Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

The Nuclear Industry's New Shill: Christie Todd Whitman

By Diane Farsetta, Center for Media and Democracy. Posted August 27, 2007.


Hiring former Bush administration EPA head Christie Todd Whitman to chair its "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition" is the nuclear industry's latest PR attempt at "greening" its image.
Advertisement

"Was it wrong to try to get the city back on its feet as quickly as possible?" an exasperated Christine Todd Whitman asked members of Congress. The occasion was Whitman's first appearance before the House subcommittee investigating her handling of New York air quality issues post-9/11, when she headed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Absolutely not," she continued. "Safety was first and foremost, but we weren't going to let the terrorists win."

There are many critics of the EPA's response to the admittedly unprecedented attacks. In August 2003, the EPA's own inspector general reported that there was not "sufficient data and analyses" to claim -- as Whitman did on September 18, 2001 -- that New York's air was "safe to breathe." The inspector general also found that EPA statements were confusing even to experienced toxicologists, and may have contributed to low rates of respirator use among Ground Zero workers. In February 2006, federal judge Deborah Batts called Whitman's statements post-9/11 "misleading" and "conscience shocking." In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office identified serious, continuing problems with how Whitman's EPA addressed indoor contamination in lower Manhattan.

The issue is more than academic. Since 2001, some 70 percent of Ground Zero workers -- tens of thousands of people, many without health insurance -- have had respiratory problems, including chronic illnesses, according to one medical study. Two deaths have been linked to World Trade Center dust, and reports of rare cancers are on the rise.

Yet in her Congressional testimony on June 25, 2007, Christie Whitman dismissed criticisms of her former agency as "misinformation, innuendo and outright falsehoods." Presumably, the nuclear power industry admires Whitman's rhetorical chutzpah.

When the Nuclear Energy Institute -- with help from its PR firm, Hill & Knowlton -- launched the "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition" in April 2006, Christie Whitman was named its co-chair, a paid position. Since then, the industry-funded campaign to re-brand nuclear power as clean, green and safe has benefited from Whitman's communications skills, political connections and environmentalist image.

It's not easy being (seen as) green

Whether Whitman has earned green credentials is another matter.

She's often portrayed as well-meaning but stymied by hard-line Republicans. When Whitman announced her resignation from the EPA in May 2003, the Philadelphia Inquirer lauded her as a "voice of reason." David Letterman joked that the Bush administration thought she was "too soft on decimating pristine forests." Whitman's 2005 book "It's My Party, Too" fed this image, as did her recent admission that she left the EPA not for personal reasons, as she claimed at the time, but to avoid signing off on plans to ease factory pollution controls.

(Whitman's admission -- four years after her resignation -- was made the same week as the 9/11 air quality hearing. Just before the hearing, Whitman charged the administration of former mayor Rudy Giuliani with not doing enough to ensure that Ground Zero workers used respirators, and with hampering the EPA's response to a 2001 anthrax scare. Whitman's belated candor conveniently deflected attention away from Congress' investigation into her role post 9/11.)

Jim DiPeso, the policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection, is among those who give Christie Whitman an "A for effort." During Whitman's tenure at the EPA, "she was on such a tight leash," DiPeso told PR Watch. "I think that she wanted to push the administration towards regulating greenhouse gases, putting caps on carbon dioxide emissions, but the White House and the Vice President's office just simply wouldn't allow it." DiPeso's group is a strategic partner of Whitman's political action committee, the Republican Leadership Council.

Others are more critical of Whitman's tenure at the EPA. "At times it seemed as if Ms. Whitman had been appointed merely to make the Bush administration seem more interested in the environment," editorialized the Washington Post in May 2003. "Yet if she really disagreed with some of the decisions, it seems strange that Ms. Whitman stayed in her job as long as she did."

If it were Bush, Cheney et al. that kept Whitman's environmentalism in check, then perhaps she championed green issues prior to moving to Washington. But Whitman's record as governor of New Jersey, from 1994 to 2001, is spotty at best, according to reporters, state workers and environmentalists.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: christie todd whitman, nuclear industry, epa, environmentalism, pr, ethics

Diane Farsetta is senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
catch a falling star and put it in your pocket
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Aug 27, 2007 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
save it for a rainy day

bush shills, come one, come all! america is for sale for the bidding!

a man of business? mankind is your business!

how can such open deception not be seen? can a polorized electorate allow such open manipulation of policy? tune in next week for another exciting chapter of the ongoing looting of america . . .

