted effort to work with China on greening new developments, according to the press release. The country is responsible for building about half of the world's new buildings each year. Sustainable building practices could reduce pollution, energy use and water use in China, says Fedrizzi, which could all improve public health and the global environment.

How To Send In Comments On Endangered Species Act

Suemedha Sood — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:30:00 GMT

Not happy with the Bush administration's proposed new rules for the Endangered Species Act? You've got 30 days to complain. The New York Times editorial board has posted how you can send in your comments:

A number of readers of today’s editorial about the Bush administration’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act have asked where they can express their opinions during the 30-day comment period...

After the proposed rule appears, there will be two ways in which to respond:

    Online, at Regulations.gov

    By mail, to:

        Public Comment Processing,
        Attention: 1018-AT50
        Division of Policy and Directives Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service
        4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 222,
        Arlington, VA 22203

Despite Pelosi Flip-Flop on Drilling Vote, GOP Energy Revolt Continues

Mike Lillis — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:39:04 GMT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) this week might have softened her opposition to an offshore drilling vote, but GOP leaders want to see some proof of sincerity. From a Tuesday statement from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio):

If you meant what you said last night, we welcome you and your Democratic colleagues to join us in our historic call to action on American energy. End your five-week break early and call Congress back into session now so we can vote for more American-made energy and lower gas prices without any further delay.

Republicans are pushing for a vote on their own energy bill -- the American Energy Act -- which would remove the congressional moratorium on new offshore drilling and open protected areas of Alaska for exploration. Democrats, however, will want to place more emphasis on the development of renewable fuels and other party priorities, some of which are hardly popular with the oil industry. That could include controversial "use it or lose it" language, The Hill reported last night, which pushes oil companies to produce more quickly on leased lands or lose those leases.

With more than three weeks remaining in Congress's vacation, there's plenty of time left for jockeying. What happens in September, at this point, is anyone's guess. But you can bet that environmentalists are more than a bit nervous about how this saga ends. After all, Democrats have a record this year of caving on issues dear to the hearts of liberal voters.

Global Warming Battle Heats Up

Matthew Blake — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:04:08 GMT

Four Democratic senators demanded late last month that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency must go. Their call for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's resignation -- after eight months of looking into his actions as agency chief -- is largely due to Jason K. Burnett, Johnson's former deputy in developing global warming policy.

Since resigning in May as the No. 3 official at EPA, Burnett has helped congressional investigators build a compelling case that the White House strong-armed Johnson into denying California a waiver to police greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions and also stopped the EPA from setting a national greenhouse gas standard.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

In stepping forward -- no one has directly challenged his statements -- Burnett, 31, has won over Johnson's many critics in Congress. For example, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, praised him at a hearing. "We need good, caring people like Jason Burnett," Boxer said.

But while Boxer and her allies cite Burnett's sworn statements in their continuing battles with the Bush White House, Burnett says he wants to move on. His high-profile whistleblower role ends seven years of first shaping and then dissenting from some of the administration's most contentious environmental policies.

Burnett supplied the scientific basis for business-friendly arsenic and mercury policies considered so controversial that they were soon reversed. But he quit EPA over a disagreement with Johnson in 2006, only to return in a more important job, and then resign again because, he says, the administration failed to set a global warming policy.

It is this negligence on global warming, Burnett said in an extended telephone interview, that caused him to decide to become a whistleblower. Burnett resisted detailing the battles he waged with Johnson and the White House. Instead, he expressed optimism that, at the very least, his work on global warming will be of use to the next administration.

"This was a policy disagreement I had with Administrator Johnson, who is in a very difficult situation," Burnett said. "I respect the administrator though I do disagree with the policies he has pursued."

"I was invited back [to EPA] to do a job and I did all this administration wanted me to do. This administration has declined to decide what to do about the profound policy challenge of global warming. ... This administration has decided to make itself irrelevant."

Close observers of the EPA are skeptical about Burnett's recent turn against the Bush White House. "I do not know what motivated him to say that he suddenly realized that this administration wasn't going to do anything," said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club. "He's not dumb."

"Nobody knows for sure why he went public and started ratting out his colleagues," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "He was one of the political insider's at EPA. People [on staff at EPA] are stunned that he's trying to rewrite history and say that he was a good guy all along."

Burnett's second time with EPA began in May 2007, following the Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA. The court ruled that if greenhouse gases do, in fact, cause a dangerous level of climate change, then EPA must, under the Clean Air Act, curb their emissions. The court also ordered the president to publish a scientific finding from EPA on whether greenhouse gas pollutants merit regulation.

After the decision, Johnson hired Burnett as the point person to work on the scientific finding and overall issue of initiating a global warming policy. This came a year after Burnett left EPA, over what he said had been a policy disagreement with Johnson on a standard for soot particles in the air. "While he and I ultimately didn't agree on the right way to set an air quality standard," Burnett said, "He liked how I operated. He liked my expertise and experience in applying economic analysis to environmental policy-making."

But a flurry of activity by Johnson last December prompted Burnett to once again leave EPA.

Burnett told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in May that, throughout 2007, Johnson wanted to give California a partial waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions. Burnett said that Johnson altered his position sometime in December, after communicating with the White House.

Johnson had testified before Congress in January that the White House hadn't pressured him to deny the waiver.

In July, Burnett told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that Johnson, as well as officials from the White House and Office of Management and Budget, had originally supported an EPA staff finding that greenhouse gases pose a public-health danger sufficient to require regulation.

But Burnett said their position abruptly changed in December 2007, when he sent an email to the White House with the scientific finding that greenhouse gases cause global warming and must be regulated. The White House literally didn't open the email, and instead called Burnett, instructing him to say that he sent the email "accidentally."

The email still has not been released. Instead, EPA extended the comment period on whether greenhouse gases should be regulated.

The White House did, however, allow Boxer, and three of her colleagues, to briefly look at the email. Burnett declined to relate the email's content. He said that he cannot release the findings, because this is still EPA property. But he did say that the email will have future relevancy. "It will have legal significance requiring EPA to then issue the first federal greenhouse gas regulations. I believe that much of the work we did will help the next administration."

Indeed, between his whistleblowing and the potential use of the email, some good has likely come out of Burnett's second time with EPA. The same probably can't be said for his previous involvement with environmental policy.

The grandson of the late billionaire David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, Burnett got his start in Washington with the right-leaning think tank, American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center, now known as the AEI Reg-Markets Center.

There, he wrote a series of papers on cost-benefit analysis -- including one arguing that economic costs trumped a Clinton-imposed EPA standard limiting arsenic, a carcinogen, in drinking water. In light of this, the Bush administration briefly did away with the standard in 2001. But sharp public backlash caused a reversal of the decision.

Burnett joined EPA as political appointee in 2004, working with the Office of Air and Radiation on a new standard for the acceptable level of mercury metal, a neurotoxin that comes out of power plant smokestacks.

