Part II: What the Experts Say
This is the second in a series on Bush’s environmental record. Part I: Mission Statement is available here.
Feedback to the first part of this series got a bit muddled, for which I’ll take responsibility, but to summarize the point: The EPA has a mission, a raison d’etre, and that mission is being undermined by the Bush Administration.
We went a few rounds on that one, but its validity is central to any objective assessment of the Bush record, as the EPA is the best tool at his disposal for implementing his environmental vision for the country. So, we’ve had our say on the matter…what do the Experts think? I’ve searched far and wide to find the most objective opinions I can, purposely leaving out any opinion by a source that only had negative comments, including all infamous tree-hugging groups (i.e., no comments from the Sierra Club or NRDC). Having said that, it’s hard to find much in the way of praise for Bush’s record:
Who they are:
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a private, non-profit organization that protects the government employees who protect our environment.PEER works with and on behalf of these resource professionals to effect change in the way government agencies conduct business. PEER promotes environmental ethics and overnment accountability.
What they do:
In the ever-changing tide of political leadership, these front-line employees stand as defenders of the public interest within their agencies and as the first line of defense against
the exploitation and pollution of our environment. Their unmatched technical knowledge, long-term service and proven experiences make these professionals a credible voice for meaningful reform.
What they say about the EPA under Bush (September 15, 2003):
“Today, EPA is a rudderless bureaucracy without strong leadership capable of protecting its mission,” commented PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Without strong intervention by an as yet indifferent Administration, the nation’s basic environmental safety net may be ripped apart by hundreds of short knives carving out pork barrel projects.”
Who they are:
THE CLEAN AIR TRUST was incorporated in 1995 as a 501 (c)(4) nonprofit organization by former Senators Edmund Muskie [Democrat] of Maine and Robert Stafford [Republican] of Vermont.
What they do:
The Trust was created to educate the public and policymakers about the value of the Clean Air Act, to promote effective enforcement of the Act through grassroots education, and to defend the Act against attack by special interest polluters.
What they say about the EPA under Bush (February 13, 2004):
Today’s action undercuts a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act designed to keep national parks and other treasured lands from being shrouded by smog and soot,” said Frank O’Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust. O’Donnell noted EPA’s decision reverses more than 30 years of federal law — previously upheld by the Supreme Court — which requires that the EPA not permit a “significant deterioration” of pristine air quality.
I really feel compelled to repeat that last bit: “30 years of federal law — previously upheld by the Supreme Court — which requires that the EPA not permit a “significant deterioration” of pristine air quality.“
Who they are:
UCS is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists….UCS was founded in 1969 by faculty members and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who were concerned about the misuse of science and technology in society. Their statement called for the redirection of scientific research to pressing environmental and social problems.
What they do:
We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.
What they say about the
Today, more than 60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels. …..
In conjunction with the statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists today released a report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking that investigates numerous allegations in the scientists’ statement involving censorship and political interference with independent scientific inquiry at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior and Defense.
One example cited in the statement and report involves the suppression of an EPA study that found the bipartisan Senate Clear Air bill would do more to reduce mercury contamination in fish and prevent more deaths than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act. “This is akin to the White House directing the National Weather Service to alter a hurricane forecast because they want everyone to think we have clear skies ahead,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists “The hurricane is still coming, but without factual information no one will be ready for it.”
Comparing President Bush with his father, George H.W. Bush and former president Richard M. Nixon, the statement warned that had these former presidents similarly dismissed science in favor of political ends, over 200,000 deaths and millions of respiratory and cardiovascular disease cases would not have been prevented with the signing of the original Clean Air Act and the 1990 amendments to that Act.
Granted, this report appears to be a political statement in addition to a scientific opinion, but the intellectual weight behind this statement should not just be ignored. From what I can find (invitation!), none of these groups were making charges this alarming during Clinton or Bush Sr.’s administrations (ok, so the Clean Air Trust wasn’t around during Bush I’s term…you know what I mean).
What stands out as I research this more, is how environmental protection has not only been a bipartisan effort (see above Clean Air Trust), but actually propelled in large part by Republicans (see EPA website for a good history). Who shouldn’t feel betrayed by the Bush record?
Upcoming parts in this series to provide promised specifics.
Edward wrote:
A charge for which Edward provided zero evidence, save an article from an attorney from the NRDC which proved to be so fraught with error, exaggerations, half-truths and falsehoods, that Edward was forced to abandon it, much less substantiate any of the allegations levied in it.
