Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is speaking tonight at Case Western Reserve University. Herewith is some running commentary on his talk.

The hall is packed, but is everyone here to see RFK? Leonardo DiCaprio is up first to deliver introductory remarks and Kennedy's introduction -- and he receives howls of glee from manyin the audience. Among other things, he notes the "wake up call" delivered by the infamous 1969 Cuyahoga river fire (well, kinda. I exploded that myth here and here). Now, Leonardo says, the Cuyahoga is burning again due to corporate lobbyists and the Bush Administration. Thankfully, he says, his friend Bobby Kennedy is spreading the word.

Kennedy opens repeating the charge that Bush is "the worst environmental president" in the nation's history. He notes the alleged 400 "rollbacks" documents on the Natural Resources Defense Council (but see here). The basic opening litany is the same: the administration has launched a "stealth attack" and has put "polluters" in charge of environmental agencies. These people have not entered government to "serve the public interest," but to enrich their former clients. Kennedy alleges that "The press will not cover this issue," Adding, “we win this debate every single time” if the press covers this issue.

Kennedy charges that asthma attacks are “directly related” to the administration’s policies. While acknowledging that we don’t know the cause of childhood asthma, asthma attacks are often triggered by air pollution. This is true, but air pollution has been declining for decades (see the EPA’s latest report here), and the federal air quality standards set by the Clinton Administration remain in place, completely unaffected by anything the administration has done. He makes a similar claim about acid rain, yet the emission caps under the Clean Air Act acid rain provisions also remain untouched. While noting that sulfur dioxide emissions increased marginally from 2002 to 2003, Kennedy fails to note that SO2 emissions remain below the levels when Bush came into office in 2000.

Continuing on air pollution, Kennedy charges that “It’s been illegal for over 15 years” to continue burning coal in older power plants. Not so. Older power plants were explicitly grandfathered under the Clean Air Act. Nonetheless, Kennedy says those utilities that have not upgraded the pollution controls are “criminals and criminal enterprises.” Kennedy said the Bush Administration “ordered the Justice Department” to drop prosecutions against coal-fired utilities. Really? That would come as surprise to Duke Power and the other utilities still in court defending plant modifications against federal prosecution.

Kennedy says “most” of the mercury is coming from the coal-fired power plants. Not so again. Most conventional estimates are that a small percentage of mercury in the environment – perhaps as low as one percent – comes from power plant emissions.

Those in the administration or elsewhere who claim otherwise ore “liars” who “obfuscate.” Those “apologists” who are “honest,” on the other hand, will claim that environmental regulation is too expensive and protections need to be eased to ensure economic prosperity. (I wonder which he considers me?) But environmental protection does not come at the cost of prosperity, Kennedy charges, insisting (as he often does) that there is no greater advocate of free markets than himself and that all of the major environmental laws were designed to "restore free market capitalism." Kennedy is correct that government policies that sanction pollution -- that is the involuntary imposition of wastes or emissions on the persons or properties of others -- distort the marketplace, but the idea that prescriptive command-and-control regulations are a step toward "free markets" is absurd. (I dissect this claim in greater detail here)

“The free market is dead” in most sectors of the economy. As examples, Kennedy cites energy (true, but he would replace existing energy policies with subsidies for another set of beneficiaries), the media (because there are six major media conglomerates), and “main street (due to Wal Mart). Kennedy seems to make no distinction between market concentration caused by economies of scale and market dynamics and the sort of cartelization that often results from government policy (and, as some public choice economists have pointed out, is often the impact of environmental regulations too).

Kennedy warns that “corporate control of our government” is a greater threat than “big government.” He than says he's more afraid of big business in agricultural communities than he is of bin Laden (and was criticized for saying this by the American Farm Bureau, which is just "an arm of the pesticide industry").

Kennedy complains that democracy is on the wane due to corporations, but (thankfully) does not raise the specter of fascism as he does in his book. (No, I'm not making this up. In Crimes Against Nature Kennedy compares the Bush Administration to the rise of fascism in Italy and Naziism in Germany. Oops! I spoke too soon. He just brought up the spectre of a fascist state. He reminds the audience that the fascist governments of Europe were initially elected. Then, he claims, they gave in to corporate interests and privatized the commons.