bushco! the american pre-emptive way!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I live in NJ and have always referred to Christie
Posted by: Ellie1 on Aug 27, 2007 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as Christie Bitch Whitman. She is a self centered little rich girl. She balanced the state budget (a law) by taking money from state pensions, putting us in the fiasco the state is now in. She is responsible for the deaths and illnesses of hundreds of 9/11 volunteers and workers. She is a mindless shill for the Bushit administration. Like Bush, she should die a painful death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHO is irrelevant
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 27, 2007 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither the PR firms nor Diane Farsetta get it. The problem is
one of education. Americans have irrational fears and paranoia
about all things nuclear because they are ignorant. Journalists
concentrate on the 5 Ws and H because journalists don't know
what Science is all about. The nuclear industry is wasting its
money on PR. The solution is education and that happens [we
hope] in schools. Let's begin at the beginning, 13.7 Billion years
ago. All matter is "frozen" radiation. The Universe began as
pure radiation. As the temperature of the Universe fell, it
underwent phase changes analogous to freezing. After several
phase changes and a lot of cooling, some of the radiation became
"matter". Eventually, some of the matter went through two more
phase changes and became solid. All matter is still made of
atoms and every atom still has a nucleus. E=mc2 proves that
matter is STILL radiation alias energy.
The extinction of the human species is "scheduled" for the year
2200. We have to prevent that. Journalism must play a new role
to do so. Before reading further here, stop and read:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
and
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News
&file=article&sid=2429&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Journalists communicating more with scientists isn't going to save
us. In fact, the prospect is quite grim. Homo Sapiens, on the
average, isn't smart enough to avoid extinction. The prognosis is
extinction of the "humans". The gas that will do it, hydrogen
sulfide, cannot be smelled once it is dense enough to kill us.

FROM NOW ON: A degree in journalism has to include at
least the Engineering and Science Core Curriculum, and
preferably a degree in science. The book: "Science and
Immortality" by Charles B. Paul, 1980, University of California
Press needs to be required reading in journalism. Why?
Because Diane Farsetta's years of experience in journalism has
not been enough for her to get the message. The message is:
Nature isn't just the final authority on truth, Nature is the Only
authority. There are zero human authorities. Scientists do not
vote on what is the truth. There is only one vote and Nature owns
it. We find out what Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public
and replicable] experiments. Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments are the only source of truth. [To be public, it has to
be visible to other people in the room. What goes on inside one
person's head isn't public unless it can be seen on an X-ray or with
another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific experiments and a simple
absolute lack of faith in everything else.
Journalists have to stop caring Who said it. It doesn't matter
Who said it. You have to do the experiment yourself before you
believe it anyway. Journalists have to do and report the
experiment, not find non-existent controversy.
SECOND: A high school diploma has to require [of
everybody] enough science to make good citizens of a high
technology civilization. A high school diploma has to require 4
years of Physics, 4 years of Chemistry, 4 years of Biology and 8
years of Math at the high school rate of learning. Why? The
alternative is extinction. Carbon mitigation has to be voted on.
Our best immediate plan of action is to convert coal fired power
plants to nuclear.
I have no connection with the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» no need to be insulting Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: no need to be insulting Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: no need to be insulting Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: no need to be insulting Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE3: no need to be insulting Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» Coal as a source of fissile material Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: wrong about nuclear Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: wrong about nuclear Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» people won't believe you Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: people won't believe you Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» Who's beating the PR drum? Liar Liar Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: solar power for a house Posted by: AsteroidMiner
the public's perception of nuclear power and the energy policy debate is profoundly shaped by news
Posted by: jsong123 on Aug 27, 2007 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True. And the media does not have time to research and present the facts.

Put Whitman up on the same stage as Caldicott, and let the public hear the facts and decide for themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whitman is hardly new at shilling
Posted by: Beth Wellington on Aug 31, 2007 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-6IqCKWAzfrLlzHFAL37elhA-?cq=1&p=444



The astroturf group announced its formation with Whitman sharing the helm with Patrick Moore April 24, 2006.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A bit of a hatchet piece, but thorough and worth the effort
Posted by: Artaraxl on Sep 1, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lines like this undermine a generally responsible story:

"Presumably, the nuclear power industry admires Whitman's rhetorical chutzpah."

This is not journalism. You don't get to presume what's in people's heads.

There are many nonsequiturs that seem to link, for instance, Superfund sites and Chevron to nuclear power, rhetorically, but without substance. If the piece is about the media not disclosing the funding of pundits, great, make it about that. If it's about Whitman's credibility generally, okay, you can go after her record a bit. But it reads instead more like a thinly veiled hatched job on nuclear power generally.

You're right to be skeptical, even cynical, but, having said that, sometimes PR is actually about informing the public.

-Axl

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]