Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > May > 02 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USGasoline prices; Clayton school board
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thinking Right’s weekend free-for-all. Pick a topic:
Barack Obama blames high gasoline prices on a political establishment that hasn’t faced down the oil companies. “The candidates with the Washington experience —- my opponents —- are good people. They mean well, but they’ve been in Washington for a long time, and even with all that experience they talk about, nothing has happened.” Change. For the record, according to the Department of Energy: Crude’s about half the pump price of a gallon a gas, refining accounts for 28 percent; taxes, 14 percent; and distribution and marking, 8 percent. Wonder where Obama is on drilling in ANWAR? Nevermind. It’s the oil companies’ fault.
A Florida lottery winner —- $13 million in 1990 —- dies nearly broke at age 60. Gambling, gifts and luxuries. Hand out a million dollars on the to passers-by on the street corner and at least some of the recipients would be panhandling a month later.
When a story starts like this, “The U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners,” as the one from the New York Times did, you know disapproval follows. “Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations” are said to be “mystified and appalled.” Much that dismays liberals here —- whether in our legal system, environmental practices or national security policies —- mystify and appall select portions of “industrialized nations.”
Democratic strategists say they have identified 30 to 35 Georgia House districts that “are either competitive or may become competitive.” Yes. The latter. But probably not in their lifetimes. Barring a last-minute surge in top-quality candidates qualifying in the right districts, Democrats will gain no more than five seats in the House (giving Republicans a 102-78 majority) while the Senate remains static (34 Republicans, 22 Democrats).
People who run for public office for the pay are not the ones you want there. A salary of $17,000, plus $173 per day for food and lodging, and two-year terms is about right for the General Assembly. Higher salaries don’t necessarily attract higher-quality people. After all, dumbos and dullards are drawn to higher salaries, too.
Clayton County is a reminder. “Local control” means parents empowered to do what they think is best for their child, not the administration or the school board, which is in this case dysfunctional. Imagine agreeing to give a new superintendent in an imploding system 107 days off. Gimme my child back.
Have a chicken for lunch Sunday. It’s International Respect for Chickens Day, a day that “celebrates the dignity, beauty and life of chickens and protests the bleakness of their lives in farming operations.”
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Case in point: Hans von Spakovsky, as a top official in the U.S. Justice Department’s civil rights division, was accused of overruling career bureaucrats in clearing voter ID legislation passed by the Georgia General Assembly in 2005. If so, he was right. They were wrong, and as I discovered during the brouhaha over redistricting (when Cynthia Mckinney carved herself a congressional district, with the aid of civil rights division lawyers), Justice Department bureaucrats can have agendas, too. (The Senate should now affirm von Spakovsky’s wrongly blocked nomination to the Federal Elections Commission.)
*Gasoline prices; Clayton school board Two bowls are added to college football’s post-season, bringing the number to 34: The Congressional Bowl and the St. Petersburg Bowl. Pretty soon it’ll be like the NBA. Everybody goes bowling. Give us playoffs.
Permalink | Comments (148) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By Charles
May 2, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
Sure Obama, it’s the oil companies fault that:
they’ve not built an oil refinery in the U.S. in over 30 years (just a minor detail that they’ve not had permission by the government to do so). It couldn’t possibly be a supply/demand factor because of a limited number of refineries could it?
they’ve not drilled in ANWAR or other domestic areas of known resources (no - it can’t be because they’ve not had permission by the government to do so).
their profit margins are less than 7% on average (a rate most companies would not be able to survive on).
taxes on oil products are so high (they must beg the government to take more of your money that’s already been taxed).
Sure Obama, you couldn’t possibly be making these statements for political expediency - could you??!!!
By JRB
May 2, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this
Something to think about, and if I am wrong please let me know why. Many people including Bush blame a lot of the high cost of gas on the lack of refining capabilities. However, according to NYT there are about 50 different variations of gas for automobiles being produced in the US. This is because every state, county, and city can regulate gas as they see fit.
If instead the US went to a national standard it could be better for the environment than the gas used in California and still be way cheaper that it is now. The oil companies would no be able to create shortages on different areas in order to max price and profit.
If their is a flaw to my thinking please enlighten me.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. Small minds blame companies for the crimes of the government. It is rare to find a democrat who has any workable idea how to increase supply, or a method of reducing demand (other than a manufactured price problem caused by government-imposed inefficiency.)