When EPA established a "cap-and-trade" mercury emission program in 2005, environmentalists immediately called it a gift to industry. "It was environmentally bad and flagrantly illegal on its face," said Bookbinder of Sierra Club.

A federal appeals court agreed. In February of this year, the D.C. circuit court of appeals ruled that EPA violated its congressional mandate that all plants must reduce mercury emissions. The judge caustically compared EPA to the Queen of Hearts character in "Alice in Wonderland" -- who made rules by whim and without justification.

"The mercury rule was typical of the Bush EPA," said Bookbinder, "which, at the time, Burnett fit right into."

"He came into a lot of ill repute at the agency during the mercury battles," said O'Donnell. "He was one of the principle architects for a policy that proved to be a total disaster from an air pollution standpoint."

Burnett said his opinions on mercury and arsenic regulation are consistent with cost-benefit analysis. "My basic philosophy of the regulation is fairly straight forward," he said. "Some regulations are quite beneficial to the well-being of our country and some of them aren't. I've tried to apply a consistent set of principles to each inquiry."

In 2006, Burnett said it was these principles that caused him to leave EPA. Johnson had overruled a staff recommendation on regulating soot, a minute particle that can cause lung cancer. "One of the primary reasons I first left EPA," Burnett said, "was that Administrator Johnson declined to provide a stronger soot standard."

How much of a difference Burnett has made by publicly dissenting from Johnson is not clear. Burnett has detailed EPA's denial of the California waiver. But he's confident that regardless of his revelations, the courts will reverse the California decision. "California has met the test of the Clean Air Act," he said.

And Burnett's talk about the next administration likely means it will be at least two years before a president appropriately addresses Massachusetts v. EPA.

"Sure, he's giving corroboration that the leader of EPA is a scoundrel," said O'Donnell, of Clean Air Watch. "But what's being done about it? The career [EPA staff] people have been keeping their heads down for seven years. They figure they might as well keep them down for another five months."

Nonetheless, Burnett has been an essential asset to lawmakers whose job is to hold the executive branch accountable. "What Burnett is doing is important," said Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a Senate environmental committee hearing. "Because he's confirming what many of us have known for years -- that Bush and Cheney have been especially disastrous on environmental matters."

Burnett's revelations about this administration could make him a player in the next one. Along with campaigning for Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Burnett's current political activity includes maxing out donations for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the presumed Democratic nominee.

Burnett said that he doesn't have "any plans or expectations" of working in an Obama administration, which he seems to feel is likely. But his prospects for being in a future administration are, at the very least, better than Johnson's.

More Green Affordable Housing Successes

Suemedha Sood — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:55:00 GMT

Just wanted to flag this informative comment from one of our readers regarding our story, Affordable Housing Goes Green. Reader pierced talks about an affordable housing project in Rohnert Park, Calif., about 40 miles north of San Francisco:

Green affordable housing seems so rare that I wanted to mention another project in California called Sonoma Mountain Village. Sponsored by One Planet Communities and a local developer, Codding Enterprises, this project will have about 380 affordable for-rent/sale units in a 1900-unit mixed-use development.

Like Trolley Square, this project puts residents within a five minute or less walk of community and commercial places. In Seattle, High Point, New Holly and Rainier Vista are green mixed-income communities that also have commercial and open space amenities.

A unique goal of Sonoma Mountain Village (and other One Planet Communities) is to reduce the community ecological footprint by 80% from a conventional development by using on-site renewable energy, reducing waste, using alternative transportation, creating a local food and materials network, and creatively working with local businesses and residents to create an extremely diverse green community.

Find out more about Sonoma Mountain Village here.

Big Oil Ties Could Hurt GOP

Mike Lillis — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:05:48 GMT

Monday night, after weeks of pressure from Republicans to lift a federal moratorium on new offshore oil drilling, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) abandoned her adamant resistance, indicating that she's now open to a vote on expanding exploration.

"[Republicans] have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas," Pelosi told CNN's Larry King late Monday. "Well, we can do that. We can have a vote on that. But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and not just a hoax on them."

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The sharp change of position arrives as Republicans, who face a potentially disastrous November election, think they've found a lifeline in offshore drilling. Indeed, with gas prices near historic highs, polls indicate that most Americans now support more drilling. In a continuing Capitol Hill revolt, dozens of House Republicans have circulated through Washington over Congress's August vacation, taking to the dim and empty chamber floor with demands that Pelosi call a vote on the controversial measure.

The Republicans hope to portray the Democrats as the party of callousness on the issue of towering gas prices. In retaliation, Democrats accuse the GOP of cozying up to big oil interests. The debate has evolved into a blame-game over which side is blocking the process -- and which is fighting hardest for the needs of constituents.

Yet if a Republican primary in Tennessee last week is any indication, GOP leaders might want to reconsider their strategy. In an upset victory Thursday, GOP challenger Phil Roe defeated freshman Rep. David Davis in a contest where Roe portrayed the incumbent -- one of the House Republicans giving energy speeches -- as an oil company minion. It marked the first primary defeat for a Tennessee incumbent of either party in 40 years. Many political experts say the Republicans' defense of the thriving oil industry may haunt other GOP candidates in November.

Rep. David Davis (U.S. Congress)

"Offshore drilling is by no means a big winner," said Gary C. Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego. "Being seen as in the pockets of big oil is not where you want to be as a candidate."

"I do believe that it's a seismic event in Congress," David L. Epstein, political science professor at Columbia University, said of Davis's loss, "and everyone in Washington has taken notice. It certainly could be a harbinger of things to come."

During the primary, Roe, the conservative mayor of Johnson City in eastern Tennessee, attacked Davis for accepting donations from oil company political action committees, even as gas prices were soaring and the companies' profits were at historic heights. Roe had refused PAC money throughout the campaign.

Challenger Phil Roe (Campaign photo)

"While East Tennesseans have been struggling with out-of-control gas prices," one TV ad charged, "David Davis has pocketed thousands from oil companies. Why is 'Big Oil' trying to buy our seat in Congress, and why is Davis accepting their cash?"

Anthony J. Nownes, political science professor at the University of Tennessee, said that it's tough to gauge the absolute effect of the oil campaign on the primary, but considering the outcome it probably helped Roe.

"You would think that in a Republican primary attacking your opponent as a fan of big business would not work," Nownes wrote in an email. "But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding."

Other factors, of course, were also at play. Nownes described Roe as "a credible challenger," with both money and name recognition feeding his chances. Jamie Osborne, a consultant for the Roe campaign, downplayed the effect of the oil debate on the election, saying it was just one of many deciding issues.

"It was a way to cue people into the differences between the candidates over influence and money," Osborne said. "To say [the election] was a referendum on big oil, I would say, is a stretch."

Indeed, though Roe's attacks highlighted Davis's association with oil companies, Roe also supports a drilling expansion as part of a broader energy strategy, Osborne said. The distinction was not between attitudes toward big oil, but in each candidate's stand on corporate donations.

