Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

  1. #1
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761

    Post White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail



    The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

    The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

    This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

    Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

    Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,” one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. “That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

    The Bush administration’s climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years. It now accepts the work of government scientists studying global warming, such as last week’s review forecasting more drenching rains, parching droughts and intense hurricanes as global temperatures warm (www.climatescience.gov).

    But no administration decisions have supported the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or other environmental laws.

    Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on discussions between the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about changes in the original report, Mr. Fratto said, “It’s the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it wants to make available” in its documents.

    The new document, a road map laying out the issues involved in regulation, is to be signed by Stephen L. Johnson, the agency’s administrator, and published as early as Wednesday.

    The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made public.

    In early December, the E.P.A.’s draft finding that greenhouse gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from 2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the nation’s motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in 2018, according to government officials familiar with the document.

    About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, saying the new law’s approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions.

    California’s regulations would have imposed tougher standards.

    The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

    The White House, which did not oppose the Transportation Department proposals, has become more outspoken on the need for a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gases, specifically rejecting possible controls deriving from older environmental laws.

    In a speech in April, Mr. Bush called for an end to the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025 — a timetable slower than many scientists say is required. His chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, said a “train wreck” would result if regulations to control greenhouse gases were authorized piecemeal under laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

    White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.’s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because “no more constructive work could be done” on the agency’s response to the Supreme Court.

    He added, “The next administration will have to face what this one did not.”

    The House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, led by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has been seeking the discarded E.P.A. finding on the dangers of climate change.

    After reading it last week, Mr. Markey’s office sent a letter to Mr. Bush saying, “E.P.A. Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur.”

    Simultaneously, Mr. Waxman’s committee is weighing its response to the White House’s refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents relating to the E.P.A.’s handling of recent climate-change and air-pollution decisions. The White House, which has turned over other material to the committee, last week asserted a claim of executive privilege over the remaining documents.

    In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said the committee chairmen did not understand the legal precedent underlying executive privilege. “There is a long legal history supporting the principle that the president should have the candid advice of his advisers,” Mr. Fratto said.
    Link

  2. #2
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,992
    Well how that went down is very disturbing, as is most things relating to this administration, but I'm against tight emissions controls as well, actually I'm against emissions limitations on vehicles at all.

  3. #3
    SG Enthusiast Far-N-Wide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    His Tavern of Solitude
    Posts
    1,160
    We talked about this at work. A lot for folks don't want to give up their muscle cars or their big trucks.

    I get laughed at for driving a 25 HP 1956 VW bug. When it's tuned up, It gets 38 MPG and it does the 1/4 mile in about 73 seconds I am just kidding... I never clocked it, but I could use a calendar instead of a stop watch.
    USAF RETIRED

  4. #4
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Far-N-Wide View Post
    We talked about this at work. A lot for folks don't want to give up their muscle cars or their big trucks.
    And I see no reason to have to. Make the new cars be built to certain standards, leave the old ones alone.

  5. #5
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    And I see no reason to have to. Make the new cars be built to certain standards, leave the old ones alone.
    Agreed

    People should be able to do what they want with their money. If that means buying a behemoth that gets 10MPG, then so be it. If they can afford the pay for the gas, who am I to say they can't buy it.

    According to someone here, forgot the name, he took a tour of some car plant and said that they should be able to build trucks that get great MPG! So if he's right, maybe next year we'll see trucks in the mid 30's range.

  6. #6
    SG Enthusiast Think's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,283
    I disagree, there should be tougher regulations concerning these gas behemoths and the best approach would be to tackle it from a legislative commitment. Here's a simple solution, place photo radar on roads and anyone doing more than 15 miles over the limit gets penalized with a fine; provided incentives to car manufacturers to develop fuel efficient vehicles and place speed governors on every car to not exceed 100 miles/hr ( especially transport trucks ).

    This should only be applied to new vehicles. Anyone with an old pig is already paying a substantial porker tax at every fill up anyway.
    got old



  7. #7
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,992
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post
    Agreed

    People should be able to do what they want with their money. If that means buying a behemoth that gets 10MPG, then so be it. If they can afford the pay for the gas, who am I to say they can't buy it.

    According to someone here, forgot the name, he took a tour of some car plant and said that they should be able to build trucks that get great MPG! So if he's right, maybe next year we'll see trucks in the mid 30's range.
    You'll see 1 in the low 30s from an indian car company here.

  8. #8
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    870
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post
    Agreed

    People should be able to do what they want with their money. If that means buying a behemoth that gets 10MPG, then so be it. If they can afford the pay for the gas, who am I to say they can't buy it.

    According to someone here, forgot the name, he took a tour of some car plant and said that they should be able to build trucks that get great MPG! So if he's right, maybe next year we'll see trucks in the mid 30's range.
    I believe that was Sava....where is that guy anyways...

  9. #9
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    Quote Originally Posted by frostybear View Post
    I believe that was Sava....where is that guy anyways...
    He left when we wouldn't ban YoS.

  10. #10
    NYC Newbie Slayer Prey521's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Humble, Tx
    Posts
    34,934
    Quote Originally Posted by frostybear View Post
    I believe that was Sava....where is that guy anyways...
    Yes, it was him. He's a trip.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    He left when we wouldn't ban YoS.
    Oh, well that seems sort of childish, no?
    Last edited by Prey521; 06-27-08 at 12:28 PM.

  11. #11
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post
    Yes, it was home. He's a trip.



    Oh, well that seems sort of childish, no?
    Well I will say this. I wish he had stuck around. I attempted to get him to do so, but he didn't feel he could. Personally I think he could have handled it better, but that's just me.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrazen View Post
    Yes, it was home. He's a trip.



    Oh, well that seems sort of childish, no?


    The guy has issues http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/ma...er.php?u=23072

    .... as you can see for yourself. For whatever reason he fooled some of the mo...er posters here far longer than he did there.

  13. #13
    TypicalWhitePerson JC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Single Wide
    Posts
    4,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    I disagree, there should be tougher regulations concerning these gas behemoths and the best approach would be to tackle it from a legislative commitment. Here's a simple solution, place photo radar on roads and anyone doing more than 15 miles over the limit gets penalized with a fine; provided incentives to car manufacturers to develop fuel efficient vehicles and place speed governors on every car to not exceed 100 miles/hr ( especially transport trucks ).

    This should only be applied to new vehicles. Anyone with an old pig is already paying a substantial porker tax at every fill up anyway.
    That is possibly the Stupidest thing I have EVER read!
    Speedguide.... If you don't love Obama you won't like it here.
    Straight out the Trailer!
    Re.....Spect "walk"!

    MacBook Pro 2.33Ghz, 3G of Ram, OS X

  14. #14
    SG Enthusiast Think's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by JC View Post
    That is possibly the Stupidest thing I have EVER read!
    Really, then you haven't been here long enough
    got old



  15. #15
    Flip Chip Qwijib0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona Processor: GenuineIntel Member #4896
    Posts
    8,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Really, then you haven't been here long enough
    Take that, community!
    If your browser can't read unicode, you should probably switch!

Similar Threads

  1. How do i open the rogers cable box on the side of my house?
    By 20grove in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-05-11, 02:24 PM
  2. Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House in new book.
    By downhill in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 06-16-08, 02:33 AM
  3. Ladies and gentlemen, your White House Press Secretary...
    By Brk in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-11-07, 07:11 PM
  4. 'White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters'
    By Brk in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-25-07, 09:38 AM
  5. White House pushed Ashcroft on 2004 wiretaps
    By Roody in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-16-07, 01:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •