EPA Chief to CA: We've all got problems

EPA head Stephen Johnson has finally released his official statement on why he denied California the emissions waiver needed to set tougher standards on cars. Prominent scientists at the EPA have been vocal in saying California had not only met the requirements to get the waiver, but that the law did not allow it to be blocked.

Johnson, already in the hot seat for overruling staff advice that he was legally required to grant California's requested waiver to regulate greenhouse gases, faces a litany of charges that he has also been duplicitous on an array of other scientific integrity, information suppression and workplace relations issues, said PEER.

So what was Johnson's justification for violating the law and -- for the first time in history -- not granting a waiver?  His reasoning comes down to things are bad all over.

But Johnson wrote: "While I find that the conditions related to global climate change in California are substantial, they are not sufficiently different from conditions in the nation as a whole to justify separate state standards."

In other words, because we face global warming everywhere, Johnson isn't going to allow it to be addressed anywhere, even though an internal study conducted by the EPA showed that California does suffer disproportionately from the effects of global warming. This is the same nonsense logic the Bush administration has applied to climate change in international treaties, maintaining that unless we get 100% of what we want from 100% of other nations, we won't give up 1% of our right to pollute.

To what extent did dictates from the White House convince Johnson to completely ignore the scientific and legal advice of the EPA staff?  He's not saying.

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency refused to say Wednesday whether the White House sought to influence his decision denying California a waiver needed to implement a tailpipe emissions-reduction law.

Appearing before the U.S. Senate's environment committee, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson deflected repeated questions from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., about any White House role in the controversial decision last December blocking California and at least 16 other states from implementing the reductions.

Unlike Johnson, I think we can deduce the answer to this question by referring to the evidence, logic, and precedents. How much of his integrity did Johnson surrender for the Bush administration?  Every last ounce.

•  not too much longer

  It'll be nice when he's replaced by EPA chief Al Gore.

  by sharky on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:57:38 PM PDT

  •  So what now?

    I wish this diary explained where things stand now.  Has there been or will there be a court challenge?  Is there anyway to reverse this decision?

    by Unlabled on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:22:38 PM PDT

    •  court challenges are hard

      courts often dismiss climate change lawsuits on the grounds that it is a political question that has not been addressed by lawmakers or bushie. in this case, given an actual decision of inaction was made, a plaintiff may get inside the court house.

      by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM PDT

      •  what's interesting here, though

        is that Johnson's reason for denying the waiver may require him to regulate nationally.

        The Warming Law blog has great coverage. Our attorney Vickie Patton has blogged about this on Climate 411.

        by ClimateLurker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM PDT

        •  Yes, but he will not

          He is simply riding out his term.

          by gloryous1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM PDT

          •  it doesn't matter

            Even if EPA released rules tomorrow, the litigation will take years. Either industry will sue because they're "too tight", or NRDC, etc., will sue because they're "too loose". There is no Goldilocks in this situation.

            by Politburo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:08:29 PM PDT

      •  This case would not be difficult to win

        There is too much precedent for a waiver.  This is not typical climate litigation.  This is Clean Air Act litigation.  The Supreme Court has already spoken favorably in this area.  

        Yes, this freakin' Supreme Court favorably on GHG.

        by gloryous1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:47:07 PM PDT

    •  CA has not yet filed litigation

      It can either wait until we get a new EPA Administrator  or drag it through the courts, with the Bush administration appealing every decision in our favor.

      Not sure what the state will do.

      by gloryous1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM PDT

  •  God, these Bushies just give me a headache

    When he's out of office and can't stonewall info so easily, I know we're going to be stunned at just how awful he really was.

    by anastasia p on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM PDT

    •  They are teh stupid

      In other words, because we face global warming everywhere, Johnson isn't going to allow it to be addressed anywhere...

      by dewley notid on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:22:51 PM PDT

•  a bush appointee...

  duplicitous???...

  gasp!

  NO!

  by birdbrain64 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:58:34 PM PDT

•  Surrender?

  He gave up his integrity willingly!

  by JeffW on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:58:45 PM PDT

•  Johnson will occupy the same place in history

  as those who tried to stop the abolition of slavery. How that criminal can sleep at night is beyond me. He risks the survival of humanity to please his bosses.

  by Joe B on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:58:50 PM PDT

•  How many days till innaguaration?

