« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
You can say that the Bush Administration is a band of crooks. You can say that they're by and large incompetent. But you can't say they lack chutzpah.
And when it comes to chutzpah, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson clearly has got what it takes. But will he hold the line now that Congress is bringing its probing power to bear?
Late last month, Johnson denied California's petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. It was an act of pure, unmitigated, just-because-I-can chutzpah.
A little background first: California's rule would seek to cut emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016. Not surprisingly, that's a much steeper cut than the Bush Administration (and the auto industry) wants. Since other states are following California's lead, half of the American population (and car consumers) could be affected. The CEOs of Ford and Chrysler met with Dick Cheney late last year to have a chat about this.
But Johnson came through. Consider Johnson denied California its waiver (states have to get the EPA's OK before instituting environmental rules) despite:
-- the unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs that he should grant the waiver
-- being told by the agency's legal staff that if he blocked the waiver, EPA would lose in court when California and environmentalists sued, but that if he granted the waiver, the move would stand in court no matter who challenged it
-- not having any real reason for denying the waiver
-- California has never had a waiver denied in the Clean Air Act's 37-year history
So far, in the two weeks since Johnson made his move, journalists haven't had much luck finding anyone who will say that his decision is supportable. The Washington Post quoted William Reilly, who was EPA administrator under President George H.W. Bush as saying, "What I want to know from the [administration] is: What possible grounds would there possibly be to deny California this waiver?"
As for Johnson and the administration, their tactic seems to be to brazen their way through this.
The President has offered a "clear national solution" to the problem of auto greenhouse omissions, Johnson said. He had to block California's rules because it would lead to a "confusing patchwork of state rules."
And about that unanimous-staff-revolt thing? His spokeswoman says that Johnson "tremendously values the legal and technical expertise of his staff," but that "the Clean Air Act states that the authority to decide waiver requests rests with the administrator. He evaluated the waiver ... and obviously he made his decision." So there.
President Bush certainly thought Johnson made the right call. "Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?" So much for state's rights.
But now comes the real test of Johnson's chutzpah reservoir. House sleuth Henry Waxman (D-CA) says that he'll investigate the decision. Senate environmental committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will hold hearings. And yesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) requested that the EPA's inspector general launch an investigation.
And don't forget the courts. That lawsuit with the foreordained outcome has already been launched. Yesterday, California, 15 other states, and five environmental group filed suit.
How will Johnson hold up under Waxman's questioning? Stay tuned.
Comments (38)
sailmaker wrote on January 4, 2008 10:40 AM:I wonder if Waxman will be able to find Cheney's hand in this, and if he does, something more than the proverbial strongly worded letter will go out?
Gnopple wrote on January 4, 2008 10:41 AM:Jonathan Adler at the Volokh Conspiracy had a post on this recently:
Does It Matter EPA Staff Opposed Waiver Decision? Several news outlets report that EPA career staff recommended that Administrator Stephen Johnson approve California’s waiver request. According to these accounts, the “unanimous opinion” of EPA legal and technical staff supported the waiver request. Does this matter? Some bloggers think so. I don’t. Agency expertise is important, but it is not the end-all-be-all of agency decision-making, and it is no substitute for politically accountable policy decisions by political appointees.
Although I think it is preposterous that they did this, it's a political problem, not necessarily a legal one. I am interested to read the briefs, though.
eli wrote on January 4, 2008 10:43 AM:They're just running out the clock. They might lose, eventually, but they won't lose TODAY.
r€nato wrote on January 4, 2008 10:58 AM:gee and here I was thinking that Republicans stood for 'states' rights'.
silly me. I guess they are only for states' rights when it comes to things like abortion, slavery and Jim Crow laws.
Dave Bowman wrote on January 4, 2008 11:15 AM:This is how American car companies 'innovate'--apparently, Ford and Chrysler are much better at lobbying than building cars appropriate for the 21st century. No wonder they are getting their lunch eaten by every other car maker in the world.
gcs wrote on January 4, 2008 11:28 AM:Of course they'll lose in court. They know that full well. They know it so well they already have a post-loss strategy - blame "activist judges."
And it's still a win-win-win for them. They keep their hard-line conservative creds, they still get campaign contributions (and cushy jobs) from the industries they tried to protect, and the obedient 28% who still think Bush has a clue stay right in line where they belong.
This is how liberty dies.
scuseme wrote on January 4, 2008 11:48 AM:So what's the national strategy? Let the auto makers and oil companies write our environmental laws?
