Federal Programs Archives

Financial columnist Jim Jubak notes that prospective Democratic replacements for key Republican committee chairmen might not make environmentalists' hearts go aflutter:

"But Barton's likely replacement would be John Dingell, D-Mich., a fierce advocate for the U.S. automobile industry. In other cases, the effect of the change is easier to extrapolate. Pombo's likely replacement as chairman of the House Resources Committee would be Nick Rahall, D-W.Va. Can you say 'coal,' boys and girls?"

Next time you hear U.S. government physicist James Hansen claim the government is trying to censor him, consider this (paid subscription required) from Environment & Energy Daily (7/21/06):

A chronic illness only partly explains why James Hansen decided to skip the House Government Reform Committee's on global warming in seven years. The embattled NASA scientist also passed on yesterday's event because lawmakers are "still in denial" about the reasons for dramatic changes in the Earth's climate, he said last night in an e-mail.

In the message Hansen sent to reporters to explain his absence from yesterday's hearing, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies said he had a conflicting doctor appointment to deal with a cold that interacts with his asthma... But he also indicated he would have adjusted his schedule if the witness list did not also include skeptical points of view.

"I would get out of my sickbed to testify to Congress on global warming, if they were ready to deal responsibly with the matter," Hansen wrote. "But obviously they are still in denial, inviting contrarians to 'balance' the science of global warming."

Hansen apparently was objecting to the House panel's late addition of John Christy, a professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. In his testimony yesterday, Christy told lawmakers that scientists "cannot reliably project the trajectory of the climate" for large regions of the United States.

Christy also said it would be a "far more difficult task" to predict the effects should the United States adopt a mandatory greenhouse gas policy.

Hansen's e-mail said skeptical points of view cloud the climate debate rather than enlighten it. "The function of the contrarians is to obfuscate what is known, so as to keep the public confused and allow special interests to continue to reap short-term profits, to the detriment of the long-term economic well-being of the nation," he said.

Hansen said Congress should direct the National Academy of Sciences to update its 2001 report to President Bush on the state of the science surrounding global warming. "Until then, it is just a charade," he wrote...

Science is supposed to be about considering all points of view and then rejecting those that cannot be proven valid, not about throwing hissy fits because alternative points of view are under consideration.

Had the House Government Reform Committee taken a page from Dr. Hansen's playbook and refused to invite Dr. Christy solely because of Christy's views, it would have been censorship.

Cross-posted at National Center for Public Policy Research blog

From Grampa Tumblebug, aka, Wayne Kerns. Deserves an FME Gammy.

In so many ways does the mainstream press demean conservatives who work on environmental issues.

In this Los Angeles Times piece by Jim Puzzanghera, conservatives wary of the Henry Paulson nomination are described as "causing problems" for Paulson because Paulson likes to watch birds.

Here's how the article begins:

WASHINGTON - As a three-decade Wall Street veteran and chairman of one of the nation's premiere investment banks, Henry M. Paulson Jr. makes a living watching markets.

But it's his hobby of watching birds that is already causing problems for his nomination as the nation's next Treasury secretary.

An ardent environmentalist, Paulson is expected to be questioned during confirmation hearings about his role as chairman of the Nature Conservancy, and whether he adequately cleaned up the organization's questionable land sale and tax break practices. Another potential sticky issue: a decision by Goldman Sachs, the investment bank Paulson heads as chairman and chief executive, to donate 680,000 acres of land in a remote section of Chile to an environmental group with ties to his son...

If only we really were as petty as the Times paints us. The actual concerns of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center are here and here, the concerns of the Free Enterprise Action Fund are here, the Competititve Enterprise Institute's are here and the National Center for Public Policy Research's concerns are detailed here.

Birds don't seem to be the theme.

Nanotechnology is not particularly regulated. The Washington Post reports some are trying to change that.

Jon Christensen is blogging up a storm from the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in St. Louis at his blog, The Uneasy Chair. I don't have time to summarize all the posts, but among the highlights are an interview with Lynn Scarlett and this post on the Walla Walla Way. I also really liked this post on how on-the-ground conservationists and free-market types are responding to the White House "cooperative conservation" initiatives (excerpted below).