  With the gutting of enforcement and the trashing of sample libraries I wouldn't wish the job of the next EPA head on anyone.

  by Windowdog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:58:59 PM PDT

  •  not even on Ralph Nader?

    by Tomsank on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:08:55 PM PDT

•  They just want to speed up the Rapture

  @#!%@#&%ing Rethuglicans.

  by Samer on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:59:08 PM PDT

•  How is the lawsuit going btw? Will the decision

  be overrided?

  by Joe B on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:59:34 PM PDT

  •  California has not yet filed litigation

    appealing EPA's denial of the waiver.  It says it will, but has not yet.

    by gloryous1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:21:41 PM PDT

  •  Suits against EPA

    California and environmental organizations have sued the EPA.  

    The government has filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Johnson's Dec 19 letter to Schwarzenegger was a courtesy letter, not a final decision.  EPA therefore argues that the new, after-the-fact explanation released this past Friday is instead its final decision and that, in any event, any legal challenge to its decision must be brought in the D.C. Circuit not the 9th Circuit in California, where the legal challenge is currently pending.

    And around and around we go...

    btw, I'm a scientist, not a lawyer; this is the news from our climate and air attorney extraordinaire, Vickie Patton.  More goodies at the Warming Law blog.

    by ClimateLurker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:38:16 PM PDT

•  Wow! He doesn't even bother denying it. nt

  by jockyoung on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:01:52 PM PDT

•  Your Close Presupposes...

  ...that he went in with some integrity left to surrender.

  That may be a good rhetorical tactic, but it remains an empirically suspect claim.

  Prospective agency heads don't get nominations based on "integrity." Whichever party is in power, prospective agency heads get nominations based on their perceived willingness to move a particular agenda forward.

  If integrity is part of the package, it's a happy coincidence.

  by greenskeeper on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM PDT

•  Makes sense to me.

  After all, the Bush Administration embodies a complete lack of integrity in all its other department heads, so we certainly can't have any integrity coming from just the EPA's head.

  by pattyp on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM PDT

•  One thing is certain:

  Johnson's decision wasn't based on science.  All members of this administration break out in hives whenever in proximity to anything scientific.

  by gizmo59 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:04:46 PM PDT

  •  Not exactly

    I'm sure they liked it a lot when they were able to make a missile hit a satellite. And when they can use the latest technology to spy on libruls, they certainly have no objections. It's only when the science interferes with their power or money that they hive up.

    by corwin on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:20:33 PM PDT

•  What a rivet-head ! But he is Republican...

  by AllanTBG on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:07:24 PM PDT

•  off topic: MI FL

  Can we get a Front Pager to open a thread on Granholm and Christ's joint statement about seating delegates? I am certain that the community has a lot to say; hey, maybe even novel solutions to this situation.

  by Tomsank on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM PDT

•  This is simply unconscionable

  It has long been established that the States had concurrent subject matter jurisdiction with the Feds on air quality standards. California has had tougher standards for a generation, and they worked. This is a bi-partisan issue in California, the entire populace doesn't want to go back to the days of smog.  Outrage is too small a word for this. Johnson is a complete tool of the self-serving interests of out of state polluters.

  by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:07:40 PM PDT

  •  well

    "It has long been established" makes it sound like it's due to case law. However, it's due to statute. In most cases, environmental regs say States are free to go beyond the standards set by EPA, and for purposes of meeting the NAAQS, they do. However, cars are one area where that isn't the case, unless EPA grants the waiver in question.

    by Politburo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:12:38 PM PDT

    •  Long established custom counts too

      Heh, looks like there's going to be case law on this now.  Jerry Brown is suing for the State of California and Ahnold is backing him on this.  Anyone opposing the higher air quality standards in California is a political dead duck.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:34:48 AM PDT

•  The cognitive dissonance is deafening

  Do these people even listen to themselves spewing nonsense, or just babble incoherently due to random electrical impulses firing out of sequence in their gray-matter?