In the 2008 election cycle, Davis accepted $9,000 from oil and gas interests, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign watchdog group. Roe took in $1,500 from the same industry, though not from any PACs.

"The anti-PAC stance is what resonated," Osborne said.

The issue of offshore drilling has dominated the domestic political debate over the last few weeks, dividing lawmakers along mostly partisan lines. Republicans have argued that removing the moratorium on new drilling will lower prices at the pump. Pelosi has pushed instead to tap the government's emergency reserves and increase funding for the development of alternative fuels.

Bolstering Pelosi's position, a report from the Energy Information Admin., a branch of the Energy Dept., issued a report last year revealing that expanded offshore drilling would have no significant effect on domestic production or fuel prices before 2030. Yet Democrats have had a tough time convincing the public of this. One recent national poll put support for increased drilling at 69 percent.

The drilling debate has also gained traction on the presidential campaign trail, where both Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are trumpeting plans for energy independence. Not doing Pelosi any favors, Obama said last month that he would support some expanded drilling if it were wrapped up in a larger energy reform package -- a stance Pelosi said Monday she would not rule out herself.

"That is not excluded," she told King.

House GOP leaders on Tuesday welcomed Pelosi's comments, but have vowed to continue their empty-chamber revolt until a drilling vote is called.

Putting more pressure on Pelosi and Democratic leaders, the congressional moratorium on new drilling expires at the end of September, meaning lawmakers would have to extend it before leaving Washington for the year. GOP leaders have threatened to shut down the federal government if the expanded offshore drilling doesn't come up for a vote next month.

Nownes said the combination of factors seems to predict some drilling expansion this year.

"The Republicans are vulnerable … to the charge that this move will enrich the oil companies but have no discernible impact on prices," said Nownes of the U. of Tennessee. "But in the end, I think the Republicans will win this one. Obama has already softened his stance on the issue, and many Democrats in Congress will go along. I think we are in store for more drilling, no matter what happens."

Much will hinge, however, on the price of gas in September, when Congress returns to Washington -- not to mention how the issue is ultimately digested by voters. Some experts say the lines in the debate were drawn long ago.

"People who aren't already committed Republicans," said Jacobson of UC-San Diego, "aren't going to see this as a solution to their energy problems."

Endangered Species Threatened by Bush

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:32:05 GMT

The Bush administration announced late Monday that it plans to streamline new regulations that could overhaul the Endangered Species Act. The announcement, made by the Interior Dept., came after a draft of the new rules was leaked to The Associated Press.

If adopted, the regulatory changes would give federal agencies the power to determine whether their own projects threaten endangered animals and plants, eliminating mandatory independent reviews by government scientists. Projects, including highways, power plants and dams, would only face independent review if an agency determined a negative or uncertain effect on endangered wildlife. The proposed rules do not require approval by Congress.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Environmentalists are calling this a "last-minute" "sneak attack" by the Bush administration -- not only on the Endangered Species Act, but on science in general. Yet the Dept. of the Interior says the new rules are "narrow changes," meant to expedite government projects, not gut wildlife protections.

The Bush administration has been criticized over the last eight years for trying to slash endangered species protections, but this latest move is the one that environmental activists say might make all the difference. The new regulations would result in the most sweeping overhaul of the Endangered Species Act in more than 20 years.

"We're very alarmed," said Karla Raettig, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation, "that the administration is trying to push such sweeping rollbacks on their way out the door. Alarmed but not surprised."

President George W. Bush, supported by some Republican congressmen, has tried to pass major changes to the Endangered Species Act legislatively, but to no avail. "Nothing is going to get through Congress," said Raettig. "The public supports the Endangered Species Act."

Legislative attempts aside, the Bush administration has a track record of trying to undermine the Endangered Species Act. A 2007 Interior Dept. internal investigation found that former Deputy Assistant Sec. Julie MacDonald, a Bush political appointee, was "heavily involved with editing, commenting on and reshaping the Endangered Species Program's scientific reports from the field." (pdf here).

MacDonald was found to have reversed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists' decisions to identify species as endangered or threatened in at least six cases. The species affected included, for example, the trumpeter swan, the white-tailed prairie dog and the Gunnison's prairie dog, both of the latter found by staff reports to be at risk of extinction.

Gunnison's Prairie Dog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife)

In addition, under Bush, political appointees added significantly fewer species to the endangered species list than previous Republican and Democratic administrations. The Bush administration has added about 10 species a year -- compared to the Clinton administration, which added about 64 a year; and the George H.W. Bush administration, which added about 59 a year, according to data obtained by The Washington Post. The current administration has also cut funding for endangered wildlife.

The proposed rules on the Endangered Species Act wouldn't be the first time the administration has tried to avoid scientific consultation on government projects. In 2003, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a change to shield itself from litigation regarding the review process for pesticides.

Trumpeter Swan (Flickr: James Phelps)

But the proposed regulations announced Monday could do more to change the Endangered Species Act and its implementation than any previous action, according to advocacy groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Meredith McCarthy, a researcher at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, says the proposed rules are "cutting science out of the process."

"The law itself says it's supposed to use the best scientific and commercial data available," she said. "This new rule is really cutting out the involvement of Fish and Wildlife Service biologists." That's especially problematic, McCarthy says, because a big part of the mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service is to execute the Endangered Species Act.

"I think the real point here is that [with] the agencies doing the projects, their main goal is to do the projects," she said. "So they may have some biologists on staff, but those biologists would be doing such a broad scope of different species. There's no specialization there. Specialization in species -- that's what the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are for."

The Sierra Club, another environmental advocacy group, says these repercussions could destroy the intent of the Endangered Species Act. "This would leave a hollow shell." said Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner, "rather than anything with any meaningful protections for our wildlife."

The new rules, he says, would "take any sort of objective, science-based decisions and take them out of the hands of experts, and put them into the hands of political appointees."

The Interior Dept. says that wouldn't be the case, because agencies wanting to streamline projects have their own scientists. But some projects -- certain Dept. of Transportation projects, for example -- would not require evaluation by scientists, Dorner says.

More important, he adds, even agencies with their own scientists should be subject to oversight. "This is the worst kind of fox-guarding-the-hen-house scenario," he said.

Interior Dept. spokesman Frank Quimby disagrees. "We think there's still going to be that oversight on projects that really have the potential of having an adverse impact [to wildlife]," he said. "We believe that federal agencies will be responsible."

Agencies have a legal mandate to uphold the Endangered Species Act, Quimby said. "They're going to be held liable in any case for their decision," he said. "Anybody could take them to court -- and a court could rule that they did not carry out their responsibilities correctly."

The Interior Dept. says its proposed rules will just cut out the "middle man" of scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. It emphasized that it's time that the Endangered Species Act was changed.

"Every time even narrow modifications have been tried," Quimby said, "groups scream that we are quote-unquote 'gutting the Endangered Species Act.' That's just not the case. The act is more than 20 years old. The position that some people are taking is that it's a perfect act and that it needs no changes."