Beware of any who magnifies his opinion based on his status as a “legal scholar.” A legal scholar is someone who finished law school but did not pass the bar.
“Local control,” in the government context, is a deceptive and/or meaningless term, in a class with “fair trade” or “ethical behavior.” Of course it could be worse: “I’m from Washington and I am here to help.”
I flirt with vegetarianism from time to time, and the Ensign has been a vegetarian for five years, so I am reluctant to mock the chicken-activists.
Thank goodness someone is politicizing the EPA – at least then we will have the chance to vote the idiots out of office (from whichever side you view the issue.) I, of course, would vote to remove those who constrain freedom. In a rational world, bureaucrats do nothing more than enforce laws; they should not interpret laws, other than narrowly, and they should never write regulations.
To Mr. Spakovsky’s eternal credit, he was the one who lobbied for removal of the US Attorneys who refused to investigate reasonably-suspected voting fraud. While the Bush administration took a lot of criticism from leftists for firing those US Attorneys, someone needs to set policy, and policy ought never be set by the unelected.
By RIP US Soldier
May 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
The murderous rampage by our President continues.
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
By phil
May 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
yawn.
By Bill
May 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
Hold on a minute Charles,
Taxes on oil products are high? Our taxes on oil products are among the lowest in the world (excluding the major oil producing nations). What’s more, one problem with our energy policy is that gas prices are too low. Low prices encourage more consumption, just making the problem worse. European countries tax gas at a much higher rate; think $8 a gallon at the pump. The result: over the last 30 years, consumption in Britain has been flat, and in France, it has declined 17% in spite of increasing population.
Higher gas prices encourage the development and use of alternatives as well as conservation. This is not only sound energy policy, it is sound environmental, economic, and especially national security policy.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
Dear JRB @ 8:17, I respectfully believe there is a flaw in your thinking, but only because it is worse than your note suggests. The unelected bureaucrats of the EPA are the ones who dictate production of 50+ different blends of gasoline, by region. If we had a competent Congress, there would be no regulation of gasoline formulae at all.
By Copyleft
May 2, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Charles and Wooten: Sorry, but Obama’s right. The reason the right-wing media is raving about “environmental terrorists” is because they’re TERRIFIED someone will bring up fuel-efficiency standards.
CAFE standards have been raised dozens of times in the legislature… and every time, it’s been Big Oil and Big Auto concerns who’ve shot it down, because—as it turns out—reducing our dependence on foreign oil isn’t that big a deal after all. Hey, it’s only national security! What does that matter when profits are at stake?
So yes, Obama’s right: the oil industry and its lobbyist-owned, largely Republican congressmen, ARE to blame for our situation. But rather than admit they’ve been pushing a doomed, shortsighted energy policy for decades, they prefer to shift the blame to the environment.
Nice try. America’s not that dumb.
By Mid-South Philosopher
May 2, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim
While the oil companies are not totally to blame for the massive increase in gasoline and fuel oil prices, they bear their share of the responsibility. Despite the fact that they have been hampered in their efforts to drill in ANWAR, off the coast of Florida in every direction, and not been able to erect modern refineries, they have still been successful in earning a whole Sipot full of “profits.”
I have an idea. Why don’t we develop a program for the oil companies like we have for schools? We could call it No Gallon Left Behind
Let’s remove all restrictions from the oil companies and the auto producers. However:
By 2020, the United States MUST be in a position to import NO oil or oil products from any foreign nation.
By 2020, the average mile per gallon for automobiles MUST be 80.
By 2020, all facilities, fields, refineries MUST meet EPA and environmental standards.
It is simple.
Oh, by the way oil companies…no excuses…no complaints!
If you have a problem, Rod Paige and Margaret Spellings will show you how it is done.
On another matter, the only thing I agree with Barack Obama is that there are too dan many life-termers in the Congress. Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd have been *staggering around the Senate since I was a teenager, and I am almost ready for Social Security! Is there any truth to the rumor that these two distinguished Democrats are trying to arrange hospice care on the Senate floor?!?
On the matter of Clayton County Schools…a great example of idiocy of local control.
Education is a state responsibility. It is time for Kathy Cox and Silly Sonny to face up to this. Local school boards are anachronisms that serve only to feed the egos of little barons and baronesses. It is time to end them, unify state school systems, and move to a truly effective system of funding and managing the business of teaching and leaning.
