comments_image -

Environmental Botox

Though Bush and his EPA frontman appear to be addressing environmental issues, it's only so much Botox intended to reduce unflattering blemishes in an election year.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Despite a snowstorm that paralyzed traffic in Washington, D.C., on January 26, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Mike Leavitt forged ahead with a planned indoor photo-op. Boasting of "collaboration" with assembled oil and automobile company representatives, Leavitt "unveiled" the super-clean Toyota Prius and other "green" vehicles that actually had been in showrooms since last fall.

Before the week was out, Leavitt also had churned out press releases touting new funds for cleanup of the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay and for dirty diesel school buses. And, following Leavitt's recommendation, the Justice Department had filed the Bush administration's first clean-air lawsuit against an electric power company.

Has President Bush suddenly become an election-year convert to environmentalism -- a development my boss likened to Jeffrey Dahmer's becoming a vegetarian?

Or does it have something to do with the emergence of John Kerry as the Democratic presidential front-runner? Kerry, an environmental champion who has been endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters, cites the Bush anti-environmental record in virtually every speech he makes. A couple of things seem clear. For starters, Leavitt has obviously been brought in to inject the Bush team with some environmental botox -- a few cosmetic changes aimed at smoothing out the administration's radically anti-environmental appearance between now and Election Day.

Second, Leavitt is a master at "working" the media, arguably more adept at this than anyone who's ever run the environmental agency. A charismatic speaker who has been well-trained in the school of "risk communications," Leavitt recognizes the importance of filling a news void by parceling out a steady stream of happy-news tidbits punctuated with upbeat rhetoric about "collaboration," "incentives" and "progress."

Under closer analysis, however, this happy talk appears as disingenuous as Justin Timberlake's description of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction."

A Coup For EPA's PR

Take, for example, the "green" car photo-op. Leavitt conveniently omitted the fact that lower-polluting vehicles and fuels are on the market today because of actions taken by President Clinton to set tougher clean-air requirements. And it was the Clinton EPA that stood its ground against a furious assault by most of the nation's biggest oil companies.

Or consider the proposed school-bus cleanup. Because school kids are breathing high levels of toxic diesel exhaust, it's a no-brainer to call for more money to clean up dirty old buses -- indeed, one wonders why it took an election year to prompt this proposal, which entails only a tiny fraction of the money actually needed to rectify this problem.

But the upbeat press release deflected attention away from the fact that overall, EPA has undergone one of the most severe budget cuts in the entire government, a cutback that Senator Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) said "not only shortchanges the environment, it challenges our nation's role as a global environmental leader."

Perhaps nowhere has the Leavitt approach been more evident than in EPA's dealings with smoke-belching electric power plants.

Clean Air Victory Or Smokescreen?

For three years, the Bush administration has taken its cue -- literally -- from some of the nation's biggest polluting power companies. (The Washington Post reported that portion's of EPA's recent proposal for toxic mercury emissions from power plants were lifted verbatim from industry suggestions -- a development that an industry lawyer all-too-candidly described as "gratifying.")

Leavitt has tried to "spin" reporters on this subject by spewing a steady mantra of misinformation. For example, the industry-supported Leavitt plan for mercury would permit power companies to buy and sell the right to poison the air and water rather than promptly clean up this toxin, as the Clinton EPA had intended.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
AlterNet Radio: What's At Stake in Wisconsin; Real "Defense" Budget Is $1 Trillion; the Right's Phony Race War

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]