Environmental groups say the Bush administration's timing is calculated. "Right now, no one's really watching," said Raettig of the National Wildlife Federation. "The campaigns are taking center stage, so it's an opportunity to get something through that, with public scrutiny, would not have gotten through before."

If the rules do survive the 30-day public comment period, the Bush administration can expect a lawsuit, says Raettig. "I would assume that the conservation community would likely take them to court," she said.

Many are still surprised by the boldness of Interior Dept.'s announcement. But to some environmental groups, it's political interference as usual.

"It just really goes to the administration's war on science," Raettig said, "that they've had basically the last eight years."

CORRECTION: The photo caption was changed to point out that the Bald Eagle is no longer endangered.

Endangered Species Overhaul Is NOT About Climate Change

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:18:19 GMT

Some media outlets and environmental groups may be missing the point on the Bush administration's proposed overhaul of the Endangered Species Act by making the issue about global warming. And I tend to think that's exactly what the administration wants them to do.

The Interior Department said in a press release that its new rule "will help avoid misuse of the ESA to regulate climate change" (in light of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne simultaneously declaring the polar bear a "threatened species" and refusing to address climate change, the phenomenon that threatens it). At Monday's press conference addressing the new endangered species rule, Secretary Kempthorne said, "It is important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species. It is not possible to draw a link between greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of impacts on species."

Much to my dismay, some reporters and advocates are taking this idea -- that the new ESA rule is about climate change -- and running with it. This troubles me not because I don't agree that climate change is harming wildlife. (I do.) It troubles me because the proposed changes to the ESA are much, much more sweeping than that. The Bush administration seems to be using climate change as a distraction from the fact that its proposal could potentially gut wildlife protections altogether.

News Flash: The proposed rule as it is written has NOTHING to do with climate change. There is no language in the rule that even so much as mentions the words "climate change" or "global warming." Interior Department spokesman Frank Quimby verified that for me. (You can even search the pdf of the draft leaked to the AP yesterday.)

Yet, Quimby seemed to want me to think that the rule does relate to climate policy. When I interviewed him today for my forthcoming piece on the proposed ESA regulations, he talked about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.

"Some are arguing," he said, "[that] any new emissions that are permitted, whether from a new highway or anything like that, should require consultation [with independent scientists] because they affect polar bears. No. Science cannot show a direct causal link between emissions 2,000 miles or 5,000 miles away." (Climate scientists might have something to say about that, but I suppose that's another point for another post.)

So, Quimby concluded, the modifications set by the proposed ESA rule would say that "a federal agency cannot be required to hold consultations because those emissions could affect climate change."

Actually, the modifications would say that federal agencies will no longer be required to hold consultations with independent scientists, period. No matter what the circumstances. It goes that far.

National Wildlife Federation attorney Karla Raettig says the Interior Department is using the climate connection as an excuse. "It's absolutely not related," she said. "They're using it as an excuse, but the changes they're doing have very little to do with climate change, if anything. They're not revising regulations to deal with global warming...[They're using] it as an excuse to put through some [endangered species] changes that the administration wanted."

Bush Administration Launches "Sneak Attack" On Endangered Species Act

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:37:14 GMT

The Bush administration announced a proposal Monday to gut protections for endangered wildlife. New rules would overhaul the Endangered Species Act to allow federal agencies to decide by themselves whether agency construction projects (including highways, dams and mines) threaten endangered animals and plants. Until now, this process has always required independent scientific reviews.

Environmentalists are calling this move a "sneak attack" by the Bush administration. The proposed regulations will not be subject to congressional approval. Environmental organizations are shocked that the public comment period on the rules will only last a measly 30 days.

From a National Wildlife Federation press release:

"I have been working on the Endangered Species Act for 15 years and have never seen such a sneaky attack,” said John Kostyack, Executive Director of Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming at the National Wildlife Federation. “To suggest that our nation's most important wildlife law could be gutted after a mere [30-day] written comment period is the height of arrogance and disrespect for wildlife science. Elected officials have been saying no to proposals like this for [35] years.

“Do not be fooled when the Administration claims it is merely tweaking the law...The cumulative impact of these changes equals a full blown attack on America’s premier conservation law. We owe it to future generations to stop this attack and continue our legacy of protecting wildlife on the brink of extinction.”

That release came out before Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced the new regs, which he did in fact call a "narrow regulatory change."

From a statement by Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:
"This plan repeats and includes all of the disdain for science and political trumping of expertise that has characterized previous Bush Administration efforts to dismantle fundamental environmental laws.

These rules send a clear signal that the Administration will spend the rest of its days razing what remains of the rules and regulations that have kept wildlife like the bald eagle from going extinct."

Local Governments Take The Lead On Green Building

Suemedha Sood — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:32:43 GMT

Green-housing advocates and developers are quick to say progress in green building is being made at the state and local levels, driven by rising energy prices and concerns about climate change. And this week, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signed into law what's being considered the "nation's most aggressive green-building legislation."

The ordinance requires new commercial buildings larger than 5,000 square feet and residential buildings higher than 75 feet to acquire LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certifications. LEED is the most widely used green rating system for buildings in the United States. San Francisco's new law also requires renovations on buildings larger than 25,000 square feet to meet LEED standards.

Buildings account for 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Green Building Council -- the organization behind the LEED rating system.

The number of cities and counties enacting green building policies has increased three-fold in the last four years, according to USA Today. A record number of 14 states approved such policies last year; eight more states have done so this year. In 2008, six states enacted laws to require state buildings to meet LEED standards, and more than a dozen cities and counties followed suit.

Mayor Newsom told USA Today that action needs to come from local and state governments. He said: "It requires a mandate in order to get people to do what's in their best interests sometimes."

In A Lousy Housing Market, Green Housing Soars

Suemedha Sood — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:18:30 GMT

I was reading today in the Chicago Tribune about an exhibit at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry dedicated to green building. It's a 2,500-square-ft. green home with everything from bathroom tiles made of recycled wine bottles to a solar-paneled roof.

In light of my recent piece on green affordable housing, one point made in the Tribune article really stood out: Even though the housing market is badly suffering, green housing is growing faster than ever. The piece cited a McGraw-Hill study finding that green building is expected to account for 6 percent of the residential construction industry this year. It accounted for just 2 percent in 2005. That's a rapid increase.

There were several other interesting findings in the McGraw-Hill report. For one thing, over the next five years, the green housing market is expected to rise from $2 billion to $20 billion. And, owners of standard homes are making their living spaces more and more green. Green products are being used for 40 percent of remodeling work.

McGraw-Hill also looked at the reasons behind these market trends. Word-of-mouth is at the top of the list. The study found "green homeowners are happy with their homes and are recommending them at rates significantly higher than recommendation levels of other industries."

Homeowners are also buying green because they want to reduce energy and operating costs and improve the health of their families, the survey found.

Surprisingly, the biggest reason more people aren't buying green homes is lack of awareness -- not cost.

So, while some developers still shy away from green projects because of slightly higher initial costs, home buyers seem to recognize that paying more now means paying a lot less from now on.