  Whatever is left of the sane portion of America is dealing with chronic cases of PTSD due to these incoherent fools.

  by SecondComing on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:09:01 PM PDT

  •  Corp. PR guys

    Most of these people are hired on right from the Universal Ahole zone know as Corp. PR. This man's JOB is to simply lie and do it with the least amount of comment as possible. These creatures are hired because they lack a soul and therefore can easily be wound up like the fucking robots they are and sent forward to spew whatever lines they've been handed.

    by Blutodog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:25:44 PM PDT

•  The intransigence and intellectual corruption

  of this administration's lackeys are going to have long-lasting impacts.  I've had several very talented, very qualified, and very passionate associates refuse to accept/pursue positions with the EPA as a result of this kind of behavior.  And with the passage of time I've seen that this sentiment is far more common than one would hope.

  by Metatations on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM PDT

•  Bush Admin. pouring Prozac into DC water supply:

  How else can we explain the fact that the Dems in the House and Senate haven't woken up and violently revolted by now?

  by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:13:04 PM PDT

•  What is the Legal Basis

  for preventing California from passing statewide environmental laws? Does it flow from "regulating interstate commerce"?

  by Mr X on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:13:30 PM PDT

  •  The Federal Clean Air Act

    preempts the states' ability to regulate air pollution sources unless the EPA expressly grants a given state a waiver to impose more stringent standards to reduce air pollution.  

    EPA has granted CA something like 11 waivers in the past.  It is refusing to do so now for political reasons only.  The law, science and policy are all on CA's side.

    In short, we have statewide environmental laws but they cannot step on the Clean Air Act requirements without EPA's blessing.

    by gloryous1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:19:04 PM PDT

    •  I Understand there is a National Interest

      in having Federal environmental laws to protect our air and water. But where does the authority come from for preventing a state from having a tougher law? Has this ever been challenged on a constitutional basis?

      by Mr X on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:24:18 PM PDT

      •  Under all/any federal law

        the states cannot regulate the same area more stringently or differently if a regulated entity could claim in court that the company/person could not comply with both the state and federal laws simultaneously, or the laws simply conflict.  It's the basic federal preemption doctrine.

        Under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the states can only pose greater restrictions if the state can show that it has worse pollution and and needs additional or more creative ways of addressing that pollution than the federal legislation has afforded  it.  

        Because so much of California's air pollution comes from cars, EPA has allowed CA to require more stringent regulations of reduce ozone and a few other pollutants.  It did this through the waiver mechanism express in the original bills for these laws.

        Here CA, had to show that GHG emissions would disproportionately impact the state, thus it should be allowed to require more stringent restrictions on cars driven in the state.   Any other administration in the history of the country would have agreed.  Except this one.  

        by gloryous1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:42:55 PM PDT

        •  Wouldn't Compliance With the Tougher Law

          also mean compliance with the lesser regulations?

          states cannot regulate the same area more stringently or differently if a regulated entity could claim in court that the company/person could not comply with both the state and federal laws simultaneously

          Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but doesn't all Federal law need to derive from a constitutional power? It would seem that any national interest in protecting our resources is met if the state law is tougher.  

          by Mr X on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM PDT

          •  yeah - it's weird

            The clean air act allows CA (and only CA) to adopt tougher standards as long as the EPA grants a waiver (which it has always done, until now). Other states can then decide to stick with federal standards or adopt CA's better version.

            by ClimateLurker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM PDT

            •  When the CAA was enacted

              California had the worst air quality in the nation.  It was so bad, that the state and feds agreed that it may need special rules to achieve actual improvements.

              It was the showing of a special need (chokingly bad air) that compelled Congress to allow different regulatory schemes resulting in different compliance standards for the auto companies and power plants.

              Normally, industry get its way when it says: "Hey, we can only comply with one law here or else we will be driven out of business!"  Congress always agrees.   But the CAA and CWA are different.

              Another case in point.  About 4 years ago, CA, AL, MA and NY (maybe others too) tried to pass laws to stop predatory lending so that folks wouldn't lose their homes because of pre-payment penalties and adjustable rates (sound familiar?).  The mortgage industry sued and won by saying only Congress can regulate in this area under the National Bank Act; otherwise, mortgage companies would have a patch work of laws to comply with and would be forced out of business in the US.  Now look at the mess.

              by gloryous1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:43:22 PM PDT

•  And to compound CA's GHG troubles

  The Governor is having trouble funding AB32, our landmark legislation to reduce GHGs.