Not necessarily.
This does not appear to be true. It seems that all Edward has done is substituted one group of left-wing activist groups (NRDC, Sierra Club) for another (PEER, Union of Concerned Scientists) – none of which seem to offer anything in the way of objective or specific information.
More importantly though, Edward has yet to offer anything to substantiate any specific charges against the Bush administration’s environmental policies. Which is surprising because in his introduction, he listed this as one of his primary interest areas. You would think then that he might have done his homework in advance rather than having to make it up as he goes along.
So far those of us who don’t “feel betrayed by the Bush record” tend to actually be better informed and more rational in our thinking than those making vague and unsubstantiated charges of “damages” which don’t seem to be the case at all.
I’m not sure if it means anything, but the UCS is funded by the same agencies as NPR: Carnegie Corporation, John D. and Katherine T. MacArthur Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation. Again, it doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong, just that impartiality may be a difficult claim to make.
The presence of criticism doesn’t always imply wrongdoing on the part of those being criticised. The Jones Foundation has an axe to grind, just as UCS has an axe to grind; just as soon as we see substantive arguments, we can evaluate for ourselves what the reality of the situation is.
Slartibartfast wrote:
I agree, my understanding is the UCS cut their political teeth as part of the “nuclear freeze” movement several decades ago which is pretty much as far Left as you can go in American politics without actively rooting for the other side (e.g. ANSWER). Still, it does seem rather odd to tout them (or a government employees union) as being an “objective” source. Still that does not mean that their “criticism” is necessarily invalid, but it does alert the reader to potential bias and how the information is being spun.
True, I was rather hoping for some specific issues or policies which have been implemented – which is what most of us think of when we “judge a candidate by his or her record.” Or better still, someone trying to make the case why this particular policy is “bad” or “good” which is what usually happens in substantive debate.
What we have instead though is (1) Edward floating out something he read somewhere from a group predisposed to agree with him politically, (2) the rest of us knocking it down by pointing out the actual facts or their ramifications aren’t necessarily as he said or believes, and (3) a repeat of steps 1 and 2.
For the record, I do agree that Bush has not done much in the way of innovation of environmental policy – by which I do not mean that he has not done anything or that what he has done is bad (on the balance I’d say it’s good) – but just that I would prefer he do more in the way of market-oriented and decentralized policies instead of simply tinkering with the edges of an increasingly obsolete “command and control” model which IMNHO is becoming increasingly less relevant and delivering a diminishing return. Bush has made some progress in trying to fix some counter-productive regulations (the Clear Skies policy on utility emissions is a good example) which didn’t get the results their supporters (or apologists if you are not inclined to believe that not every regulation is necessarily good simply because it promises environmental protection but does not actually deliver) and actually deliver some reforms which will probably get a better results than the status quo.
Edward, wasn’t their a Danish scientist who wrote a stat analysis on the tree huggers, I’m surprised you didn’t mention him.
That would be Bjorn Lomborg.
Well thank you Mr. Winston. Eddie, is your analysis going to touch on Bjorn?
You would think then that he might have done his homework in advance rather than having to make it up as he goes along.
That’s a fair charge, Thorley. If when my research is concluded it turns out Bush’s record is actually quite good and these critiques are ill-founded, I’ll share that too, rest assured.
But as Jonathan H. Adler pointed out, “One problem with defending the Bush environmental record, however, is that it is not so clear what there is to defend.” I’m searching for both pro- and con- arguments in the specifics…I’ll share all of it, if you’ll be a bit patient. I’ve actually found a few voices that argue Bush hasn’t done all that much harm. My point in the first two Parts is that simply “not doing much harm” is not in the spirit of the EPA’s mission.
Bush has succeeded quite well by lowering expectations in other arenas, but the environment is not one he should be praised for doing so in.
Edward wrote:
Probably not. You have already made it quite clear from the title of your posts alone that this particular series of posts was going to be a hatchet job rather than an honest and objective analysis of environmental policies.
On a scale of one to eight, with one being ‘radical left’ and eight being ‘market right’, the Union of Concerned Scientists scored a one. Their largest contributor is the Pew Charitable Trusts, which gave them $1 million in both 2001 and 2002, followed by a bevy of left-wing foundations.
So is there a particular reason we should care how the Capital Research Center rated the Union of Concerned Scientists?