The Great Offshore Drilling Flip-Flops

Suemedha Sood — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:24:42 GMT

Now that Sen. Barack Obama has hopped on the offshore drilling bandwagon, I find myself asking, who won't cross over to the dark side on this issue? Grist has a good answer: state governors.

As Grist's Kate Sheppard points out, President George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain and many GOPers agree that states should get final say in whether or not to allow drilling on their shores. And many state governors are saying no.

Gov. Aronld Schwarzenneger of California has loudly and repeatedly said no. He's also said that anyone claiming offshore drilling will reduce gas prices is "blowing smoke." Governors of Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Maine, South Carolina and North Carolina have all chimed in saying no too. Many of these governors give a reason besides conservation for its own sake. They say that offshore drilling would create eye sores that would hurt the tourism industry in their states. Others worry about the fishing industry.

So far the big governor flip-flop toward the offshore drilling ship comes from Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Many believe this was just a move to make him more desirable as a potential running mate for Sen. McCain, so it's quite possible Crist will flippity flop back to the opposing camp if he isn't the VP pick.

The good news remains that even if Congress gives offshore drilling the go-ahead, many states will stand strong to protect their economies and environments.

Affordable Housing Goes Green

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:57:27 GMT

Trolley Square is one of many new developments applying sustainable building practices to create a green living environment. The sleek brick building, in the heart of North Cambridge, Mass., tries many ways to conserve energy in the face of long New England winters. It has heavy insulation, high-efficiency boilers, programmable thermostats, variable speed fans, high-efficiency appliances, solar panels and lighting controlled by occupancy sensors. It has storm-water retention tanks to conserve water. It's close to public transportation, to cut down on automobile use. Trolley Square is green, green, green. But the project stands apart from most green developments because it was built for low-income residents.

The developer, Homeowner's Rehab Inc., built 40 affordable residential units -- 32 rental and 8 homeownership -- in addition to 2,800 sq ft of both community and commercial space and 14,000 sq ft of open space. The total cost of the project came to $15,300,000, funded by grants and loans from the city, the state, the federal government and affordable housing non-profits.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Green building is often regarded as a luxury of the rich, but affordable housing developers are beginning to take on the green standard. Low-income communities, many experts say, have a lot to gain from greener, more sustainable homes. Sustainable building practices lead to energy conservation, water conservation, healthier indoor air quality, more durable structures and access to public transportation -- all of which significantly cut down on long-term costs for residents.

The green building movement is also creating more jobs -- not only with new construction but also by retrofitting older structures. From a public-health perspective, building affordable housing as green has been shown to reduce injury and disease caused by environmental factors like lead poisoning, particularly in low-income neighborhoods.

While greening houses makes them more affordable on a daily-use basis, the process increases construction costs and also adds the expense of being certified as officially "green." According to an affordable housing study by the non-profit New Ecology Inc., going green can cost developers up to $9,700 more per unit of housing. On average, developers that build green affordable housing face a "greening premium" of roughly 2.42 percent.

This higher cost is the key reason most developers still shy away from building green lower-income housing. Since affordable units are rented or sold below-market rate, any additional building costs can make developers hesitate. In addition, the greening process can also take longer to build, and the certification process requires far more paperwork.

Some housing experts now talk about having local, state and federal governments pick up some of these added costs, in order to make the green standard the mainstream standard for affordable housing.

The challenge with affordable housing is balancing short-term costs with long-term gains, according to New Ecology Inc., a sustainable development group in New England that recently released a cost-benefit analysis of green affordable housing. Take, for example, a building located in a colder climate. Adding more insulation during construction can mean big savings on heating costs, but also means increased initial materials costs.

Other long-term considerations include operational costs, said New Ecology president Ed Connelly. "The challenge for affordable housing isn't just raising the money to build it. It's having the funds going forward to operate it," he said. "It's really not hard to come to a good balance between reducing operating costs by improving construction and performance of new buildings."

The additional price for greening these projects is about 2 to 3 percent of the total construction cost, according to data from the Maryland-based Enterprise Community Partners, a leading provider of capital and expertise for affordable housing and community development. But some developers say the government should be picking up that premium.

Eric Anderson, a developer with the New York-based Urban Green Builders, says the public sector could defray the marginal costs associated with green affordable housing. Urban Green Builders has gained attention for building green affordable housing in the same neighborhoods as green market-rate housing.

"I think the public side," Anderson said, "should take into account the additional capital cost in making decisions about how to finance housing."

That's because, he said, the long-term benefits of green housing are undeniable. He cited getting cars off the road and building stronger communities. According to Enterprise Community Partners, green developments also reduce energy use, cut CO2 emissions, cut health-care costs and even relieve some of the financial burden faced by Americans living in poverty.

Whether the federal government is doing enough is up for debate. But the Environmental Protection Agency has taken some action over the last decade, said New Ecology's Connelly. In 1992, the EPA instituted Energy Star, an international standard or qualification system for energy-efficient products and buildings. Buildings with an Energy Star certification use at least 15 percent less energy than standard buildings.

While the Energy Star rating system can be useful for affordable housing developers, there's a lot the federal government could offer in the way of public policy, says Dana Bourland, a green affordable housing expert who is senior director of Green Communities, a program of Enterprise Community Partners.

Green Communities is now carrying out a five-year plan to build 8,500 green homes for low-income residents. The project's goal is to make environmentally sustainable development the "mainstream" standard for affordable housing.

It's "critically important," says Bourland, that the government offer incentives for developers to go green and provide resources for them to do so. "It's good economic policy. And, at the same time, it leverages the investments that we're already putting into affordable housing," she said.

That's exactly what Green Communities has found at the state and local levels -- where governments take the resources they're already using for affordable housing and make them go farther, by investing in sustainability.

Green Communities, Bourland says, has found that public policy can do a lot even if it doesn't supply funding. Since building to the green standard is so different from building to regular building codes, a rethinking of the financial process is needed, Bourland says. "We need to reprioritize how we're allocating resources," said Bourland. "We can do green affordable housing currently, but if we can use additional or just current resources more effectively and just target them...buildings will have better performance over time."

The U.S. Green Building Council agrees that most progress now is at the local level. USGBC developed the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design) rating system -- the most widely used green-building certification system in the country. The LEED system has varying degrees of certification, and the one generally used for affordable housing is LEED For Homes. Achieving the highest LEED rating, LEED Platinum, means investing the most money into the most sustainable practices, because Platinum standards are especially strict. For example, developers would be required to obtain a certain number of materials manufactured within a few hundred miles of the building site, or to use state-of-the-art lighting systems.

Michelle Moore, senior vice president of policy and public affairs at USGBC, says efforts to make affordable housing green are often driven by local public policy. "There are many jurisdictions where mayors or city councils have taken leadership positions in delivering green communities for public investment in affordable housing," she said.

Moore also said that public support should go beyond investment in buildings. She talked about how local, state and federal government could invest in green-collar jobs.