Not all his comments are on environmental policy. He notes that the budget deficit has exploded under President Bush’s watch. Further, “the bitterest pill to swallow” is the Bush Administration’s destruction of the nation’s “wonderful alliances” with foreign nations. “These thugs in the White House” have squandered foreign goodwill in just “three-and-a-half years.” They are "the party of family values, but they do not know that torture is not a family value." They want "capitalism for the poor, but socialism for the rich." While espousing Christian values, "they violate every one of the manifold mandates of Christianity."

Returning to environmental policy, and challenging the Adminisrtration's inconsistent advocacy of "local control" in environmental policy (a fair point), Kennedy notes a recent study allegedly showing that children in San Bernadino have permanently lost 10 percent of lung function due to air pollution. This is a reason, Kennedy claims, to support California’s newly enacted restrictions on automobile emissions. Yet Kennedy makes no mention that the new regulation focuses on carbon dioxide, not the sorts of emissions that contribute to smog or the sorts of air pollution problems linked to human health threats.

Kennedy closes with a powerful appeal for environmental protection, not for the environment's sake, but for humanity's sake. A cleaner, more protected environment enriches human existence. On this Kennedy and I agree. The environment is worth protecting because it is of great value to people, but this is hardly a justification for the existing regulatory structure (a case I make here).

Kennedy continues in a religious vein, noting that the natural environment is the work of "the Creator," not human hands. All great religious traditions place a value on the natural environment as divine handiwork and the source of inspiration. Wilderness, in the American experience, is the "undiluted work of the Creator," and "nature is the critical defining element of American culture." This is all powerful stuff, but it does not make his case against Bush. Kennedy's already said repeatedly tonight that most all Americans support environmental protection -- and this is true. But that most care about the environment does not mean that most do -- or should -- support existing regulations, or that every effort to reform environmental laws is an anti-environmental jihad.

Kennedy says "there has not been a more important election than this" in his lifetime because of the clear contrast in visions: Bush's "conquistador" vision versus Kerry's "community" vision. "This election is about picking one of these visions," and it's about the "soul" of the nation. "There is no other issue" than "regime change" because of what is at stake in this election.

Overall, Kennedy's speech is tamer than much of what I've heard him say before He's avoided some of the whoppers he's made in prior debates, and avoids some prior misstatements (such as claims about outdoor air pollution causing asthma), but the speech was still quite inaccurate and misleading.

In questions and answers, he charges Fred Singer and other critics of apocalyptic climate change projections is a "biostitute," bought and paid for by the energy industry who "hasn't published a peer reviewed study since 1957." Scientists like Singer are covered in the press under the pretense of "balance," Kennedy claims. Ultimately, Kennedy claims, this is due to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated under the Reagan Administration as a "favor to the big studios" that helped get him elected. "You could not have had a Fox News under the fairness doctrine," nor would you have Rush Limbaugh and "hate" radio. All but a handful of the six thousand television stations are owned by just six countries, he claims, as are most radio stations and newspapers. News is now a "profit center," that appeals to people's prurient interests to attract viewership, and not a source of information and investigation. According to Kennedy the two most important environmental laws to enact are campaign finance reform and a restoration of the fairness doctrine.

A questioner notes that President Clinton has been praising Kennedy's book, and says its one of the best books he's read in years. Kennedy accepts the complement, and reiterates his claim that he's not "partisan" -- he's not attacking Republicans -- he's just attacking this administration.

Another questioner asks how voters can be sure a President Kerry would not also cater to corporate interests. Kenendy says that's a real concern due to the influence of money in the political system. Kennedy says Democrats are far from perfect on this score, but better than the alternative: "Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and Democrats are 60 percent corrupt."

In response to antoehr quesiotn he takes another shot at the media: "They should all drink poison Kool Aid and restore integrity to their profession."

In response to the last question, he reiterates that the election is of paramount imporatance, and that he's "dropped everything" to ensure that "democracy wins" in the election.