Of course all of my suggestions will come to pass shortly after Jim Wooten is choesn as Secretary of the Treasury in the forthcoming Obama Administration!
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
Dear Bill @ 8:21, hold on a minute, Bill, why is there a tax at all? Taxes do not cause sound energy policy, sound environment policy, sound economic policy, or sound energy policy. Taxes merely transfer your wealth to thieves who spend according to their wishes. Wise up, there.
By bob
May 2, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this
JRB, the flaw in your thinking is that India and China are buying so much more oil that demand dictates price. The Saudis have a long line of customers and don’t have to worry about not having buyers. Also, we need our own supply for cheaper crude and national security. As long as the price of crude goes up the refined crude will increase even if we went to one mixture and that mixture was the cheapest mixture.
By hillbilly ragger
May 2, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
Jim and Charles, your comments on the viability of the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (doesn’t the AJC have a styleguide, BTW? Don’t you have to spell out stuff like that on the first reference, or doesn’t that apply to wingnuts?) are, um, how to put this nicely? painfully naive. At best.
I might add that Obama actually has a [comprehensive energy policy plan] (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/) available from his website.
McCain doesn’t. He doesn’t even mention the word “Energy” on his Issues page.
By Copyleft
May 2, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
And it’s good to see that Wooten has no shame about what SHOULD be a national embarrassment—our record incarceration rate, largely for nonviolent and consensual “offenses.”
You should count yourselves lucky that American liberals are ONLY “dismayed,” rather than in open revolt as we should be. We’re falling behind in the race to civilization, and Wooten’s crowd seem perversely proud of the fact.
More proof that neocon-fascists can’t be trusted with anything more dangerous than string.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
Good morning. The chicken thing is huge. Thank you, Mr. Wooten, for binging it to my attention. Absent the aid of informed persons such as you, it can be all-nigh impossible for persons such as me to keep abreast of the politics of victimage.
P.S. We ought to be paying the senators and representatives a great deal more in base salaries.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
May 2, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
Great Cherry Picking today!
Oh, how I’d love to see the GOP apolgists get to cover the state of our union if a Dem President (and congress) had been in charge for the last seven years.
The scandals! The weakening economy! The high cost of energy! The rising cost of food! The increase in unemployment! The unjustified war and loss of life! The rising deficit and unbalanced budgets! The earmarks! FEMA! The growing wage gap (oh, wait…that’s fine)!
Keep on spinning Jim! Things are great!
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
May 2, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Oh, dang Jim! I forgot about the big government. The HUGE government! Ginormous!
I got my bribe from GW last night. $1200!
What a nanny state!
Just giving the people money!
By For The Record
May 2, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
Yum. There’s nothing like the smell of freshly burnt leaded gasoline during a congested commute. Can’t you just smell it jbmlaw. What will you think of next? Perhaps you are just a by-product of excessive mercury inhalation from those coal-fired power plants. Worthless regulations. Who needs them. Certainly not jbmlaw. One of our state elected officials paid a visit to a site that “recycles” human and grease trap waste due to complaints that he received from some of his “constituents” (in an election year). His response after the visit was “I didn’t smell anything”. Brilliant, this Republican elected official. Absolutely friggin brilliant. I wonder if he know that carbon monoxide is colorless and odorless. The natural gas piped to people’s houses has an odorant added to it so people like our elected official can smell it when it leaks. What next? If there’s an outbreak of a deadly virus, who will be first to proclaim “I didn’t see a thing”. I’m sure no one will smell it coming. They’ll probably be too busy enjoying the feeling of that warm yellow rain.
By AmVet
May 2, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Item 1 - Is Mr. Wooten actually saying that the cost of doing business by Big Oil - refining and marketing and distribution - is unacceptable?
What is Jim saying? Other than drilling in Alaska will solve all of our energy woes. Someday.
Item 2 - who cares? Perhaps readers of the National Enquirer?
Item 3 - NOW we’re getting to the meat and potatoes (Damn that Dan Quayle - I never even thought about the spelling of that word until he came along!) But is this paragraph some sort of explanation or apology? From what I gather it is more ongoing sophistry under the heading of “All things Liberal are Bad, Very bad “.
Item 4 - As we are firmly entrenched in the Moron Belt, the GOP’s “Southern Strategy” is going nowhere soon. Though the rest of the nation is more than ready to throw the phony, inept conservatives out on their collective ears.