California has 10's of millions of cars, so auto emissions may be a bit bigger problem there than in other states. The idea that CA be forced into some federal lowest common denominator is ridiculous. How do we move ahead if some states are disallowed from leading on the issue?
As usual, corrupt and incompetent governance from the worst administration ever.
Rajan wrote on January 4, 2008 12:01 PM:I am not an attorney but an experienced environmental professional. California may be on fairly solid legal grounds with the law suit against the EPA. Because, long before the EPA came into being, the Los Angeles Air Pollution District was established in the late 1940s-early 1950s as the country's first air pollution control agency. As a result, that district was given some "primacy" over the ability to regulate air pollution over and above EPA mandates. I am not sure whether it applies to "mobile" sources; because at some point, EPA asserted that they are the only agency which can control emissions from vehicles. The legal ground is somewhat "iffy". But with the Roberts court, I wouldn't be surprised the decision goes against California in spite of the previous finding by the appeals courts.
Vic wrote on January 4, 2008 12:02 PM:Regarding the "patchwork" business. My understanding is that the Clean Air Act lets California, and only California, create a different standard; the other states only have the option to use the CA standard instead of the Federal one. So it would be a patchwork of two standards, no more.
doc wrote on January 4, 2008 12:05 PM:OT
No one seems to see the problems with 40 year mortgages with zero down!
FHA Reforms
NAR successfully lobbied for the passage of H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, which helps modernize FHA by expanding the availability of safe and affordable FHA-backed loans for purchases and refinances. The bill includes provisions to eliminate the 3% down payment requirement, increase loan limits up to 175% of the conforming limit in high-cost areas, streamline condominium purchases, and eliminate the cap on Home Equity Conversion mortgages (HECMs). The Senate Banking Committee passed a similar bill. The Senate bill is expected on the floor by the end of the year.
Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae Reform
jeffgee wrote on January 4, 2008 12:07 PM:NAR also successfully lobbied for passage of H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Financing Reform Act of 2007, which overhauls the regulatory structure of the nation’s housing finance government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). H.R. 1427 provides for regional adjustments to the caps on mortgages the GSEs may buy for high-cost areas, helping more working families qualify for safer GSE loans. The House passed H.R. 1427, 313-104. The Senate has taken no action to date.
Just another loyal Bushie, who, like his Master, makes decisions completely contrary to the advice of all experts, in the service of Dick Cheney's ideology.
logorrhea wrote on January 4, 2008 12:30 PM:It wasn't enough that their friends at Enron ripped off Californians with their manufactured power shortage, the Bushies show that they don't care about California's air quality.
eli and gcs are right on. I'm sure all parties (i.e. Johnson, Cheney, auto industry) know they'll lose eventually. The fight is made worthwhile by the millions that are saved in the months that it takes to go through the courts.
mo2 wrote on January 4, 2008 12:33 PM:In California I keep seeing certain links between the law firm of Preston Gates & Ellis LLP and Bush DOJ appointments. In particular Orange and San Diego Districts are facing some sort of environmental catastrophe, given how much effort Cheney has put into subduing justice in those areas.
bob wrote on January 4, 2008 12:44 PM:Doesn't this only apply to carbon dioxide emissions? My understanding of the denial of the waiver was that our illustrious attorney general (the former gov. moonbeam) believes that California can either stop global warming or "send a message." Frankly, I didn't vote for him to go on a quixotic crusade like this. I voted for him because he promised to continue successful law enforcement programs instead.
We've got real problems here in the Golden State. I would rather that the AG's very finite budget wasn't spent appealing this. Maybe you guys can save the world instead of us. Thanks!
- bob
Jen wrote on January 4, 2008 12:53 PM:Well Bob...
As the quote says, "If not us, who? If not now, when?"
I understand your concerns, but this blatant over-reaching by the administration has to stop... they will not do so willingly, so it is up to someone to put the proverbial kibash on it.
EH wrote on January 4, 2008 1:04 PM:"Agency expertise is important, but it is not the end-all-be-all of agency decision-making, and it is no substitute for politically accountable policy decisions by political appointees."
Huh? Of course it's a substitute and it's just as politically accountable as any other decision. Conservatives are historically for states' rights, no?
Furthermore, Johnson has completely discounted the unanimous opinion of EPA staff. This means that he is wasting taxpayer money when he ignores their recommendations. What is Johnson's role in this, if not to be a mere tyrant?