"There's a great opportunity," Moore said, "to raise the skill level of people in the building trade, open up new local jobs and keep the jobs here." Skills training could also focus on not just new construction but on retrofitting existing buildings to bring them up to the green standard, says Moore.

Affordable housing advocates might be waiting for help on the federal level, says Moore, but there this is already happening on the local level. "We've seen a huge uptick in the number of green affordable housing projects," she said. "Most of the activity is happening at the local level...Mind shift happens at the local level in a lot of places."

But it may take more than just a mind shift. Experts seem to all agree that what's really needed to make affordable housing green is more green. The current cost premium on green construction, remains a real hurdle for developers of low-income housing, despite the benefits that these new studies show.

Republicans Stay in Washington, Push for Offshore Drilling

Mike Lillis — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:34:16 GMT

The House on Friday adjourned for the month-long August recess, but some Republicans have opted to stick around town to score political points in the absence of any Democrats. Continuing their strategy begun last Friday, a small group of GOPers took to the chamber floor again Monday to stage a one-sided debate on the virtues of expanding offshore drilling. It's a scene you can't watch on C-Span, which is turned off because the House is in recess. But the Republicans hope the rare spectacle will stir the public to pressure House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) to bring the drilling expansion up for a vote.

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have resisted the push, saying the expansion would have little effect on fuel prices. They accuse Republicans of using the energy crisis to advance a long-held, industry-friendly agenda, even as the oil companies are pulling in record profits.

Supporting the Democrats are the facts of the matter: A year-old analysis from the Energy Information Admin., for example, found that an offshore expansion would have no significant effect on domestic oil production or fuel prices before 2030. Republicans say that's no reason not to begin more drilling now. But their's is a dubious strategy in the midst of global warming concerns that have spurred most lawmakers to back a shift to cleaner energy sources for the health of the planet (ie, the humans living on it), not to mention America's economy.

But public sentiment, even when based on false premises, retains its power to influence lawmakers. (This, of course, makes some sense. We do, after all, still pretend to be a democracy). And new polls reveal that most Americans support offshore drilling expansion, even in places like Florida, where historic opposition to the practice has been widespread. The thorny question for Pelosi and other Democrats could be: Do we bow to the public whim in the face of contradictory facts, or buck the voters' wishes for the betterment of the country.

You'd think that shouldn't be difficult to answer, but you'd be forgetting that this is an election year.

FEMA Braces for Slew of Trailer Suits

Suemedha Sood — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:23:26 GMT

The Federal Emergency Management Agency last week asked for immunity from lawsuits over the high formaldehyde levels in the trailers it used to house Hurricane Katrina victims. FEMA says it did not build the trailers, merely bought them, so the manufacturers should be held solely responsible.

A U.S. attorney argued before a federal judge on July 23 that FEMA's response to the natural disaster is legally protected since the agency was exercising governmental discretion. Only Congress, he said, has the authority to address the agency's possible negligence. U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt of the Eastern District of Louisiana is taking the request under advisement. Attorneys for the plaintiffs expect a ruling in the next two or three weeks.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Congressional hearings have revealed that FEMA knew about the formaldehyde problem in its trailers and failed to take action for almost two years. FEMA's lawyers advised the agency not to test for toxicity in order to avoid liability -- but that advice may have left FEMA vulnerable to even greater liability. Those familiar with this gray legal area say the government agency could be held liable for several reasons.

FEMA began receiving complaints from trailer occupants about formaldehyde fumes in early 2006. Shortly thereafter, in April 2006, independent testing found levels to be well above safe living standards. In June, FEMA's lawyers warned the agency against doing its own tests, according to internal emails obtained by Congress. Agency employee Peggy Phillips wrote: "[Office of General Counsel] has advised that we do not do testing, which would imply FEMA's ownership of this issue."

FEMA attorney Patrick Preston gave the agency this advice:

"Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK. While I agree that we should conduct testing, we should not do so until we are fully prepared to respond to the results. Once you get results and should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them."

The agency did not perform testing. It did, however, release a public statement saying, "we are confident that there is no ongoing risk."

Monroe Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University who is a legal ethics expert, told The San Francisco Chronicle last year, "these lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence...They should also be held liable civilly for complicity in whatever harm was suffered by the residents of the trailers after their knowledge of the severe health risks."

David Super, a law professor at the Univ. of Maryland, said it's possible that such legal advice could hurt FEMA's case for immunity "if testing at an earlier stage would have been the prudent and reasonable thing to do."

"Just as people owe one another the duty of reasonable care to prevent harm from happening in first place," Super explained, "we also owe one another the duty to mitigate that harm as best within our power. I have a duty not to hit you with my car, but if I do, I have a further duty to help you get to the hospital or get medical care."

FEMA declined to comment on the toxic trailer lawsuits.

Super also pointed out that there is no general legal principle that the government is immune from lawsuits regarding its response to a disaster. "There's a good reason there's no such general principle," he said. "While we don't know when and where disasters will hit, we do know that disasters hit. Government agencies, including FEMA, are expected to plan for those disasters."

In fact, one year before Hurricane Katrina, FEMA did a full-scale simulation of what a storm similar to Katrina would look like. Its results showed that about a half-million people would be left homeless. This means. says Super, that the agency had reason to believe that emergency trailers would be needed to respond to such a disaster.

FEMA says the contractors are to blame for building trailers using cheap materials with high formaldehyde contents. While that may be true, the contractors built the mobile homes to specifications set by FEMA.

There is a legal difference, says Super, between someone who carries out an illegal act and someone who supervises that person. But, he said, "FEMA was certainly capable of issuing... specifications for safe trailers, which, if the reports are true, they did not."

FEMA's attorneys have argued in court papers that the government "is only liable in such situations if it supervised and directed day-to-day activities of its contractors, which did not occur in this case."

One lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Tony Buzbee, says that's just not true. FEMA employees were present every day at each of the eight main manufacturing facilities, and they inspected trailers as they came off the assembly line, according to deposition taken from the CEO of Gulf Stream Coach, the biggest trailer manufacturer.

Buzbee also says that FEMA's claim that it acted out of governmental discretion in its response to Hurricane Katrina may be a weak one. "FEMA was acting pursuant to a mandate. And that mandate required it to provide long-term and temporary housing that was safe and sufficient for residential use," he said. "There was no discretion involved. They were required to provide safe housing."

New Orleans attorney Davida Finger agrees. She runs the Katrina Law Clinic at Loyola University and works daily with local residents suffering from health problems as a result of living in toxic FEMA trailers. "No government agency has discretion in whether to provide something dangerous to the public or not," she said. "Agency discretion does not allow it to put the public in harm's way."

Trailer occupants have had their human rights violated, Finger says. "Housing is a fundamental human right, and disaster housing was and continues to be a mandate of the federal government," she said. "What we know is that those who were most vulnerable were placed in the greatest harm."

The plaintiffs' attorneys are also going after the contractors, including Gulf Stream Coach, the manufacturer given the biggest FEMA contract -- a $522 million contract to build 50,000 trailers.