Last week, President Bush nominated attorney Granta Nakayma to be Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the Environmental Protection Agency. Now some environmentalists are crying foul because Nakayama works at a law firm that actually represented corporations. The worst allegation is that, since his firm, Kirkland & Ellis, represents W.R. Grace, and Grace has been subject to EPA enforcement, Nakayama will be unable to aggressively enforce environmental laws. But Kirkland is representing W.R. Grace in bankruptcy proceedings and Nakayama has never been involved with the case. It is disingenuous to attribute all of the work of Nakayama's entire law firm -- a firm with several hundred attorneys -- to Nakayama. Moreover, while at EPA Nakayama will be recused from matters relating to his work at Kirkland.

It seems that the only way not to be "tainted" in some folks' eyes is to never have worked in the private sector, particularly as a private attorney with paying clients. I know some greens would like to see every position at EPA filled with NRDC attorneys and lifetime government employees, but that's not going to happen in a Republican administration.

[Disclosure: I've worked for/with Kirkland & Ellis on matters with Nakayama, and he co-taught a class I took in law school.]

I have a piece up over at A Better Earth in response to recent attacks and setbacks for the Fee Demonstration program.

In March I appeared on the panel "How to Protect Environmental Protections," sponsored by the Center for American Progress, American Constitution Society, and the Environmental Law Institute. A video and transcript of the event are available here. The transcript will also be published in the Environmental Law Reporter. Note, the transcript was not edited much at all (their choice, not mine), and contains a few errors.

Over at A Better Earth, there is an interesting piece about an EPA raid back in 2000 of an industrial stamping plant where the EPA criminal investigation unit apparently falsified documents to bring its criminal charges.

Over at the Missoula Independent, George Ochenski rants against outsourcing at the Department of Interior.

In my latest column for NRO, I explain why Bush's nomination of Stephen Johnson to head the EPA is going nowhere for no good reason.

I must say that I get a kick out of Amazon.com and others who attempt to sell stuff online that can be had for free with a google search. For instance, an article that I wrote on farm subsidies harming the environment two years ago costs you $5.95 at Amazon, but you can get it at the American Enterprise website where originally published as well as here and here for free.

I also found out in a shameless binge of ego-surfing today that A Better Earth is running a book review of mine where I argue that while "wealthier is healthier" is an important concept, it is perhaps more important to remember that stable property rights are what create wealth. Maybe the most important part of the review is its effort to debunk the idea that development assistance can have the same success as property rights in creating wealth for the developing world. If you have a little time to kill, I'm rather proud of that review and happy to see it getting a little press, so consider checking it out.

Finally, ego-surfing led me to a just-released Reason Institute study advocating recreation fees for federal lands, which relies on my paper from last June dealing with some of the hurdles facing such fees.

Izaak Walton League executive director Paul Hansen thinks that environmentalists are as much to blame for the polarization of environmental policy and failure to adopt real environmental solutions as President Bush and Republicans:

While President Bush and many of today's Republican leaders seem to be out of step with the American public and much of their own party when it comes to environmental conservation, the tactics of some environmentalists also play a significant role in creating the political polarization and stalemate that have caused gridlock for more than a decade on environmental policy.

Here is the story on the nomination from the Environmental News Service.

Bush has named a career EPA employee named Stephen Johnson to be the new administrator. I've never heard of him. Does this mean that we have finally come to the point where no sane person wants to run the place?

Roger Pielke has a characteristically thoughtful post on the politicization of science on the Prometheus science policy blog.

It is clear that there is an ample supply of people willing to use concern over the politicization of science as a political bludgeon to score points on the Bush Administration. It is also clear that there are plenty of others aligned with the Bush Administration willing to do exactly the opposite. The question I have is, where are the analysts (including reporters) who care about the politicization of science irrespective of possible advantages that are lent to today’s partisan political battles?

Today President Bush nominated Lynn Scarlett to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. Currently Scarlett is Assistant Scretary for Policy, Management & Budget.

