We are all scratching our heads. The more information that comes out the more damning the evidence. As we reported yesterday when we covered the AP Story by Joe Hebert, EPA was pressuring States to abide by the Federal CAMR even when they said they were not. I came across a very well written post by John Walke of NRDC on his blog that picks up on more of the nuances and tries to understand the thinking going on in EPA inner circles. An excerpt follows;
In perhaps the most wan and non-responsive response from an EPA spokesperson this year -- which Hebert highlights as a stand-alone paragraph that reads like a punchline to a bad joke -- "An EPA official said the agency's job 'is not to pressure states.'"
Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. EPA Spokesman. We hope that's not the EPA's "job" -- so why was EPA doing it? Stay tuned as EPA predictably tries to deny it was pressuring states, contradicting numerous state officials and squirming uncomfortably when presented with the agency’s own emails.
As this unfolds before our eyes and ears I am only reminded of the old line "I'm from the government and I am here to help."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Mr. Golden,
First, thank you for re-printing a portion of my blog, as well as your comment on my blog. Second, kudos for your own excellent blog here. I look forward to becoming a regular reader.
My impression at the time was that EPA's campaign to trash stronger state mercury programs and oppose state restrictions on trading was prompted in large part by Pennsylvania. Recall that Pennsylvania's decision to opt out of CAMR was reached in early summer 2005, and the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board voted in mid-August to give the go-ahead to DEP to develop a stricter rulemaking. An EPA official took the outrageous step of testifying against Pennsylvania's rule in April of 2006, but we do not know -- yet -- with precision how much earlier the EPA campaign was hatched to try to sabotage stronger state rules. I suspect this campaign was acceleratd by Pennsylvania's actions in the summer and fall of 2005, but was probably the intention from the get-go by some at EPA.
I am hopeful that the emails obtained by Environmental Defense pursuant to its FOIA request will help answer both of our questions. Stay tuned.
Post a Comment