Gulf Stream employees say the company knew about the unsafe formaldehyde levels. "In the first instance," Buzbee said, "it's the manufacturers who are primarily responsible. However, FEMA's response in the way it handled this situation was a true debacle." Especially, he added, because the agency made efforts to cover it up.

Gulf Stream Coach did not return several calls made by The Washington Independent.

Three years after Hurricane Katrina, many people are still living in the FEMA-issued trailers. The trailers were never intended for long-term housing -- they were meant for short-term, emergency use only.

This has only exacerbated the effects of the building specifications set by FEMA, which fall below federal safety standards.

"The fact that people are still in those trailers," said Super of the Univ. of Maryland, "is a failure on FEMA's part."

Not to Beat This Stephen Johnson Resignation Push to Death…

Mike Lillis — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:30:00 GMT

…but the questions of potential perjury are not the only charges being leveled at the controversial EPA administrator. Yesterday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) delivered a lengthy tirade on the chamber floor outlining nine separate reasons he says Johnson is unfit for the job. The entire speech is worth reading, but here's a quick summary of the charged ineptitude (which Matt has cataloged diligently):

One: Setting inadequate standards on ozone pollutants:

Indeed it was so inadequate that EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) took the unique step of writing to the Administrator to state that they "do not endorse the new primary ozone standard as being sufficiently protective of the public health" and that the EPA's decision "fail[ed] to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air Act that you ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals, including sensitive populations."

Two: Setting inadequate standards on lead pollutants:

Both an independent scientific review panel and EPA's own scientific staff recommended a lead standard of no greater than 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter, yet Administrator Johnson proposed a range of 0.1 up to 0.5 micrograms -- two and a half times [higher than the recommendations].

Three: Inadequate standards on soot:

Administrator Johnson bowed to pressure from industry and failed to strengthen a decade-old standard limiting particulate matter pollution from smokestacks.

Four: Denying California's proposed vehicle emissions waiver:

EPA staff indicated in briefing materials that "we don't believe there are any good arguments against granting the waiver." … Yet Administrator Johnson issued an unprecedented denial of that waiver.

Five: Refusal to tackle greenhouse gases:

[I]n defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. E.P.A., Administrator Johnson has failed to take action after the court's ruling that EPA has the authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that pollute our air and warm our planet.

Six: A proclivity for leaning on dubious legal arguments:

When EPA tried to defend its weak mercury "cap and trade" system, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals -- which as we know is hardly a liberal bench -- accused the agency of employing the "logic of the Queen of Hearts" in attempting to evade the intent of Congress and the clear meaning of the Clean Air Act.

Seven: Allowing industry "to infiltrate" the EPA's advisory boards:

For example, an employee of Exxon Mobil served on the panel to assess the carcinogenicity of ethyl oxide -- a chemical manufactured by Exxon Mobil.

Eight: Political interference in decision-making (pointing to an April Union of Concerned Scientists' report ):

The report found that 60 percent of EPA career scientists surveyed had personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years.

And nine: Altering EPA procedure to allow the White House's Office of Management and Budget influence over decisions:

For example, the [EPA] process for determining the toxicity of chemicals that all of us are exposed to, allows OMB three separate chances to exert its dark influence, at the beginning, in the middle, and again at the end of the agency process. In the words of the GAO, this process is "inconsistent with the principle of sound science that relies on, among other things, transparency."

The speech arrived just as a quartet of Senate Democrats (including Whitehouse) called on U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey to investigate Johnson for discrepancies between his sworn testimony in January and that given by another EPA official last week.

Not that it should come as any surprise that a Bush administration appointee would place conservative ideology over the good of the country (see this week's DoJ report on the "inexperienced punk," Monica Goodling). But issues that affect folks from all ideologies -- justice and the environment being two standouts -- shouldn't be held hostage by any one.

As the first EPA chief, William Ruckelshaus, said 38 years ago:

EPA is an independent agency. It has no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment.

That shouldn't be controversial in any political environment.

McCain Bets on Off Shore Drilling

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:05:26 GMT

**Editor's Note: This piece has been updated to include the results of a new poll released July 30.

On a January afternoon in 1969, Paradise was violated and the modern environmental movement was born.

Six miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., a “blowout” erupted below a Union Oil Co. platform, spewing crude oil from drilling-induced cracks in the Santa Barbara Channel floor.

It took almost two weeks to cap the leak and, before it was plugged, the oil spill had grown to more than 3 million gallons. It spread across 800 square miles of ocean, spoiling more than 35 miles of Southern California’s coast.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Dead and injured sea animals and birds washed up along the beaches, covered in the black goo. Images of the devastation, transmitted around the world, helped galvanize environmentalists and triggered the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air Act.

In the wake of Santa Barbara’s calamity, the U.S. president, a Republican and a California native, observed, “What is involved is the use of our resources of the sea and of the land in a more effective way and with more concern for preserving the beauty and the natural resources that are so important to any kind of society that we want for the future. The Santa Barbara incident,” Richard M. Nixon concluded, “has frankly touched the conscience of the American people.”

Offshore oil drilling became a “third rail issue” in California politics—touch it and you die. It’s remained so for nearly 40 years— particularly for state Democrats, who rely on environmentalists as a key constituency. And, by-and-large, the nation went along.

Then, with skyrocketing oil and gas prices, and increasing economic distress, President George W. Bush announced he was lifting the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling. He called on Congress to lift its ban as well. Offshore oil drilling has resurfaced as a hot-button issue on the national level. It is an issue that divides voters and the two presidential candidates.

When the 2008 campaign began, both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama opposed offshore drilling. Mc Cain had also opposed it in his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. Both McCain and Obama were—somewhat successfully — wooing environmentalists. McCain’s green energy stand was one way he could distance himself from an extraordinarily unpopular president.

Why then did McCain reverse himself and call for lifting offshore drilling restrictions —even before Bush lifted the presidential ban? His switch angered environmental groups he’d been wooing for years. In California, his switch irked many moderate Republicans, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had endorsed McCain, but who roundly criticized the Arizona senator’s new take on offshore drilling.

Taking a calculated risk that voter anger about high fuel prices would trump environmentalism in today’s economy, McCain positioned himself alongside to Bush on an issue that independents and Democrats -- as well as many suburban Republicans -- care about; McCain gambled on giving Obama an opening to link him to “the same misguided approach backed by President Bush,” as well as to “big oil companies.”

But McCain’s risk could pay off. Essentially, McCain has traded any likelihood of taking California in November -- a pie-in-the-sky assumption about this blue state, anyway -- for the possibility of gaining votes in crucial Heartland states, like Michigan and Ohio

In pivotal Florida, for example, Democrats and Republicans have long been united in their opposition to offshore drilling. But there now appears to be a shift in opinion favorable to McCain’s new stance. The state’s Republican governor, Charlie Crist, a V.P. prospect, changed sides to support McCain. In addition, a just-released Rasmussen survey shows that 57 percent of Florida voters now favor of offshore drilling, while only 32 percent do not. A slim majority of voters (51 percent) in this battleground state think reducing gas prices is more important than protecting the environment.