  State scrambles to fund global warming fight
  Tuesday, March 4, 2008

  "California's landmark legislation to fight global warming has been on the books for more than a year, but it still lacks stable, long-term funding to help meet its ambitious goal to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest budget proposal calls for a stopgap, two-year effort that relies on borrowing money from a state beverage container recycling fund to run the program."

  "We've got refineries, power plants and cement plants that are emittinggreenhouse gases now," said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club,California. "So let's start charging those polluters now, instead ofborrowing from (another fund) that would have to be paid back with interest later."

  SF Chronical story

  by gloryous1 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:15:36 PM PDT

•  Thanks, Ralph!

  Boy, the "Green" party sure did wonders for the environment with their 2000 presidential campaign, didn't they?

  by Angry White Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM PDT

  •  Nader does not represent

    any environmentally concerned individuals that I know..he only sticks his head out for attention at election times..being green is a 24/7/365 concern.

    by ohcanada on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:23:38 PM PDT

    •  Nader

      Self-involved ass-hole, total narcissist. Please put on ignore. He still thinks it wasn't partially his fault that we've all ended up were we are in 2008? Sad , really so instead of getting it he's running again. Why? I guess it keeps his speaking fees high? Green yea green as in $$$.

      by Blutodog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:28:34 PM PDT

  •  It is actually incredible

    that he has the cajones to announce another run. What is wrong with him?

    by rini6 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM PDT

  •  If the blue states seceded...

    We could have the national health care, the restoration of respect by the rest of the world, investments in education and infrastructure and environmental protection.

    The red states would be the pariah of the world when it comes to the environment.  No longer would we part of anything standing in the way of global cooperation when it comes to the environment.  We could all point to the red states and say, "It's those rednecks fault."  Since we can't convince them that we're right, the next best thing would be to just get the hell away from them.

    Then, we wouldn't be blaming Nader.  We could even have a parliamentary system that would allow for and embrace  multiple parties on both sides of the political spectrum.  

    But, then again, if you really like arguing with dumbfuck bucktooth rednecks who think Jesus is coming soon and we won't have to worry about the environment anymore, all power to you!  

    by JohnSixtySix on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:19:49 PM PDT

    •  If the blue states seceded

      then what was left of the US would very quickly become a theocratic police state, and I don't think we could handle the influx of refugees that would result from that. So it's probably not a good idea.

      by Angry White Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM PDT

•  Imagine if an alien species were

  watching us and our shenanigans. You are making you planet inhospitable to life? You aren't taking action to change things but discussing "conditions" and "standards?"

  Why would a species that needs a certain temperature, oxygenated atmosphere, water and food obliviously destroy  the ecosystem which keeps things in balance?

  Obviously, this Johnson guy is clueless.

  by rini6 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:23:40 PM PDT

  •  Maybe BV$H & Reptiles are really Greys?

    Maybe, the Reptiles ( republicans) are really an alien Reptile species trying to make Earth more like their own planet which is like ours was back in the age of Dinosaurs? Too this end they're terraforming earth with all these global warming gases. They having all of us literally drive ourselves into extinction so they can move in and take over in a few hundred yrs. Whatever, it makes for an interesting feature on the Sci-fi channel or the old X-files right?

    by Blutodog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM PDT

•  Or

  How much of his integrity did Johnson surrender for the Bush administration?  Every last ounce.

