Utah Governor Mike Leavitt's confirmation as steward of the EPA
went smoothely today. I don't know much about his record on the environment, and the reporting done on him has been regrettably short on substance.
As a little experiment, let's imagine two opposing scenarios. One holds that Leavitt is positively European in his environmental record, and the other holds that Leavitt is a retrograde, coal-burning heathen. Would it matter?
Let's see: the Bush energy policy--which apparently no longer exists--was conceived in secret without consulting a single environmental group. Bush's 'clean air' policy, an underrated bit of Administration chickanery, actually allows for greater pollution than previous standards. Meanwhile, what did Christine Todd Whitman do in her position? Not much to recommend her, is there?
Whatever Leavitt's record on the environment, it won't matter a whit. The Deuce is still going to do whatever he's going to do, which is precisely why I applaud some Democrats for appropriately declaring this a moment to hold a referendum on Bush's environmental record. It's not about Leavitt at all, nor should it be. Even in the event that Leavitt were a human tailpipe, Bush environmental policy is so pre-determined as to render the entire EPA irrelevant.
A truly cynically disturbing thought: the mere existence of the EPA offers Bush some sort of cover for doing terrible environmental damage. A crown jewel of the liberal establishment, the EPA is rightly considered a stunning accomplishment, regardless of its various bureaucratic failings. But now, the liberal agenda having been successful, Bush has the opportunity to wrap himself in EPA regulations, pre-existing legislation, and the very nomination process of an EPA chief to make him appear more green. At least publicly, he hasn't taken any serious heat for his abysmal environmental performance, and the contagious sheen of EPA legitimacy is partly to blame.