National polls reveal that voters might be ready to endorse lifting the ban. A Gallup poll in mid-May showed that 57 percent of respondents favored “[a]llowing oil drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off-limits to oil exploration.” Tellingly, there were significant partisan differences in support. Only 38 percent of Democrats agreed with this, compared to 80 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of those coveted independent voters.

A Rasmussen survey from June--before McCain announced his support--showed 67 percent of voters now support oil drilling off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18 percent disagree.

This survey, too, revealed a significant partisan divide -- 85 percent of Republicans favor offshore drilling, compared to 57 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independent voters.

In California, on the other hand, a statewide Field Poll as recently as early July shows voters “remain opposed to the idea of allowing oil companies to drill more oil and gas wells along the California coastline.“ Fifty-one percent of Californians are opposed, and 43 percent approve. However, statewide opposition is down from a high of 62 percent in 1990 and 56 percent in 2001 and 2005.

There are partisan differences here, too. Republicans approve offshore drilling by 63 percent -- but that’s 17 points lower than their approval nationally. Democrats disapprove 61 percent to 31 percent (nationally their approval registers slightly higher, at 39 percent). Significantly, in the Golden State, 58 percent of independents disapprove of offshore drilling -- nationally that figure is 43 percent.

**However, a just-released survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) shows that Californians' support for offshore oil drilling has suddenly increased to 51 percent (up from 41 percent in 2007). According to the PPIC analysis, it's "the first time since 2003, when PPIC first posed the question, that more Californians favor offshore drilling than oppose it (45 percent), a shift caused in large part by a surge in support among Republicans (77 percent, up from 60 percent)." Six of 10 Democrats and half of independents still oppose offshore oil drilling to meet our energy needs. This shift in voter opinion, according to PPIC, is "one of many reactions to soaring gas prices."

Yet none of these numbers tell the entire story. They cannot gauge the intensity of public opinion. In the end, offshore oil drilling is an issue not unlike gun control. The passion is still on the side of its opponents. That could mobilize the environmental movement against McCain come the fall. For other voters the issue may have less importance, and be less motivating.

Both sides now think they can capitalize on the issue of oil drilling. Democrats are looking to gain ground with a flurry of ads attacking Republicans up and down the ballot for bedding down politically with Big Oil. At the same time, McCain is planning to assail the Democrats' inaction on oil independence, staging photo ops in front of oil wells.

It remains to be seen which strategy — if either — will pay political dividends. But it’s hard to imagine McCain striking an electoral gusher with his new embrace of offshore drilling for oil independence.

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe is a senior scholar at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development.

Senate Dems Call on EPA Chief to Resign

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:13:31 GMT

Four Senate Democrats have called for EPA administrator Stephen Johnson to resign.

Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) say Johnson has repeatedly put politics before public health and the environment and have called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate Johnson on allegations of perjury and obstruction of Congress.

The senators believe an investigation is necessary to determine whether Johnson made false statements regarding California's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

"Johnson's EPA has shown an extraordinary disregard for the law," Boxer told reporters today. "It's unlawful, the things they have done. And by extension, they've shown a disregard for the people that we represent and for all the American people."

EPA to Employees: Don't Talk to Investigators

Suemedha Sood — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:29:04 GMT

It comes as little surprise to reporters that the EPA warns its staff against talking to the press. But now there's some evidence that the agency is also discouraging employees from talking to congressional investigators and even its own inspector general.

A June 16th email, leaked to the non-partisan group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), instructs managers to send friendly reminder to staffers to “not respond to questions or make any statements” to investigators or reporters and to instead direct inquiries to certain designated officials. (PEER is a national alliance of local, state and federal professionals "dedicated to upholding environmental laws.")

Interestingly, the EPA press secretary, Jonathan Shradar, told me in an interview earlier this year, that the EPA has an "unwritten policy" that employees are free to talk to the media about their work, as long as they make the press office aware of such communication. "Anyone can talk to the media," he told me. "That is fine." (I didn't ask about congressional investigators, though.)

Here's the text of the June 16th email, which was sent by Robbi Farrell, head of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the agency:

Robbi Farrell/DC/USEPA
/US
06/16/2008 11:22 AM

Subject PLEASE REMIND STAFF re:
RESPONDING TO GAO, IG AND PRESS

Please remind your staff at your next staff meeting of the
following policies and procedures.

1. If you are contacted by a reporter, please forward
the call or email to Laura Gentile and Roxanne Smith, cc
Robbi. Please do not respond to questions or make any
statements.

2. If you are contacted directly by the IG's office or
GAO requesting information of any kind, please forward
their call or email to Gwen Spriggs, cc Robbi. Please do
not respond to questions or make any statements.

Thanks very much for your continued attention to these
important procedures.

Robbi

And here's the EPA's response. It is a statement from spokeswoman Roxanne Smith, one of the press officers referred to in the email.

"The enforcement office issued a memo that established standard operating procedures within that office to efficiently respond to requests from GAO and EPA's Inspector General. This procedure was developed in part to
respond to a recent IG report, "EPA can Improve its Oversight of Audit Followup," and to ensure consistency and coordination among those responding to IG and GAO reports. There is nothing in the standard operating procedures that restricts conversation between OECA staff and the IG. In fact, the IG reviewed OECA's procedures and signed off on them. The procedures simply ensure timely responses and assist in tracking and record keeping obligations."

Ah. So the officials who are allowed to talk to investigators can get their stories straight first. That's what "consistency and coordination" means, right?

Environment from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Waxman v. Stephen Johnson, Clean Water Act Edition

Beijing Wins 'Gold' For Green Building

How To Send In Comments On Endangered Species Act

﻿Despite Pelosi Flip-Flop on Drilling Vote, GOP Energy Revolt Continues

Global Warming Battle Heats Up

More Green Affordable Housing Successes

Big Oil Ties Could Hurt GOP

Endangered Species Threatened by Bush

Endangered Species Overhaul Is NOT About Climate Change

Bush Administration Launches "Sneak Attack" On Endangered Species Act

Local Governments Take The Lead On Green Building

In A Lousy Housing Market, Green Housing Soars

The Great Offshore Drilling Flip-Flops

Affordable Housing Goes Green

﻿Republicans Stay in Washington, Push for Offshore Drilling

FEMA Braces for Slew of Trailer Suits

﻿Not to Beat This Stephen Johnson Resignation Push to Death…

McCain Bets on Off Shore Drilling

Senate Dems Call on EPA Chief to Resign

EPA to Employees: Don't Talk to Investigators

Despite Pelosi Flip-Flop on Drilling Vote, GOP Energy Revolt Continues

Republicans Stay in Washington, Push for Offshore Drilling

Not to Beat This Stephen Johnson Resignation Push to Death…