The media's coverage of alleged political "payola" -- government payments to opinion writers who support administration policies -- ignores the larger story. As I explained yesterday on NRO, every year the government dishes out several hundred million dollars to nonprofit advocacy groups -- groups that have as their primary aim influencing federal government policy. Such grants and contracts are particualrly widespread in environmental policy. Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation and World Wildlife Fund receive mililons from the EPA and other government sources -- a fact that is rarely disclosed or discussed. In other words, the EPA is giving money to groups that then turn around and advocate greater EPA authority.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee published a report on federal grants to environmental groups last year. The EPA also maintains a web-searchable database of current grants. Both reveal the substantial flow of taxpayer dollars to environmental activist organizations. I've also testified before Congress on federal funding of the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, which raises related issues. The testimony is available here.

Some journalists and environmental groups try to discredit critics of federal regulation by noting that they receive support from business sources. If recveiveing such money is enough to taint a group's credibility -- and their arguments and policy proposals cannot be independently evaluated on their merits -- shouldn't federal money also taint those groups that seek to defend a greater federal regulatory role?

Personal disclosure: At present, I am not the recipient of any corporate or government funds -- but I'd happily take private-sector contributions.

Senator Dole placed a call to Andrew Card before Christmas asking the White House to consider Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory for EPA administrator, among other positions.

UPDATE: It appears that the majority of McCrory's federal and environmental experience has come in the form of lobbying for dollars for light rail transit and "smart growth" initiatives. See, for instance, his congressional testimony from March of 1997. The only difference between McCrory's "conservative" smart growth and other smart growth policies is that he seeks more of the subsidy dollars for developers directly instead of city regulatory coffers --- though he certainly hasn't been squeamish about soliciting federal dollars for the city of Charlotte itself. One thing seems rather certain: there certainly would be nothing conservative about the budget for a McCrory EPA.

It is not very often that plenary panels at the Association of American Law Schools annual meeting focus on environmental questions. By that standard, Yesterday’s panel “Creating a New Field: The Evolution of Environmental Law,” is quite notable. Keynoted by Professor Emeritus Joseph L. Sax, the panel focuses on how academics influenced – indeed, some might argue helped create – the field of environmental law. Sax is a giant in the field, having authored numerous books and articles advocating the expansion of government authority to address environmental concerns. Sax, more than anyone else, is responsible for the emergence of the public trust doctrine in modern environmental law. Sax is not only a scholar, however, having worked with numerous environmental organizations and as counselor to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt from 1994-96. His keynote address explains how he became engaged in environmental law, and how he launched a career combining scholarship and advocacy – a career that helped shape the entire field.

The Bush Administration’s environmental legacy was the subject of a panel sponsored by the Section on Natural Resources Law at the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) annual meeting in San Francisco earlier today. Titled “The Legacy of the Bush Administration’s First Term: Natural Resources Law and Policy in the Cross-Hairs,” the panel assessed the changes in natural resource and federal land policies during the first four years of President Bush’s terms. As noted by moderator David Harding Getches, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Law, the Bush Administration’s policies have come under harsh criticism for reversing Clinton Administration initiatives, “rolling back” environmental protections, misusing environmental science, and adopting a “Trojan horse” approach to litigation, strategically settling lawsuits brought by resource groups to shift land-use policy in either a pro-industry or free market direction. The panel of environmental law professors was interesting and provocative. My summary of the proceedings follows.

Four years of a Republican administration has meant great advances in environmental reform, particularly the decentralization of environmental decision-making and the empowerment of state governments, right? Not exactly. Indeed, the trend appears to be to the contrary. Whereas the Clinton Administration at least toyed with initiatives to increase regulatory flexibility and encourage state-level innovation -- Projext XL, NEPPS, etc. -- there has been no such initiative out of the Bush Administration. Instead, the administration focuses on a handful of environmental initiatives -- Clear Skies, Healthy Forests -- and it's back to business as usual at EPA.

