A continuing series on what folks in the public sphere
have said about climate change in recent days.
Post updated 8/14/2013, 3:05 p.m.
On July 18, after 154 days without a leader, the Environmental Protection Agency finally got a new administrator when the Senate approved the nomination of Gina McCarthy, 59-40.
Less than a week later Republicans on the Appropriations Interior and Environment subcommittee in the House of Representatives put the EPA’s budget on the chopping block, approving a bill that would cut its budget by 34 percent, "leaving the agency $5.5 billion next year." Included in the spending plan were a "slew of riders that would block EPA actions, including the agency's proposals to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants."
There is a great deal of concern over the number of regulatory actions being pursued by agencies in the absence of legislation and without clear congressional direction. ... This is especially true with the EPA.
--Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), chair of the House Appropriations Interior and Environment subcommittee
[The bill] should be an embarrassment to the subcommittee, the full committee and to the Congress as a whole.
--Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), member of the House Appropriations Interior and Environment subcommittee
Today four former administrators of the EPA under Republican presidents chimed in with their thoughts on climate change, the EPA and the need for action.
Climate change puts all our progress and our successes at risk. …
We can have both a strong economy and a livable climate. All parties know that we need both. The rest of the discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.
--William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly And Christine Todd Whitman, three administrators of the EPA under Republican presidents
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 1
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 2
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 3
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 4
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 5
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 6
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 7
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 8
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 9
* Climate Change Chatter, Issue 10
Post corrected to reflect the fact that four, not three, former EPA chiefs penned the NYT op-ed. (The four were originally listed, but the text read that three former administrators had written the piece.)