Items 5, 6, 7 & 8 - See item 2.
All in all, another predictable Friday fish and chips effort…
By CopyRight
May 2, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
We should not be incarcerating non violent drug offenders; this is a total waste of resources. CopyLeft, are you threatening people by claiming “We are lucky liberals are only dismayed” I bet you and Mr. Ayres are good buddies. More proof of the loony tune left…
By Scholar
May 2, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
To Copyleft @ 8:28 “Nice try. America’s not that dumb.”
SUV’s are still for sale. Look at the gridlock at rush hour and imagine all of the dollar signs in the exhaust of the cars with the CO2. America is that dumb.
By RIP US Soldier
May 2, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
The murderous rampage by our President continues.
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
47 DEAD US TROOPS IN IRAQ IN APRIL
47 dead US troops in Iraq in April
By @@
May 2, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
You’ve made my post easy Jim.
With all the topics in tow today, your headline reads Gasoline Prices; Clayton School Board.
Summing it up:
The price of GAS in Clayton County is the loss of accreditation. It’s inevitable! With the summer months upon us, there will not be adequate time to address the problems in any meaningful way.
The Ways and Means of government.
Hold out to the very last minute, and then ask the public to consume the government’s incompetence.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
Aw gee, Jim, didja hafta go and pick news items that exclude the favorite sermons of the little Green Progs who hang onto your lily pad? Couldn’t you have offered them something in the way of Bush the Mass Murderer? Or Bush the Maker of the Mother of All Depressions? Or Bush the Candidate They’re Going To Beat in Novemeber?
You know: the real news?
By Copyleft
May 2, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
CR: Yes, I am making threats. If liberals embraced conservative tactics, Bush and all his supporters would be in Guanatanamo by now.
Good thing for the fascists that liberals are more reasonable than that. (And better looking, too!)
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Hey, RIP -
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL SINCE 2001
By GW
May 2, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
My fellow Americans,
Things are not bad. In fact, thanks to my tax cuts and tax rebate, things just can’t get any better. Enjoy these good times while you can for once the Democrats have their way with you, you’ll start to see just how bad things can be. So, join with me and let’s keep things better for the deserving few of us — I think it’s 29% today — by chanting to the Paul Revere tune, “The Redcoats are Coming”, the following:
“The Taxcuts are Working, The Taxcuts are Working.”
Write your elected officials and tell them to make those cuts permanent so we can avoid any more slow down in our great economy.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
You gotta bend over awfully far to try to shimmy liberals in sideways as anything like the opposite of fascists, Copyleft.
But then I forget that you already bend over awfully far…
By Truthifier
May 2, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
JRB, while the variation in the types of gas being refined and marketed is in some cases reflective of some states’ having more stringent environmental laws (California in particular), I think that the variations (not sure if there are fifty of them) are also dependent factors such as the climate of the state (i.e. burning different types of fuel in different seasons because of temperature affecting the viscosity of the fuel, etc.). If I’m wrong, I’m sure someone here will quickly let us know.
By CopyRight
May 2, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
I am so proud of our “Change” in congress, we voted for change in 2006 and we got it. All of it for the worse, can we have a do-over?
By GW
May 2, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Quit whining about Iraq people. Three thousand killed here or four thousand killed there. Those four thousand volunteered. So just stop your whining and be grateful for volunteers — no matter what the cost. Now do your duty and tell your elected officials to make those tax cuts permanent. Our brave American citizens do not deserve the burden of taxes. Let’s get rid of them now.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
Au contraire, @@:
Not so, that “with the summer months upon us, there will not be adequate time to address the problems in any meaningful way.”
You could do it in four months, easy. You know it, PoFo knows it, and the very American Bob Dole knows it.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Dear Cherry Picker @ 8:36, I have to admit that you warned me in 2006. If I voted Republican we would see “The scandals! The weakening economy! The high cost of energy! The rising cost of food! The increase in unemployment! The unjustified war and loss of life! The rising deficit and unbalanced budgets! The earmarks! FEMA! The growing wage gap (oh, wait…that’s fine)!” Well, I ignored you, voted Republican, and you are right.
(1) We see a weakening economy, probably in substantial part due to the looming largest tax increase in the history of the world.