EH wrote on January 4, 2008 1:06 PM:bob:
"My understanding of the denial of the waiver was that our illustrious attorney general (the former gov. moonbeam) believes that California can either stop global warming"
Do you have a citation for your assertion that AG Brown said that this policy can stop global warming by itself?
Scott L wrote on January 4, 2008 1:11 PM:I think the only thing I would like to know is do these fine Republicans take their kickbacks in dollars or euros?
Gnopple wrote on January 4, 2008 1:23 PM:EH,
I agree that this is foolish and counter to the basic tenets of federalism -- an argument I would hope SOMEONE would throw back at Bush or Perino or Johnson. But that's a political argument, too.
In an administration that feels accountable to facts or the electorate, you might get a little shake up. But with the Bush Administration, they don't care what anybody thinks -- not the experts or the people they represent.
That said, how do you disassociate the EPA administrator from the EPA? It's not a separate democratic institution where people can vote on policy. It's an agency, run by the agency head.
How can a court claim that the head of the agency is bound by the opinions of his subordinates? He just isn't. He should be removed--and I think that sites like TPM should keep the political pressure on--but I'm wary of trying to establish a rule of law that handicaps an administrator or a secretary or, for that matter, the president.
Bush will be gone soon enough...just keep up the political pressure.
chisholm wrote on January 4, 2008 1:24 PM:Why would Johnson have to testify if he doesn't want to? Can't he tell Waxman he doesn't feel like it? That's what I would do.
bob wrote on January 4, 2008 1:26 PM:EH:
Go here: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/testimony.php
I'm not sure that I made the claim that the AG believes this policy can stop global warming by itself. Actually, I wrote:
"My understanding of the denial of the waiver was that our illustrious attorney general (the former gov. moonbeam) believes that California can either stop global warming or "send a message."" What I am sure of Jen, is that I agree wholeheartedly that the administration's thuggishness has to end. While the decision to deny the waiver might have been correct (to stop Arnold and Jerry's California Economic Murder-Suicide Pact), the way they went about it was typical Bush appointee ham-handedness. So to answer your question, if not us, who? Somebody who isn't us. If not now, when? Maybe later. After the recession's over.
- bob
asphyximorphis wrote on January 4, 2008 1:29 PM:I just need to comment on how archaic the technology in today's car really is. I've read some time back that the last major innovation for the basic automobile was created over 60 years ago and I think that was the rear windshield wiper. Sure, today we have traction control, ABS and all these fancy high tech safety features, but when you boil it down, it's still an internal combustion engine moving a set of gears to spin rubber mounted wheels. Not exactly the latest in technology.
So, instead of working on innovations on how to redesign the car's central component, the engine, we get products designed by the consumable fossil fuel industry. No matter what I try, I cannot shake the knowledge that Exxon secretly designed and later on publicly owned up to producing the mid-70's Cadillac 502/503 cubic inch V-8 motor. If you've never seen one before, It's a MASSSIVE engine that's designed for one purpose: Not performance benefits over smaller, more efficient V 8's or 6's. Not more torque or even horsepower to tow your camper with. It's sole purpose is to drink drink drink gas, and then drink some more! I think I've read in places that it averaged roughly 8 miles to the gallon. Keep in mind that this was the mid-70's during the worst gas crunch this nation ever experienced. With that kind of marketing, no wonder Toyota got a foothold in this country's auto market!
So, I must ask... How much has changed since Exxon took over the power plant division at GM? Has Exxon/Mobil begun to develop more fuel efficient engines or would that cut into their record setting profits too much? Are they even supposed to be designing engines for an automaker as huge (and I daresay bloated?) as GM? How does GM answer for this? OH! the hardship...We cannot afford emissions innovation, it would be too costly to retrofit our factories they whine. more like OH! the shame. It's amazing to me that they even exist as they do today.
As a computing professional, I enjoy the fast pace of innovation being readily incorporated into production environments. This leads to the inevitable scoffing at slower, archaic technologies such as serial cable connections in place of USB, thin net/thick net network cabling in place of Wi Fi/Cat 5e/6 cabling. Innovations in computing technology move lightning fast to the point of it being called the bleeding edge, but only when it comes to linking a pile of groomed transistors into a tiny nano scale package and shooting current through them does this pace of innovation seemingly excel. For the auto industry, it's hard to imagine what we would be using for transportation had they been even as slightly as innovative as the computing industry.
As for California and the EPA, the commenter above has said it succinctly as it can get: They're running out the clock to save their oil stained teeth from getting kicked in by an increasingly angry and vehement group of states who are tired of having their carcinogen laden air look and smell like sewer backwash.