  Or for our science oriented and foriegn readers, in SI units, every last gram.

  by DarkSyde on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:32:45 PM PDT

•  No matter who the nominee is

  neither Hillary nor Barack would allow this to happen. Their EPA administrator wouldn't even hesitate. McCain may talk a good game on this stuff, but I doubt he'll move at more than a snail's pace to address it.

  by decembersue on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:34:45 PM PDT

•  Not only is he duplicitous

  Johnson is downright stupid to piss off Ah-nold. He may be a Repuglican by name, but The Govenator has his own ideas for his state. He seems to have a few good ones, too. I sure wouldn't want to piss him off.

  by Purple Priestess on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM PDT

•  and the answer is............

  they are pissing on us.
  But don't get too mad. Get even.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/...
  Rest assured Scalia and the gang will rise to our defense.
  It has come to this.

  by blueair on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:46:09 PM PDT

•  GHG a problem, Cali will cut all of our throats

   GHG is the problem of this age, but peak oil runs a close second. I suspect we're going to dig every ounce of coal we can get at before its all over. Have a read on TheOilDrum about this Olduvai theory stuff ... its already happening in Pakistan and South Africa ...

  http://europe.theoildrum.com/...

  by Stranded Wind on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:52:49 PM PDT

•  What a wanker

  I believe thats the right term for Johnson.

  by lurxst on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:59:13 PM PDT

•  They are also

  transferring money from the mass transit account to the roads account because they spent all their money.  It's all about oil to them.

  by The Overhead Wire on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM PDT

•  Secession may be the best answer yet

  California should secede, along with all the other blue states.

  That's my conclusion, anyway.

  If the dollar keeps collapsing, regions or states may end up creating their own currency as they tire of having their true value misrepresented due to the federal government's actions and lack of actions pertaining to the economy. A country's currency is much like the stock of a company.  Why should California's stock, or their ability to raise investment capital, be hindered by the results of irresponsibility on the part of others?  

  Once the economy falls apart, there will be a strong desire on the part of the states and whole regions to break away from the central government.  The benefits of the Union simply do not exceed the costs.  

  by JohnSixtySix on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM PDT

•  What a lying motherfucker.

  And I'd say that right to his fucking face.

  I am so tired of these lying corporate lap dogs in positions of public trust.

  GOOOOWWWWD how I hate the republican party.

  And I don't want to hear about not all republicans are like this. You call yourself a republican you support murdering (think children with asthma) fucks like this. If you don't want to support them, call yourself something else. These kinds of actions are the result of the entire historic objective of the Republican Party.

  by Pescadero Bill on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM PDT

  •  Well, if the blue states seceded...

    You wouldn't have to worry about "lying corporate lap dogs in positions of public trust."

    Part of the reason that lying corporate lap dogs are in positions of public trust is because the public has entrusted the lying corporate lap dogs to these positions or at least that's the way it seems to me.

    The red states would be the pariah of the world when it comes to the environment.  No longer would we part of anything standing in the way of global cooperation when it comes to the environment.  We could all point to the red states and say, "It's those rednecks fault."  Since we can't convince them that we're right, the next best thing would be to just get the hell away from them.

    But, hey if you're convinced that you can convince these idiots, all power to you!  I've given up.  Their worldview that they base these decisions on is a religious one.  If you think you can change their religion, by all means, but leave me out of it.  :)  

    by JohnSixtySix on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM PDT

•  Johnson Must Resign

  He has a consistent record of obfuscation, withholding evidence from Congress, and a cover-up of how they are delivering the auto companies from immediate. GHG regulation.

  But most importantly, Johnson is defying the Supreme Court.

  Johnson must resign.  The call for his resignation should go out far and wide.

  by oregonj on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:36:46 PM PDT

•  see what price being a cheap whore is you will

  sell your soul to the devil (cheney) I wonder if he keeps a shot gun behind his desk?

  by testvet6778 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:41:10 PM PDT

•  And Democrats are squabbling on the playground

  They are currently riveted by a discussion of Obama's skin tone in a Clinton ad?

  It pleases Karl Rove quite a bit.

  by themank on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:50:08 PM PDT

•  ant to know more about where you live per the EPA

  check out the diary I just wrote and find your neighborhood and what's polluting it!

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  very useful toolset there I think.

  by LokiMom on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:13:08 PM PDT

•  The answer to the question is easy

  Did the White House have a role in the decision?

  If the answer were "No" there is no reason for Stephen Johnson not to say that.  Since, he did no say "No" the only possible answer is "Yes" the White House had a role in the decision of the EPA.

  by Donner on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:29:58 PM PDT

•  Can we just start a WAR on STOOPID?

  by Fireshadow on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:54:22 PM PDT