(2) The high cost of energy (like the increase in all other commodities) is primarily attributable to the Fed’s infatuation with the Phillips Curve, which most people finally recognized as a farce in 1978; however Congress has done its part via prohibitions against drilling in the ANWR desert and offshore of Florida and environmental restrictions that discourage increasing refinery capacity.
(3) The rising cost of food is almost certainly a function of the idiots in Congress mandating ethanol in gasoline, and that the production of ethanol from food products is subsidized by the taxpayer, thus shifting food-stuffs into vehicles. How many barrels of oil does it take to produce an equivalent amount of burnable ethanol? (Much like the old lightbulb jokes.)
(4) Increasing unemployment surely cannot be attributed to the increase in minimum wage? Even though every rational economist forecast it, we cannot lay that blame at the feet of Congress, can we?
(5) Rising deficit and unbalanced budgets? Is that a function of too much spending? Where do spending bills originate? Who is in control of the body?
(6) Earmarks and FEMA – intellectual honesty forbids that I blame that on democrats alone. When you say FEMA, I assume you are not trying to distract from the horrific performance at local and state levels, which should be the primary responders for any disaster (a la 9/11.
(7) Growing wage gap? I thought you were a fan of Hollywood and professional sports and investment bankers, and I cannot believe you want to focus attention on those unmerited salaries, for people who produce nothing tangible.
Dear For the Record @ 8:51, certainly I understand your perspective, that the environment’s needs are too important to be left to people who are answerable to the voters. That has long been the philosophical justification for the governing style of national socialists, but we are grateful that you are willing to lead us to a final solution.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
This George Washington is great, eh? We ought to elected George Washington President, or something.
AmVet,
But remember that both parties cultivate their Southern Strategies. That’s how Carter won, and Clinton after him. Remember Reg Murphy?
P.S. You know very well that Dan Quayle is the last refuge of scoundrels.
By ****
May 2, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Putting any merits to his argument aside, did anyone else find For The Record’s post to be creepy??
By For The Record
May 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I am most certainly grateful for the fact that you are not “leading” us. I look forward to seeing you push that platform though in your future attempts to gain the hearts and minds of a voting majority. Do you plan to build off of those 7 points you laid out — loser.
By ron
May 2, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Good morning,A couple of million spent the right way and Obama will be calling for tax cuts for the oil companies.
Win the lottery,die broke 18 years later.Good plan. Some party.
I have always advocated the doubling of the prison population.
Imcrease the pay for the politicians to $50,000 and 90% of the state would throw their hat in the ring.
My area had a bad school board at one time.A special election unelected them.That’s lacal control.
When it comes down to it’s either me or the chicken,the chicken dies.
I detest voter id.It’s the authority thing.Seatbelts fall into this category also.Since there’s a fine for not wearing one,I comply.When they fine me for not voting,I’ll be back.They do that in Australia,don’t they?
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
If the dummycrats think the big oil companies are going to sit still while they impose windfall profits taxes, then the dummycrats are dumber than turnips! Domestic oil production is ~5 million barrels per day, with the remaining 15 million barrels per day imported. Exxon, BP, and Chevron do not have to send their foreign production-sharing oil to America, they have the rest of the world as a market place. Production sharing oil from around the world flows to america everyday now because big oil has made a commitment to keep america supplied, and america in return has agreed to pay the world market price for that oil. If the Dummycrats attempt to impose confisctory taxes on big oil, I urge the oil companies to implement a scorched earth policy - transfer assets to foreign subsidaries (offshore deep water drilling platforms, tankers, off shore refineries, other drilling and production equipment), keep the income from foreign sales offshore in the foreign subsidaries, put clauses into production sharing agreements that cancel the agreements in exchange for some type of immediate tax advantaged compensation if the us governement nationalizes big oil. When oil available to americans drops from 20 million barrels per day to less than 10 million barrels per day, the dummycrats will be driven from office, tarred and feathered, and hung from the nearest lamp post, as they so richly deserve…Let us hope the neocons are already hanging nearby, they can comfort each other, ha ha ha.
By jbmlaw
May 2, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
William Tucker on alternative energy in The Weekly Standard:
Wind, hydro, and all the “alternate” sources of energy have been dubbed “green” because they are supposedly clean, renewable, and sustainable. In fact, what being “green” really means is that they all require vast amounts of land.
