| << Back 2/2/05 The Naturalist's Corner By Don Hendershot Whitman, Bush’s pick in 2000 to head the EPA, is a born-in-the-party Republican. She was the first and second woman (she served two terms) ever elected governor in the “blue” state of New Jersey. She grew up in an elite Republican family. Her father, Webster Todd, is often credited with promoting and bankrolling Dwight D. Eisenhower’s presidential campaign. Her 2000 appointment got mixed reviews from conservatives and environmentalists alike. The storyline is that conservatives were more concerned about marshalling support for some of Bush’s more conservative nominees like John Ashcroft than questioning the appointment of a moderate pro-choice Republican who the Dems were likely to welcome. As for the environmental community, the president of New Jersey’s Sierra Club blasted the nomination. “Whitman’s appointment is a Christmas gift to America’s polluters. People think she’s a moderate because she’s pro-choice. But she’s taken a hard-right approach to the issues she’ll see at EPA,” said Jeff Tittle. Fred Krupp, executive director of Environmental Defense, had a different take. “The appointment of Governor Whitman is a very positive action from President-elect Bush ... She has been a leader in efforts to secure clear air and protect the health of citizens in New Jersey and has also aggressively moved to engage mid-western states in efforts to clean the air,” Krupp said at the time of the nomination. I remember talking to a birding friend of mine — a New Jersey transplant — about Whitman’s appointment and his reply was basically that Bush could have done a lot worse. After being tossed to the wolves when Bush backtracked on his campaign promise to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and snubbed when she asked for authority to investigate the safety of chemical facilities in America, Whitman resigned as EPA head in June 2003 citing personal reasons. According to It’s My Party Too, Whitman quickly found out that she and the administration were clearly not on the same environmental page. In the book she writes, “Karl Rove told me ... that I would be one of just three cabinet officers who would help determine whether the president would be re-elected. I took Rove to mean that the work I would do in building a strong record on the environment would help the president build his base by attracting moderate swing voters. As it turned out, I don’t seem to have understood Karl correctly.” But Whitman has only herself to blame for her naiveté. She should have certainly seen the train coming down the track way back in 2001. Whitman was just settling in at EPA as Vice President Cheney was getting ready to release his energy report. Whitman sent a memo with suggestions and concerns, some listed below: “I want to make sure that the report is as strong as it can be, and that we can defend it against unnecessary political vulnerabilities. I also think that the tone can be improved – humanized & personalized – by adding back some deleted material on health benefits.” “... The general tone of the report could be improved with some simple fixes. For example, EPA furnished statistics on the health benefits of cleaner air which were deleted. The statistics highlight the human face of why we protect the environment, and balance the discussion of the costs of environmental regulation. Polling shows people are willing to pay a reasonable cost for clean air.” “New Source Review — This is the toughest needle to thread. As we discussed, the real issue for industry is the enforcement cases. We will pay a terrible political price if we undercut or walk away from enforcement cases; it will be hard to refute the challenge that we are deciding not to enforce the Clean Air Act.” “... We will be subject to unnecessary political damage if we make specific commitments on things like routine maintenance, or if we make a commitment now to seek additional legislative reforms beyond the three pollutant bill. The environmental community, some states and the public will read that as an attack on the enforcement cases. Settlements will likely slow down or stop. It will also prove counterproductive. I think a broad attack in the report on NSR will permanently destroy our chance to achieve any needed legislative reforms we may seek in the future.” “Hydraulic Fracturing — There is one 1997 case, limited to Alabama, holding that hydraulic fracturing for methane recovery should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA does not agree with the court’s decision, but draft language in the report goes much further. It states that all hydraulic fracturing should be exempted from the Act, EPA is studying this: I strongly suggest limiting recommendation to the problem we know about – hydraulic fracturing for coalbed methane. Otherwise, before the study is completed, we are potentially walking into a trap because we don’t know yet the environmental consequences of the broader exemption, or why it is needed.” It appears the energy task force and the administration were too revved to slow down and listen to one lonely voice of reason from within. The changes to the NSR alone let utilities like TVA, Ohio Edison and Illinois Power — all facing violation of NSR — off scott-free. According to most reviewers, the book will not be the searing indictment of the Bush administration’s environmental record most environmentalists would like to see. Reviewer Amanda Griscom Little points out in a Grist article, “only one chapter is devoted to her experiences at the agency.” But there is enough throughout the book — like the carbon-dioxide incident and her assessment of Cheney’s energy task force: “... an eye-opening encounter with just how obsessed so many of those in the energy industry, and in the Republican Party, have become with doing away with environmental regulation,” to whet the environmental appetite. (Don Hendershot can be reached a ddihen@juno.com.) |
||