Acutally it's worse than that. A long-time career civil servant at EPA e-mails that in his part of the agency there is increased resistance to such efforts. When Carol Browner was EPA administrator, senior officials were not afraid that toying with federalism and flexibility would lead to backsliding or the abdication of enforcement. That's all changed.

With Republicans in office, every little hint of cooperation with the enemy (be it states or regulated facilities) is met with howls of doom. It is no longer an innovation, it is a giveaway.

If the EPA isn't seeking to reinvigorate federalism in environmental policy, neither is the Justice Department. In recent cases before the Supreme Court the DoJ has consistently opposed statutory interpretations that would grant states greater flexibility, whether to make standards more or less stringent. While some of the DoJ's positions were defensible as a matter of statutory interpretation, it's troubling that the administration reached a pro-federal government result in each case.

It seems the only bright spots on the federalism front may be the U.S. Forest Service, where recent regulations to reform forest management have given states a greater say in resource use decisions. There's also an executive order on cooperative conservation to encourage greater state and local participation in federal land-use decisions. It's a start. For those who'd like to see greater decentralization, I've outlined my own approach -- "ecological forebearance" -- here (an earlier, slightly longer version is here).

NOTE: This post was edited to correct an embarrassing error.

An editorial from the Bangor Daily News cites Mike Leavitt's departure from EPA as further reason for raising EPA Administrator to cabinet-level status. The editorial contends that if EPA were cabinet level, then Leavitt would have no cause for leaving it.

In Grist's speculation on the next EPA head, Chairman of the CEQ Jim Connaughton's name is mentioned. I think Connaughton would make a great head of EPA, but I have my doubts that the Administration will pick him. I think Bush is happy to have Connaughton where he has him, bringing the top conservative thinking on environmental issues into the Administration's policy advocacy. Having Connaughton free to speak on various issues and to help formulate the policies may be an asset that the Administration doesn't wish to lose to the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EPA.

The two dozen staff members of CEQ are a lot easier to manage and more flexible in switching policy direction than the thousands of bureaucrats housed by the EPA. That is why I look for Bush to appoint another bureaucratic manager like he did with Leavitt and Whitman. This reasoning is also why I have suggested Marc Racicot might get the job. But I won't be complaining if Grist is right and I am wrong.

Meanwhile, members of the New Jersey delegation are calling for Bush to appoint an environmental advocate to head the EPA. Environmental advocate is pretty ambiguous language that will allow them to criticize whoever is appointed.

Grist's Muckraker speculates here, and The Commons Blog's own J. Bishop Grewell adds his thoughts below.

Given that I have yet to see a prediction for Bush II turn out correctly (except for the Condi Rice no-brainer), I think I can prognosticate with the best of them. So who is the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency? Some insiders are saying Tom Skinner. Some free market folks are hoping for Lynn Scarlett. Presumably nobody thinks it will be Steven Griles who just left Interior.

My prediction (not to be confused with my hope) is former Montana Governor Marc Racicot. He's played the dutiful soldier for a long time now, taking a front position in both of the last two election fights. Bush probably would like to pay off that loyalty and moreover would probably be happy to have someone he knows will tow the line after the Whitman debacle of almost two years ago. Racicot also became good friends with departing Administrator Leavitt when they were both western governors and thus might be in the list of names that Leavitt would suggest.

But shouldn't we give everyone a chance, so how about enviro-guy? I'm sure Canada would let us have him cheap. Not to be confused with this enviro-guy. (Though their hopes to rule the world with a super-weapon that reverses global warming while also sinking the world's economies are strikingly similar.)

UPDATE: By the way, the leading contenders last time around. Note the absence of Leavitt on the list and the failed prediction: ""We're more likely to see Miguel Estrada confirmed before we see a new EPA administrator confirmed."

UPDATE NUMBER TWO: The Rocky Mountain News reports on other top contenders for EPA this time around.

President Bush reportedly asked Interior Secretary Gale Norton to stay on at the Department of Interior. Meanwhile, deputy secretary Stephen Griles -- who drew substantial environmentalist ire -- announced his resignation. Still no word as to who will replace Spencer Abraham at the Department of Energy.