In a 2007 paper – well on its way to becoming a classic – Jesse Ausubel, director of the program for the human environment at Rockefeller University, calculated the amount of wood it would take to run one standard 1,000-megawatt electrical plant, the kind that can power a city the size of Cincinnati. Feeding the furnace year-round would require a forest of one thousand square miles. We have 600 such coal plants around the country now – to burn wood instead would require a forest the size of Alaska.
Glen Canyon Dam, which can produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity, is backed up by a reservoir 250 miles square (Lake Powell, in Arizona and Utah). That’s why we stopped building dams in the 1960s – because they were drowning scenic canyons and displacing populations. Those 30-story windmills produce 1.5 megawatts apiece – about 1/750th the power of a conventional generating station. Getting 1,000 megawatts would require a wind farm 75 miles square.
In a January cover story for Scientific American, three leading solar researchers proposed meeting our electrical needs in 2050 by covering southwestern desert with solar collectors. The amount of land required would be 34,000 square miles, about one-quarter of New Mexico.
And that’s where biofuels went awry. Nobody ever bothered to calculate how much land they would require. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120968760267261321.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Yo stupid Anyone But Hillary - What the heck do you mean by no terror attacks since 2001? I call the murder of Mrs Johnson by three atlanta city pigs a terror attack under color of authority….I call gitmo a terror training camp for american pigs….I call the neocons terrorists….I call israel the root of all evil in the middle east, and terrorist nation…shove that up your pipes, BOY
By For The Record
May 2, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Oops, I almost forgot. Just for the record, jbmlaw, the “loser” in my post was simply my prediction of the outcome of your bid for public office — based on my evaluation of your seven points, that is.
“By **
May 2, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Putting any merits to his argument aside, did anyone else find For The Record’s post to be creepy??”
It should sound creepy especially to anyone that thinks we’ll be better off with no EPA even given the fact that they’re not as effective as they need to be.
By JRB
May 2, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
I don’t see a link in the demand for oil and our refining capabilities. Yes, i would expect the demand for oil to increase because of the overall increase in demand but the world-wide demand for oil should not have an effect our ability to produce refined gasoline. I always figured it to be a lot like the soda pop aisle at the grocery store. If we stopped making everything but Coke we would be able to produce a heck of a lot more coke because we would eliminate set-up times and other switching costs.
Second, we hear a lot about increasing demand in China and India as being a cause for the rise in gasoline. If Americans can not afford gas at $3.50 per gallon how many people in China and India can afford it. Only the elite in those countries will truly be able to pay that kind of price.
Third, during the energy crisis in California several years ago I like a lot of people thought California was just paying the price for poor energy policy. Then I watched “Smartest Guys in the Room” and Enron traders were discussing how they were able to sale energy back and forth between different units to jack up the price they could charge. I believe down the road we will find out a lot of the increase in the oil price was accomplished the same way. Companies are trading oil among subsidiaries and rising the price every sale. The problem with electronic trading is it is too easy to corner then manipulate the market.
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
George Washington: I don’t even have to reply (but I will) - your rantings confirm your total and utter stupidity and lack of basic understanding of the language you pretend to communicate in. Here, let me explain the sentence for you: the word “terrorist” refers to Muslim terrorists, the ones who flew planes into our buildings and into the ground 7 years ago, it does not refer to uniformed police officers working for a city, supporters of a particular political party, or the citizens of Israel. And, by the way, my “pipes” are one-way - perhaps you like things shoved up yours but I’m not into that.
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Sorry, I wasn’t done: the word “attacks” means deliberate attempts by foreign terrorists to come to this country and injure or kill American citizens; “US soil” refers to the the country your feet are currently stepping on, it does not refer to Guantanamo or Israel; “since 2001” refers to the presidency of George W. Bush, whose actions have effectively kept us safe on our soil, along with the brave soldiers and their leaders who volunteered to fight a cause they believe in for the past 7 years. Now, put that up one of your pipes and rotate.
By Glenn
May 2, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
It was a sudden and feckless change in the state’s energy policy that created the California system gamed so thoroughly by Enron.
The fiasco began in the systems-arrogance of a particular liberal know-it-all, a certain Steve Peace.
By Carolyn Wilder
May 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
I remember back in the 60’s somebody invented a modification for your car that was supposed to get you 80 mpg and 200,000 miles. I think the oil companies and auto makers bought him out. Anyone else out there remember this? And can anybody tell me why Bobby Cox keeps insisting that Kelly Johnson bat in the one spot???
