Stonewall Steve's War on the Planet

It's been an item of debate in D.C. circles for some time: who was really the worst head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?

Was it Anne Gorsuch Burford, who resigned from the EPA in disgrace after being cited for contempt of Congress?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3418-2004Jul21.html [1]

Or is it EPA’s current head, Stephen Johnson, known as “Stonewall” for his rocklike refusal to answer questions from Congress about White House interference in crucial EPA decisions. http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2008/06/stonewall-steve-johnson.html [2]

Well, the verdict is in. Thanks to his utterly disgraceful behavior last week, the winner – really the biggest loser -- is Stonewall Steve. In an effort to continue currying favor with a dying regime, this disgusting pseudo-religious hypocrite http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2008/01/03/epas_holy_roller.php [3]
has declared war not only on his own agency, but on the planet.

Yes, we’ve all read the stories of how Johnson caved in to White House pressure on such issues as rejecting California’s effort to enforce greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles and EPA’s national standards for smog. (In both cases, the White House has invoked “Executive Privilege” to hide exactly what happened from Congress. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=2030 [4] )

But it is worth taking a moment to examine Johnson’s most recent act of sycophantic duplicity, which happened last Friday afternoon, the typical time for newsmakers to dump out “bad news.” Johnson’s bad news – at least for the planet -- was EPA’s formal alleged response to the Supreme Court decision which held that EPA did indeed have legal authority under the Clean Air Act to deal with global warming, unless the agency determined that global warming posed no public health or the environment.

Yes, that decision should have been a no-brainer. And last year, EPA’s professional staff drafted not only the declaration that global warming was a threat (the so-called “endangerment” finding), but tough new greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles. The White House sent both to the circular file, and Johnson declared last December that EPA would continue to examine the issue.

Once again, EPA’s dedicated professionals went to work – preparing a detailed “advanced notice of proposed rulemaking” which noted that the Clean Air Act could indeed be used to reduce global warming emissions – and that tougher vehicle standards could actually save consumers up to $2 trillion by prompting use of more fuel efficient cars that would waste less gasoline. (By the way, aren’t we supposed to favor ideas that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Apparently not, if the car companies go whining to the White House.)

Once again, the White House stepped in – and actually turned the EPA finding upside down. It issued a document http://www.epa.gov/epahome/pdf/anpr20080711.pdf [5]
which showcases attacks on EPA by the White House Office of Management and Budget and other cabinet agencies (Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, and Energy) oriented towards protecting special interests rather than the environment. They declared -- contrary to EPA's staff views -- that nothing constructive could be done about global warming without action by Congress.

As my friend Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund points out:

"In a move unprecedented in the history of the Clean Air Act, EPA chief Stephen Johnson published a series of denunciations from current White House officials and adopted them as the basis for his own views. Johnson begins the [advanced notice] by noting that the Clean Air Act is "an outdated law" "ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases" repeating comments he made to national press earlier today.

But there is no basis for this bald and radical assertion in the document put forward by EPA's own staff. So, to prop up this outlandish claim, Johnson turned to the White House. Indeed, he promulgated the views of White House officials as a preface to disparage the work of EPA's own staff.

Here's the kicker: The senior EPA staff long involved in the development of the ANPR never saw the White House denunciations that Johnson put forward to justify his own utter failure to address the global warming crisis. Indeed, they are all dated within the last 2 days."

So for Johnson, it doesn’t matter if the planet keeps heating up or if he flips the bird to his own agency workers. What matters is sucking up to the little man in the White House.

As Margie Kriz reported earlier this year in the National Journal “Johnson enjoys telling his staff and visitors about his travels on Air Force One, his invitations to Camp David, and his wife's friendship with Laura Bush.”

Stonewall, my boy, you’d better enjoy the perks before you and your boss are both run out of town.

For these heinous misdeeds, the poet Dante would likely send Johnson to the eight rung of his Inferno – a place reserved for charlatans and corrupt politicians. By contrast, Burford, who died four years ago this week, rueful of her days of fronting for another vile, environment-hating White House, would probably only have made it to the third rung, reserved for gluttons.