Dave Bowman wrote on January 4, 2008 1:40 PM:bob, there is a small war going on in the Middle East that you may be aware of, which is largely about maintaining access and control of oil to fuel these gas guzzlers.
In other words, your argument says that you are *for* continued dependence on foreign oil, and against a lawsuit that would help reduce this dependency. And, apparently, you think that $100+ per barrel oil is going to help us recover from a recession--Brilliant.
Henk wrote on January 4, 2008 1:44 PM:I'll have to agree with the "run out the clock" sentiment that I'm reading here. I would only add that if it hits the courts before the end of Bush's term, we will most likely see Mr. Johnson resigning to spend more time with his family.
Dana Curtis Kincaid wrote on January 4, 2008 2:09 PM:Dear Bob (and are you this idiotic Bob Carter perchance),
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml)
There is always the risk of recession. However, I think that any country that can throw away twelve billion dollars a month in the dustbowl wars of the Middle East can afford to cut emissions and increase fuel economy a bit, don't you?
The only recession I can see happening would be a recession in oil company profits, and I think that we won't be crying a lot over their suffering, will we?
"I'm not sure that I made the claim that the AG believes this policy can stop global warming by itself. Actually, I wrote:
"My understanding of the denial of the waiver was that our illustrious attorney general (the former gov. moonbeam) believes that California can either stop global warming or "send a message."" What I am sure of Jen, is that I agree wholeheartedly that the administration's thuggishness has to end. While the decision to deny the waiver might have been correct (to stop Arnold and Jerry's California Economic Murder-Suicide Pact), the way they went about it was typical Bush appointee ham-handedness. So to answer your question, if not us, who? Somebody who isn't us. If not now, when? Maybe later. After the recession's over.
- bob"
Somebody who isn't us? Heaven forbid that the United States should EVER lead by action! Jaysus H on a crutch, Bob. Grow up!
moondancer wrote on January 4, 2008 2:09 PM:Basically it's just a little FU to the country from cheney on the way to the graveyard.
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:30 PM:As much as it pains me to agree with anything the Bush administration does, on this they're fundamentally right. They're right for all the wrong reasons, but nevertheless, they're right. The purpose of issuing waivers is to allow individual states to address local pollution issues that are not addressed by the broader federal legislation. Smog, ozone and the like are examples of such local pollution issues. Greenhouse gases are not local - they're dispersed throughout the planet. The effect is not local, but global. These kind of effects were never intended to be addressed by waivers, as even if granted, the ameliorating effect on the problem would be insignificant.
Dana Curtis Kincaid wrote on January 4, 2008 2:59 PM:"As much as it pains me to agree with anything the Bush administration does, on this they're fundamentally right. They're right for all the wrong reasons, but nevertheless, they're right. The purpose of issuing waivers is to allow individual states to address local pollution issues that are not addressed by the broader federal legislation. Smog, ozone and the like are examples of such local pollution issues. Greenhouse gases are not local - they're dispersed throughout the planet. The effect is not local, but global. These kind of effects were never intended to be addressed by waivers, as even if granted, the ameliorating effect on the problem would be insignificant."
The broader Federal policies are a joke, Anonymous. BushCo has been fighting tooth and nail for Big Oil since they have been in office, and before that the Newt and Bug Boy DeLay Congresses did it too. I have no problem in allowing California to go their own way in the environmental areas as long as their laws are harsher than what the Feds want.
"Smog, ozone and the like are examples of such local pollution issues. Greenhouse gases are not local - they're dispersed throughout the planet. The effect is not local, but global. These kind of effects were never intended to be addressed by waivers..."
You must be a lawyer working for Exxon or BushCo. To argue that "smog", a fairly generic term, is local while CO2 is a global problem is splitting the finest of hairs, Anonymous. For example, the brown clouds of "smog" coming out of China are effecting not just mainland China.
Try again, friend of Mr. 28%.
bob wrote on January 4, 2008 3:06 PM:Dana,
Nope, I'm another idiotic Bob. I don't know about your friend Mr. Carter, but if he isn't in the mood to get swept up in global warming hysteria either, I'd have to agree with him. By the way, by "us" I meant Californians. If some Federal policy is put into place, then that's very different. At least businesses wouldn't seek refuge from onerous CA laws by moving to Nevada or Arizona. We'd all be in the same boat and that would be much more fair.
Is that so wrong?