By Adam Savage
May 2, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Carolyn, there are products on the market now that their makers say will give your car that type of performance. Unfortunately they are all scams that do not work.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Ah, JRB, you don’t know much about oil, do ya? Much of the new oil being added to daily production is heavy sour crude, and cannot be refined in just any old refinery…Special refineries are required, due to the viscosity of the oil, and to the corrosive effects of the oil on the piping and reaction vessels….Sour crude means it contains lots of sulphur, you know, the stuff that forms sulphuric acid….So the oil must be first heated to make it flow better, then the sulphur must be removed…But you are not thru, the heavy crude now must be reacted with catalyst and hydrogen to crack the long hydrocarbon chains into smaller chains….this is well beyond the standard cat crackers that have been around since the early 60’s….We have very few of these special refineries, and many of those are owned by our pal, Hugo Chavez, and are dedicated to processing Venez heavy crude. All growth in Saudia crude oil exports over the last five years has been in heavy sour crude, as is all their reserve capacity…Not good without the right refineries.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
Anyone But Hillary - George thinks you need an enema, you are full of bullshlt. Your definition of a terrorist clearly labels you as an IDIOT.
By Political Foreskin
May 2, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Why does Jim keep harping about drilling for oil in the body of assassinated Eqyptian president Anwar Sadat?
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Jim’s body will be one with the earth before any crude from ANWAR can be refined into gasoline for his pink caddy….
By Anyone But Hillary
May 2, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
George Washington (I wish you would change your moniker) - Why do you support terrorists? Are you secretly sad that we haven’t been attacked again during the past 7 years so that your beloved liberals would look better and be able to say, “I told you so”? By the way - the congress the voters decided to “change” 2 years ago is doing a bang-up job, aren’t they?
By bill
May 2, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim, Cynthia McKinney carved herself a congressional district, with the aid of civil rights division lawyers? No, her father and some other of Georgia’s finest did that while she was going door-to-door in that grossly mis-configured attempt to establish a second district of black viability.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Anyone But Hillary - you neocon traitors are not the only ones who can wrap themselves in the flag, hag.
By Aquagirl
May 2, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
More obsession with oil drilling; how much oil do these people think is in ANWR? It’s a small amount, compared to our huge need. If you require 16,000 calories a day to survive, it’s time to look at reducing your weight, not finding more Krispy Kremes.
And way to rag on the chicken-people, Jim; only with new “conservatism” has it become fashionable to disdain care for God’s creatures. What’s so bad about thinking of where your chicken came from? I participate in the circle of life where the chicken is food for me. It doesn’t mean I rationalize cruelty or questionable animal husbandry. I certainly wouldn’t make fun of those doing so.
By George Washington
May 2, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
while idiots like woodenhead whine about anwar, our pals in china are building the special refineries required to process heavy sour crude…Hugo will stop shipping his heavy sour crude to the usa when those refineries are complete, and he will destroy his heavy sour crude refineries in the us of a at that time…and there ain’t nuthin ya can do to stop him, he ownes em, and he can destroy em as he wills….fast and dirty would be to pump lox thru the lines…..
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency reviews of chemicals in a way that opens the process to “politicization.” Specifically, they object to a proposal to allow other agencies to submit comments and requests for further research. We’ve been trained to believe that bureaucrats are pure and political appointees are corrupting. The reality is, however, that it ain’t that simple. Advocacy groups know the best way to get the decision you want is find like-minded zealots in the bureaucracy.
Well, as always…You are dead wrong!
More than half the Environmental Protection Agency scientists who responded to an independent survey made public yesterday said that they had witnessed political interference in scientific decisions at the agency during the past five years.
The claim comes from a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group that sent questionnaires to 5,500 EPA scientists and obtained 1,586 responses. Among the scientists’ complaints were that data sometimes were used selectively to justify a specific regulatory outcome and that political appointees had directed them to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in EPA scientific documents.
The EPA also drew fire last month for weakening its new limits on smog-forming ozone after a last-minute intervention by President Bush. And Johnson was criticized for his decision in December to deny California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency’s legal and technical staffs.
Need I go on???
By munchi
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dear Jim..You write;
Congressional Democrats accuse the Bush administration of changing Environmental Protection Agency revi