February 11, 2007
Selling Our Air
As usual, Steve Curwood at Living on Earth is reporting news that should be on the front page of the New York Times, instead of on the radio at 6AM on Sunday morning. The air we breathe is for sale, and has been purchased by the corporatocracy. The transcript:
EPA's clean air science advisers, a group known as CASAC, studied the mounting evidence linking fine particles to cardiovascular disease and premature deaths. The advisors recommended a stricter standard for fine particles last year, but EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, [Dak: a Taylor U. alum -- sniff sniff] rejected their recommendation. Then he changed the CASAC advisory process in a way that critics say limits the input of scientists. Now the new chair of the US Senate's environment committee [Dak: Barbara Boxer] is taking Johnson to task.BOXER: EPA's actions make it clear who EPA is protecting, and sadly it is not the American people.
YOUNG: California Democrat Barbara Boxer called Johnson before her committee to
explain what she called "rollbacks" in environmental protection that favor polluters.
Johnson sat blinking in the witness chair like a man bracing for a blow. And true to her name, Boxer delivered. Her haymaker punch came with this description of Johnson's changes to the agency's scientific process.BOXER: Instead of basing health standards on the best science they will now inject politics into the entire decision. Under EPA's plan, key scientists will no longer work directly with top government officials to help set health standards. You took the science out of the clean air rule and stuck it at the end of the process. Nobody's fooled by this. Here's the point. These rollbacks were done in the dead of night. And it's over, in terms of your not having to come before the committees of Congress to respond to them.
YOUNG: Johnson is the first career scientist to lead EPA, and he seemed stung as he
hurried from the hearing room. Reporters caught him waiting for an elevator, where he defended his changes to clean air science. Johnson says the science advisors simply take too long.JOHNSON: There's something wrong with the process. And that's why I asked our deputy to initiate a top down look at the entire program.
YOUNG: The science advisors of CASAC are supposed to update findings on major pollutants every five years. But Johnson says their cumbersome process means they rarely meet that deadline. He says his changes will allow the committee to work quickly while still considering a full range of views.JOHNSON: And by the process that we've laid out, it very clearly defines, where the science input is and where the policy input is. I think this is much improved, we will have better and greater science influence at the same time being able to draw a very clear distinction between what is science and what is policy.
YOUNG: But many of the CASAC scientists disagree. The same morning Johnson squirmed in Boxer's hot seat, the science advisors met to voice strong opposition to
Johnson's changes. University of California medical professor, John Balmes, is a CASAC member. Balmes agrees the process should be streamlined. But he says Johnson went too far when he eliminated the step that lets scientists and EPA workers compile the most important science in a staff paper.BALMES: The staff paper, or some other document that would be its equivalent, is vitally important and I believe that all of the CASAC members agree with me on that.
YOUNG: Balmes says the changes make EPA's political appointees more powerful and
reduce science advisors to the same level as lobbying groups making comment. And Balmes says Johnson's real motivation goes back to the disagreement over fine particles. The science advisors openly criticized Johnson for being the first EPA administrator to ignore their recommendations.BALMES: The conflict between the- what the administrator wanted to do in terms of policy, and what the science shows,- was embarrassing to the administration. So if you get embarrassment, then just get rid of the staff paper. Then you won't have to worry about embarrassment.
In my humble opinion, Johnson should have been doing much more than squirming and blinking. Where is his evangelical conscience, pray tell? Right in the place from which he squirms. As one of those post menopausal women whose cardiovascular health is endangered by small particle pollution, I would like to see it in jail. And it's not only we old bats who will suffer, asthma is epidemic these days. That certainly couldn't have anything to do with air quality, could it?
Photo note: Okay , okay, it's not small particles, it's snow -- but there is a nice intact American flag in honor of Barbara, and the particles are the best I could do this time of year