- bob
Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 3:08 PM:Well, if the effects of greenhouse gases are dispersed throughout the planet, why bother locally testing for emissions under the CAAA at all?
Dave Adams wrote on January 4, 2008 3:35 PM:Bob wrote:
"Doesn't this only apply to carbon dioxide emissions? My understanding of the denial of the waiver was that our illustrious attorney general (the former gov. moonbeam) believes that California can either stop global warming or "send a message." Frankly, I didn't vote for him to go on a quixotic crusade like this. I voted for him because he promised to continue successful law enforcement programs instead."
Actually our AG is very likely to win this fight. Why don't you urge the White House asking them to end their quixotic last-ditch effort?
Duckman GR wrote on January 4, 2008 4:00 PM:Vic is right, I believe, a patchwork of two is pretty comprehensive.
And Bob, don't go speaking for me, pal.
Nothing onerous about CA's legislation. The geniusses in Detroit still would rather litigate than innovate, but as it has always been, when California leads, the rest of the nation follows to everybodies benefit, in the long run.
And Bush's recession is going to last a good long time, one way or another, so there's no time like now to putting policies in place that will allow us to recover from his mismanagement and corporate favortism and dereliction of duties.
Bob.
Roberta wrote on January 4, 2008 4:52 PM:For all those who want California and the other states to prevail against the EPA, be heartened that former Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown is on the case.
Like him or not, there's no one better to fight this fight. No decision this man has ever made has been because of a corporate influence. This is a guy who lived in a one-bedroom apartment across the street from the Capitol when he was governor, rather than using the Reagans' monstrosity of a governor's mansion. He eschewed the limo provided and piled everyone into American sedans, with State Police body guards doubling as drivers. He is dogged, determined, and indefatigable (maybe it's the yoga).
Bob, I'm sorry to pile onto you with the others, but it's boggling to me that anyone--anyone--can doubt the reality of the effects of climate change. Please tell me what stake the world's scientific community has in agreeing on this problem in the IPCC report of March 2007. Now please tell me what stake the "critics" have to deny the data.
To worry about the recession is fine, but maybe worrying about whether or not your grandchildren will have air to breathe, find water to drink, and have food to eat is a little more important. If you're going to worry about money, find a way to reverse the exponential disparity between the poor and middle classes and the obscenely rich. Take care of that, and a recession is no longer an issue.
TEL wrote on January 4, 2008 9:31 PM:Bob,
The AG is enforcing the will of CA as determined by the Governor, not on his own. Historically, Vic is spot-on. CA (and only CA) has been given the right to test out new standards exactly like the one being proposed, to determine feasibility before new nationwide standards are proposed. The fact that 15(?) other states have already signed on is telling. If this was truly a bad deal, no other states would be jumping on the bandwagon. This is long overdue.
llywrch wrote on January 5, 2008 12:31 AM:We've got real problem with this country that has been mismanaged by a group of people who are appallingly incompetent, if not criminally corrupt, and only a finite amount of resources to deal with that. I would rather that everyone's very finite time wasn't spent debating this troll. Thanks!
Adam C. wrote on January 5, 2008 7:22 AM:Vic et al. are correct: States can choose between the fed standard and CA's--currently, something like 17 states want the tougher standard.
There was an episode of "Forum' on the Bay Area public radio station KQED recently that summarized the details and history of CA's unique position wrt waivers.
You can also listen as the petro-industry thinktank flack (who at one point refuses to discuss his org's funding) gets his butt kicked by fellow panelists and callers alike.
Click my link for the audio archive.
jcm wrote on January 7, 2008 8:25 PM:Bob:
"At least businesses wouldn't seek refuge from onerous CA laws by moving to Nevada or Arizona. We'd all be in the same boat and that would be much more fair."
So here's the deal - your argument has nothing to do with the case at hand. Can you think of a single business who would move to Nevada or Arizona if they had to buy (or sell) more fuel efficient cars?
Maybe if the regulations had to do with the manufacturing process, you'd have a point. But that's not what the regulations are. It's for what the final product can look like when it's sold in CA. It doesn't matter where it's made, if they want to sell it in California - and any of the other 50% of the US car market - they'll have to improve the product.
Please name a single business that would move to NV or AZ, remembering that AZ wants to have the same regulations.
Jim wrote on January 24, 2008 11:19 AM:Another "Loyal Bushie" on the job...
They are everywhere and it will take a deade to route them out.
Meanwhile dependence on foreign oil continues to rise