Only if you might have believed Edward’s earlier claim that they were offering one of the “most objective opinions” on the issue at hand.
Regardless though, they didn’t offer much if anything in the way of a factual criticism so pointing out that they are simply grinding an ideological axe rather than offering an objective analysis is rather obvious but still worth nothing for those who might be unfamiliar with such a benign sounding group.
Perhaps they should rename themselves the Union of Concerned Socialist Scientists. From John Weidner:
Only if you might have believed Edward’s earlier claim that they were offering one of the “most objective opinions” on the issue at hand.
So why should I trust the Capital Research Center in particular?
So why should I trust the Capital Research Center in particular?
Why do you think anyone’s asking you to?
Bring out the skeptics!
Seriously, the fact remains that Bush has slowed, rolled back, or tried to roll back tougher Clinton-era regulations.
All you need to know about Bush’s priorities are contained in its budget cuts and its treatment of scientific research.
All you need to know about Bush’s priorities are contained in its budget cuts and its treatment of scientific research.
It’d be nice if there was a little more in the way of fact in that great drift of verbiage, and a little less opinion.
Look, no one’s going to argue that Bush is a paragon of forward thinking. The way the stem cell research and cloning research were simply swept aside dismayed more than a few on this side of the aisle. But to say that Bush is a big meany on the environment because some guys with Nobel prizes feel that way is just naked appeal to authority.
There are plenty of facts on my website.
Why do you think anyone’s asking you to?
Gosh, Slartibartfast, maybe because Bird Dog linked to their rating of the Union of Concerned Scientists as a way of debunking the UCS’s position on the issues Edward raised?
Slartibartfast wrote:
Sorry but I beg to differ. The ban on human cloning was a decisively bipartisan decision (IIRC Clinton) and Bush’s decision on stem cell research only pertains to federal funding and even then it was pretty limited without restricting federally funding of research using either existing stem cell lines or stem cells from sources other than human embryos (e.g. placenta).
There are plenty of facts on my website.
Well, then you might consider linking to them. The link you supplied lead to the aforementioned drift of opinion.
Gosh, Slartibartfast, maybe because Bird Dog linked to their rating of the Union of Concerned Scientists as a way of debunking the UCS’s position on the issues Edward raised?
I must have missed the part where BD insisted that belief was required. Silly me.
Sorry but I beg to differ. The ban on human cloning was a decisively bipartisan decision (IIRC Clinton) and Bush’s decision on stem cell research only pertains to federal funding and even then it was pretty limited without restricting federally funding of research using either existing stem cell lines or stem cells from sources other than human embryos (e.g. placenta).
Hmmm…given that I’m pretty sure that’s all true, I must now reexamine my opinion. Assertion retracted, for now.
Well, then you might consider linking to them. The link you supplied lead to the aforementioned drift of opinion.
Scroll down to the budget tables if you want cold, hard numbers.
The fact remains that Bush’s 2005 slashes federal research dollars.
I must have missed the part where BD insisted that belief was required. Silly me.
So, uh, if he didn’t want me to believe the link, why’d he post it? Just for fun?
Well, Josh, Edward posted a link to UCS…is the intention that we should just blindly believe everything they say? What’s the difference, here?
It’s information. If you don’t find it useful, then feel free to ignore it.
Well, lemme see. Now that I’m looking at the post you ought to have linked, praktike, I find that Defense is hurt an order of magnitude more than most others. Is that your complaint?
Unless you’ve got a list of specific research programs that were axed, I could just as validly conclude that everything that’s axed here is basically pork. Couldn’t I?
Read the UCS report on scientific integrity in policy-making yourself, and decide.
I found it amusing that a good chunk of the outrage was directed at Bush for keeping global-warming pseudoscience out of government decisions. Reading much further would have exceeded my daily dose of irony.
Or corporate welfare.
Or corporate welfare.
Is there a difference?
Well, Josh, Edward posted a link to UCS…is the intention that we should just blindly believe everything they say? What’s the difference, here?
The difference is that I was asking for a reason to believe Capital Research Center. Bird Dog didn’t give any reason to disbelieve the UCS other than the fact that CRC says they’re a bunch of leftists. If he’d criticized their work in a substantive manner, I wouldn’t have said a damn thing.
It’s information. If you don’t find it useful, then feel free to ignore it.
Not all information is equally valuable.