PERC has released its FME scorecard of the Bush Administration.

Final Grade: C+. You can read more here.

The Sept/Oct 2004 issue of Sierra continues the green attack on the General Mining Law of 1872, as part of the Kedwards attack on the Bush environmental record. Under the headline "The Bush administration resurrects laws from the 1800s," the article complains that the Administration has complied with the Mining Law's provisions and turned over land claimed under it. Together with coauthors, I critique the "giveaway" claim in Homesteading Rock: A Defense of Free Access Under the General Mining Law of 1872, available here. The Sierra critique makes even less sense than the usual green attacks on privatization of federal lands - the Bush Administration has no choice but to privatize land when applicants comply with the the law's requirements. There is no "resurrection" of a law going on here, simply compliance with a law that has resisted concerted attacks, most recently former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's questionable use of "midnight" regulations to make an end run around Congress at the end of the Clinton-Gore administration (see my critique (with the same coauthors) of that in the summer 2003 issue of the Administrative Law Review.)

Senator Larry Craig's (R-ID) bill to eliminate the Fee Demonstration program from public lands, except for national parks, passed the Senate last month. A better bill, offered by Congressman Regula (R-Ohio), which would make the program permanent for Forest Service, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands remains in the House.

I currently have a piece on A Better Earth arguing for making the Fee Demonstration program permanent on all public lands, not just National Park Service lands. For those who haven't visited A Better Earth yet, it's a great site for FME types.

Also, my longer paper on recreation fees for public lands was published by PERC earlier this month. It defends recreation fees against arguments of double taxation, discrimination against the poor, reduced accountability, and commercialization.

Joe Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, has a very interesting transcript on his website. It is from a speech he gave about environmentalism to the Libertarian Party Convention.

Among other things, Joe addresses the current state of the environment, his past as a self-described "hippie freak" and critiques a talk given earlier at the convention by the executive director of the Sierra Club.

Anyone interested in environmental issues will enjoy the transcript from Joe's talk about Common Sense Environmentalism.

Some interesting poll data from the Sunday Washington Post. An excerpt:

More than a third of Americans say they don't trust President Bush 'at all' as a source of information about the environment, according to a new survey of attitudes about the environment by the Global Strategy Group for the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Sciences. Kerry fares somewhat better, with 24 percent saying they don't trust him on the issue.

But before Kerry's campaign tries to make hay out of that finding, consider the flip side: Although 26 percent of Americans say they trust the president 'a lot' for environmental information, only 12 percent say they feel that way about Kerry.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web today has a hilarious point to make about a new book written by Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope.

Taranto notes that Pope complains that President Bush has (supposedly) turned back the clock on environmental protection "a full century" -- and Pope complains that Bush has "abandoned the environmental principles first championed by President Theodore Roosevelt."

But, Taranto points, out, "if Bush is trying to turn the clock back a century, that would be to 1904, when the president was . . . Theodore Roosevelt."

Over the past decade, a series of Supreme Court decisions has begun to curtail federal regulatory power. Environmental activists view this trend with dismay. The President of the Environmental Law Institute, for example, warns this is a "disturbing trend . . . that will weaken the framework of federal laws providing a safety net of environmental and public health protection for us all." It is an article of faith in much of the environmentalist establishment that restraining federal power necessarily inhibits environmental protection. But is it really so?

The Supreme Court's federalism decisions have begun to affect federal environmental laws, albeit only on the margins. If taken seriously, however, federalism principles would limit federal environmental regulations. Yet this need not hamper environmental protection. Constitutional limits on federal power may prevent the federal government from adopting certian environmental protections, but they also can limit the federal government from causing environmental harm. More importantly, it is a mistake to assume that the federal government has a monopoly on effective environmental protection. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence that, in many areas, state and local governments can be more effective.

I make these arguments in much greater detail -- albeit in draft form -- in "Judicial Federalism and the Future of Federal Environmental Regulation," available on SSRN. The paper will be coming (not so) soon in a law review. Until then, comments are welcome.