2008 Woodie Awards
EPA should - actually - protect the environment
DI Editorial Board
Issue date: 4/11/08 Section: Opinions
When the Environmental Protection Agency was asked, more than a year ago, to do its job by regulating carbon-dioxide emissions from new cars and trucks, the agency made the bizarre claim that it did not have the authority to do so. Shortly after, in April of last year, the Supreme Court reminded the EPA that the agency did, in fact, have such authority, and the attourneys general urged the agency to take such action "without delay."
Seventeen states, including Iowa, have played leapfrog to the EPA's tortoise; beginning to take actions to reduce greenhouse emissions and improve fuel economy. These efforts were blocked, however, by EPA head and Bush lackey Stephen Johnson, who claimed, "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules. I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."
This would seem logical, but the efforts by the states, specifically California, would have been more stringent than the planned efforts of the EPA. So after waiting for a ruling and action from the EPA, the states were held back at Johnson's insistence that the agency was "moving forward."
And now, finally, the EPA is indeed moving forward, if by moving forward it means backward, completely stationary, or not ahead.
The EPA has now decided, after realizing its authority and telling the states to be patient, that a public-comment period will occur, for 90 days, to determine the national pulse on the issue of emissions. And after this period of "listening" the EPA will analyze the comments it has received for an undetermined amount of time, of course.
Most will scoff at this decision to include the "public." (For which cynics could read "the oil industry," and not without reason.) Some may call it foot-dragging. This Editorial Board believes it is a brilliant resolution and shows tremendous judgment and that the EPA should take all the time it needs. The Earth, its pollution, and all of us will still be here when EPA officials feel comfortable performing their duties and cleaning up the environment. We hope the wisdom of this decision can be an example for other issues that the administration faces. We think it's admirable that the EPA thinks so highly of public opinion, and the decision to wait to gather such involvement is a great example of democracy inaction.
Why not a public-comment period on waterboarding, White House leaks, or warrantless wiretapping? Let's chat about Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, or Samuel Alito. How about some discussion with the masses regarding Medicare and Social Security, Darfur, and the Patriot Act? Most of all, let's talk about Iraq. You do want to know what we think about Iraq, right?
Oh, but we forget, the discussion on Iraq has been going on for years now. Surely the same desire for citizen's voices, the same ear tuned to the American public, that focused attention given to what we think about emissions is just as honed as those other issues, such as Iraq? So when Dick Cheney was confronted, in an interview, with the fact that the American people think the fight in Iraq isn't worth the cost, in lives and in money, what was his response?
"So?"
Do your job, EPA.
Seventeen states, including Iowa, have played leapfrog to the EPA's tortoise; beginning to take actions to reduce greenhouse emissions and improve fuel economy. These efforts were blocked, however, by EPA head and Bush lackey Stephen Johnson, who claimed, "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules. I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."
This would seem logical, but the efforts by the states, specifically California, would have been more stringent than the planned efforts of the EPA. So after waiting for a ruling and action from the EPA, the states were held back at Johnson's insistence that the agency was "moving forward."
And now, finally, the EPA is indeed moving forward, if by moving forward it means backward, completely stationary, or not ahead.
The EPA has now decided, after realizing its authority and telling the states to be patient, that a public-comment period will occur, for 90 days, to determine the national pulse on the issue of emissions. And after this period of "listening" the EPA will analyze the comments it has received for an undetermined amount of time, of course.
Most will scoff at this decision to include the "public." (For which cynics could read "the oil industry," and not without reason.) Some may call it foot-dragging. This Editorial Board believes it is a brilliant resolution and shows tremendous judgment and that the EPA should take all the time it needs. The Earth, its pollution, and all of us will still be here when EPA officials feel comfortable performing their duties and cleaning up the environment. We hope the wisdom of this decision can be an example for other issues that the administration faces. We think it's admirable that the EPA thinks so highly of public opinion, and the decision to wait to gather such involvement is a great example of democracy inaction.
Why not a public-comment period on waterboarding, White House leaks, or warrantless wiretapping? Let's chat about Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, or Samuel Alito. How about some discussion with the masses regarding Medicare and Social Security, Darfur, and the Patriot Act? Most of all, let's talk about Iraq. You do want to know what we think about Iraq, right?
Oh, but we forget, the discussion on Iraq has been going on for years now. Surely the same desire for citizen's voices, the same ear tuned to the American public, that focused attention given to what we think about emissions is just as honed as those other issues, such as Iraq? So when Dick Cheney was confronted, in an interview, with the fact that the American people think the fight in Iraq isn't worth the cost, in lives and in money, what was his response?
"So?"
Do your job, EPA.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 4
Miketh
posted 4/11/08 @ 10:03 AM CST
Thanks to Al Gore and his merry band of chicken littles, "global warming" is front and center on the environmental debate, and everything else is well, not trendy or cool anymore. (Continued…)
Marvin L Foushee
posted 4/11/08 @ 5:31 PM CST
Ethanol is used a an oxygenator (reduced CO emissions), and it causes a cooler engine combustion chamber--ozone, NO, NO2, SO, SO2 are chemical compounds formed in the higher temperature combustion range. (Continued…)
Post a Comment