The difference is that I was asking for a reason to believe…
So do some research. OTOH, if you don’t care for non-substantive arguments, ignore them. Your choice, as always.
Not all information is equally valuable.
Correct. It’s up to you, the user, to evaluate. To me, that UCS is being sponsored by the same folks that are paying large quantities of money to foist a lot of global-warming pseudoscience on the public through other avenues is meaningful, particularly since advocation of that same global-warming pseudoscience is buried in its…end product. Could be cause and effect, could be alignment of purposes; I don’t know, but it’s an interesting connection.
So do some research.
This isn’t usually the way it goes. Usually, the person who makes the claim is expected to back it up. If Bird Dog can’t vouch for the trustworthiness of his cite, he shouldn’t use it in the first place.
BirdDog’s post, uncut and uncensored:
Is there a claim in there, somewhere? I must have missed it.
The implicit claim is that they’re radically left-wing, and by extension that they are untrustworthy. This is elementary, and you know better.
maybe because Bird Dog linked to their rating of the Union of Concerned Scientists as a way of debunking the UCS’s position on the issues Edward raised?
I wasn’t debunking UCSS per se, I was debunking Edward’s notion that they were even a semblance of an objective source.
Bird Dog didn’t give any reason to disbelieve the UCS other than the fact that CRC says they’re a bunch of leftists.
Capital Research cited all kinds wildly off-base items from UCS. I don’t really care that UCS is left-wing, but I do care when they throw around their diplomas and awards to push forward a left-wing political agenda. Their witch hunt on Lomborg alone is enough to question their motives and selective use of scientific data.
Edward, I implore you. Find another source, one that at at least half-tries to keep its political agendas in check.
Edward,
Irving turned me on to this group, the Federation of American Scientists. They strike me as more evenhanded than most.
Thanks for the lead, Bird Dog…I’ll check into it.
I’ve actually expanded my research to include sources both pro- and con- on each of Bush’s stated environmental goals, and am finally get some opinions that either seem truly objective or have a clear bias (i.e., Greenpeace vs. BusinessWeek).
Edward, wasn’t their a Danish scientist who wrote a stat analysis on the tree huggers, [Lomberg]
Lomberg is not a scientist. He’s not even a statiscian. His book is replete with errors, which makes even his good claims suspect.
So is there a particular reason we should care how the Capital Research Center rated the Union of Concerned Scientists?
I wasn’t debunking UCSS per se, I was debunking Edward’s notion that they were even a semblance of an objective source.
By citing a subjective source. Gotcha.
I find it humourous that BirdDog always links to these rightwing groups masquerading as an impartial research center. Look at the board of directors, every single one of them is connected to the Republican party someway. And the ratings, radical left vs. market right – shouldn’t that be radical left/radical right? Why the softer sounding “market”? And I searched, but couldn’t find one group ranked an 8. What a crock of shit.
Why do you care so much about Lomberg? He published this himself, it’s not peer reviewed, and half of which would be thrown out to begin with. Yet he continues to masquerade as a scientist. And if pointing out the flaws of his work is a witchunt then he (and you by extension) needs to get thicker skin.
FAS is decent group, but they largely focus on weapons, and not so much on research science of a non-weapon orientation.
…keeping global-warming pseudoscience out of government decisions.
hack.
hack.
I’ll tell you what. Point me toward some evidence at all that mankind has contributed any significant amount toward global warming, and I’ll retract that. So far, I’ve seen nothing at all. Even the NAS report that UCS says affirms the global-warming science specifically says that the human contribution cannot yet be quantified.
Or, you could just call me names. Your choice.
Slartibartfast: Would you accept a report by the International Panel on Climate Change, or would you consider that biased? Either way, here’s something to look at.
I’m reading it now. Actually, I’m going to have to take a great deal of time reading it. At first blush, it fails to do a couple of things. First, it fails to predict. Second, it fails to explain why they had to fudge their model coefficients to the extent that they did, to get a decent fit to current data.
But this is just surface impression, and might be answered through a deeper reading. This might take some days. Thanks for the link; I’ve not seen anything at this level of effort.
The specific chapter I linked to doesn’t really go into prediction; that’s covered in this document, and by this chapter in the original document.
Your question about the model coefficients is probably also answered elsewhere in the original document.
Global warming data repository
I’ve been maintaining for some time that there’s little or no hard science behind the claim that humans contribute significantly toward global warming. I think it’s time for a deeper look at what’s available. The list of testimonials is likely…