Environmental Groups Hope Obama Will Rebuild EPA After Bush Years

Reader Comments
Back to article

I believe reform is really needed in respect to protecting our water and natural habitates all around the world. Yes that means here in america as well. The polititions seem to think their not to blame- always the politition before them is at fault

Kelly Bounds of PA 11:11AM August 03, 2011

Why is the dioxin reassessment having to be done again. It should be finalized. Since 1977 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has stated that dioxin is a "Human Carcinogen".

george claxton of MI 4:32PM January 22, 2009

For just one example, check out the latest report from the Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector General regarding "The Endangered Species Act and the Conflict Between Science and Policy" at http://www.doioig.gov/. Or read a Washington Post article here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/12/report_interior_office_meddled.html?nav=rss_blog
The Inspector General found extensive improper influence from FWS officials in ESA decisions contrary to scientific evidence.
It truly is time for a change! I hope President-elect Obama's latest choices for Energy and Environment posts will renew a much-needed respect for science in our government.

Hopeful Biologist of ID 9:35PM December 16, 2008

I thought a lot of the complaints about the Bush administration was it reduced the amounts of cuts, but not that he increased the amount going into the Air. It is a game when you say someone is increasing the mercury levels by 50% because they plan to cut 20% rather than 30%.
I do think the idea that we should tax meat (check out the proposed tax on cows, pigs and chickens for global warming impacts) out is a bad idea and this is what I fear on environmental regulation. Not sound science or good policy decision, but rather a feel good environmental wacko agenda led by ALF and PETA.

Ronald Gardner of TX 8:42AM December 13, 2008

All the opportunists will come out of the woodwork as they do when a leftist comes to power...Greg makes some very sound points....the democratic controlled congress has done nothing for two years except produce hot air....more regulations, more work for environmental lawyers to tie up the economic recovery of the country with more regulation.
What I would be worried about is the subcabinet level appointments of some of the more radical environmental movement types that supported Obama being placed in positions to do more harm than good imposing their elitist policies on others....
Look at NY - more people leaving here than any state in the union and more environmental regulations and taxes.....some balance is required...

marcus of NY 11:48AM December 01, 2008

When this article and comments took the tone that somehow Democrat (or liberal environmentalist) environmental policies are grounded in science and those evil Republicans eschew science, I had to pick my jaw up off of the table! If science were truly the basis for environmental and public health decisions then we would have never banned Alar and we wouldn't have squandered untold millions of dollars ripping asbestos out of schools! (Both policies with no real public health benefit, and arguably counterproductive - such as more asbestos exposure during the removal process.)
News flash - like other government agencies, the EPA makes POLICY, and policy does not slavishly follow only science. (If it did, we would just have the science advisory boards and no need of all those bureaucrats.) Science can't tell you what is acceptable and what is not - that is unavoidably a POLICY decision. Science is weighed with cost, practicabilty, enforceability, public opinion, etc.
The other thing a policy-making body needs is legal authority. (Again, it may be news to some, but the EPA can't go around banning this and regulating that just because it's the "right thing to do" - it needs legal authority from Congress.) On Global Warming, the Bush administration reasonably (and correctly, in my opinion) concluded that the Clean Air Act did not authorize regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) - foremost being CO2. By the time the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act came around, Congress essentially micro-managed the EPA and listed hundreds of specific "regulated pollutants" - and none of them are CO2. Once the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA did have authority to regulated GHGs, the Bush EPA set to work trying to figure out how to regulate them. The conclusion was that no existing program (i.e. a legally-authorized regulatory framework) can effectively regulate GHGs, so additional legislation is necessary.
So (Democrat-controlled) Congress, get to work! "Bankrupt the coal industry" and send "utility rates skyrocketting", just as Obama promised in the campaign!
P.S. I've been in the environmental business - mostly air pollution - for over 20 years so I know of what I speak.

Greg of NY 11:16AM December 01, 2008

Yes, some species will continue to go extinct no matter what we do, but any fair reading of the evidence says that humans are accelerating the process dramatically through their actions, and that entire categories -- large mammals for example -- are being stressed way beyond anything you could fairly call "natural." We have progressed beyond nature's ability to react and adjust to our efforts. And if you have no feeling for other species, what about humans? The "damn the environment, full speed ahead" attitude dooms future generations to a much poorer situation. Got any kids or grandkids? Nieces or nephews?
The false choice of drilling aggressively in our country or sending $700 billion a year to "countries that hate us" is getting old, too. We can tap resources sparingly and selectively, and still reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It won't happen overnight, but drilling like maniacs doesn't accomplish that goal either. And, of course, proponents habitually neglect to mention that most of that $700B goes to Canada and Mexico, not the Middle East. Canadians may have issues with us, but they don't hate us, and Mexicans seem to want to come here in large numbers, and to welcome our investments in their industries at home. They don't hate us either. It's time to retire this "drill, baby, drill" argument.

Byron of MD 1:37PM November 28, 2008

The Obama administration should take an agressive approach to environmental issues with an economic slant. Too often environmentalism conflicts with economics as the two efforts are not normally complimentary yet the modern era has created an environment where environmentalism IS economically smart. Mandating CFLs, LEDs, LCDs, energy smart appliances, conserving energy, recycling, etc... are now economically feasible methods as well as environmentally friendly. The Obama administration can capitalize upon this aspect of the two movements converging by adopting economically & environmentally sound clean energy to kill two political birds with one stone. A new energy plan must be both economically and environmentally feasible creating unity between the two factions. IE. wind turbines atop mountain ranges create clean electricity to power cities reducing air pollution, green buildings save money in their life-cycle events while conserving resources, recycling reduces landfill waste while producing inexpensive recycled materials, etc...

Ray Fisher of NM 10:58AM November 28, 2008

As the saying goes, it takes an airhead to know an airhead. I have just read the scribbles of several airheads who must listen to Rush Looserbaugh. Who benefits from McMansions? The builders of course. Who benefitted from high oil prices? The greedy Oil Industry. Who will benefit from keeping more trees alive? The nation, of course. Who benefits from talking airheads? No one. So let those who are knowledgeable do the talking and the airheads should listen--they may learn something for a change.

Ann of IA 4:13PM November 26, 2008

It is time that America stops reacting to every person or group with a cause.
Ask yourself how many animals have gone extinct. Extinction is a normal process in nature. It has happen, it will continue to happen. Sending millions of dollars to try and stop it is a waste of time and money.
Do we all want a clean enviroment, of course we do. The question is at what cost? Do we want to tear down the hydro ele dams so the fish have a natural water way or do we want electricty for our homes?
So we want to drill for oil and natural gas in this country or do we want to continue to send $700 billion a year to countries that hate us?
It's my guess that most Americans do not want to go back to the days of candles and the horse and buggy.

Keith of MO 10:02AM November 26, 2008