EDITING SCIENCE?: How much do policymakers shape the science that comes out of the federal government?
Image: ©iStockphoto.com
When Nancy Sutley moved in to her new office as chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)—a 40-year-old White House environmental policy advisory office created by Congress—she found a lot of red pens. Immediately, she removed the pens from her desk and asked her staff to remove any red pens from their desks, as well.
"The White House should not be in the business of editing science," Sutley says. "Let the scientists do the science. It's a really easy bright line for me."
Her predecessor, Jim Connaughton, now executive vice president for corporate public affairs and environmental policy at Constellation Energy, disputes the anecdote: "If anything, I used a blue pen, because I wanted to make sure our documents were quite clear," he says. "Think of all the economists, scientists, lawyers involved [in policymaking]. I was constantly trying to make sure things came out in plain English."
But the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that significant editing of science documents had occurred during Connaughton's tenure and the issue remains fraught with controversy: Just how much editing of government-funded science was done, and will it continue in future?
"CEQ reviews and provides comment on innumerable documents inside the White House and under development at the agencies," Connaughton says. "I don't know how you provide expert commentary on presidential documents without having a hand in writing down what those views are."
History lesson
With the advent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the CEQ was set up to ensure that the federal government adequately conducted the newly required environmental impact statements, resolved disputes on environmental subjects among agencies as well as states, and generally ensured that NEPA's goal of "productive harmony" among human economic pursuits and the natural environment came to pass.
Under the Carter administration, CEQ (along with the U.S. Department of State) drafted The Global 2000 Report to the President (pdf) in 1980, which proved prescient about a host of environmental issues, from climate change to biodiversity loss. But by the time the Clinton years came along, the CEQ was largely ignored and its elimination was even considered in the 1990s.
During the Bush era, however, the CEQ came to play a large role in setting environmental policy, particularly in the area of climate change. Lawyer Philip Cooney, a CEQ chief of staff and a 15-year veteran of the American Petroleum Institute, spent the first term of the administration editing science reports from various agencies on climate change to downplay the role of greenhouse gas emissions—emphasizing elements of uncertainty from a 2001 National Research Council report on climate change, according to an investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Following his resignation in 2005 immediately following reports of the editing, ostensibly for "family reasons," he joined ExxonMobil.
"Every policy document and actually every major regulation goes through intensive interagency and even inter–White House process of review. Every person with a perspective has the opportunity and the obligation to provide comment," Connaughton explains. "As one might imagine, sometimes policy people writing on economics don't quite get it right. Just as scientists writing on policy don't quite get it right. At the end of the day, scientists vet science documents and incorporate comments or reject them as appropriate."
The apparent interference by CEQ during the Bush administration prompted a 16-month congressional investigation beginning in July 2006 that pored over 27,000 pages of White House documents. "The evidence before the committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming," the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote in its report on the matter in December 2007. "White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change."
Among other things, the committee found that CEQ routinely approved or disapproved media interview requests with federal scientists. Cooney himself made 294 edits to the administration's 364-page Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program posted July 24, 2003, "to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming," and Cooney and the CEQ played a role in eliminating climate change sections in the EPA's draft Report on the Environment as well as its National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.
Nor were these edits merely recommended. CEQ's Cooney "approved" the final draft of the Strategic Plan and e-mailed James Mahoney, then the assistant secretary for oceans and atmosphere at the U.S. Department of Commerce and, in the words of Connaughton "the top official overseeing the Climate Change Science Program," on July 2, 2003, asking, "Is there any means of your assuring me that CEQ's comments were accepted in the final draft…[M]y alternative is to re-read the 330+ pages."
The CEQ also helped shape the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) declaration that it did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as well as its decision not to declare them a danger to public health under the Clean Air Act, despite an internal EPA analysis noting that greenhouse gas emissions endangered public welfare. "The decision to go with an advanced notice [of proposed rule making] or not was ultimately Steve Johnson's" (the EPA administrator at the end of the Bush tenure), Connaughton says. "That comes out of a broader policy management discussion about how far [you] could go with the Clean Air Act versus how far you could go with legislation…I would have tried to get the climate legislative piece going earlier. If I could have gotten that going a year-and-half earlier, that would have heightened prospects of climate legislation by the end of our term."
The EPA's stance, however, was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007, and one of the first actions of Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator under the Obama administration, was to declare CO2 and other greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare and release a proposed endangerment finding largely built on the earlier ignored analysis.
The green team
With the advent of the Obama administration, CEQ again reorganized, and some of its duties under the previous administration—such as taking the lead in climate change policymaking—were given to a newly created White House Office of Energy and Climate Policy directed by former Clinton-era EPA administrator, Carol Browner. "It's a recognition that our response to the energy needs of the nation and the challenge that climate change is presenting needs both high-level focus in the White House as well as the need to coordinate across the federal government," the CEQ's Sutley explains. "In our 40-year-old role as presidential environmental policy advisors we're still very much engaged in environmental policy issues associated with energy and climate change."
Sutley, for her part, came to the post after a four-year stint as a deputy mayor in Los Angeles, where she also oversaw climate change and energy policy, including restraining emissions from diesel trucks at area ports as well as promoting solar energy by setting a goal of generating 10 percent of the city's electricity from the sun by 2020. Prior to that she served in the federal EPA, California's EPA and as energy advisor to former California Gov. Gray Davis, perhaps most well known in this arena for presiding over the state energy crisis that was exacerbated by Enron.
Her new approach at CEQ "is to be guided by science and law," Sutley says. "I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to comment on the science. My role here and CEQ's role is to advise the president on environmental policy. The science is what the science is."
Whereas that may represent a break from the CEQ's role under the Bush administration, it does not mean that all Bush-era policies have been abandoned. Under Obama the CEQ is moving forward with plans formulated during his predecessor's tenure for a U.S. policy on oceans—from newly protected areas to reconciling competing authorities and laws—along with continuing the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate as a way to address global greenhouse gas emissions. "The change in administration doesn't change the fact that the U.S. and China are the largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions," Sutley says. "Opportunities for partnership between China and the U.S. on energy and climate is good for the U.S., China and the whole world."
As for CEQ's former role in commenting on science documents from various agencies. "I'm not a scientist," Sutley says. "I am not editing science."
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentScientific American would do it's partisan self a favor by staying out of political issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA politically group investigates a political group and claims they were acting with political bias. That goes both ways and if you believe the greenies of the world don't have a political bias and wont skew information there way then I have a bridge to sell you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter listening to Anita Dunn of the Obama administration telling us that the "government" her government controls the media. I have to be scheptical of anything that comes from the mouths of a progressive liberal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd further more, don't you find the Democratic administration a tad questionable. First you had, Mr.Van Jones being investigated for his outrageous ties to Marxist-Leninist organizations, then you have Anita Dunn telling high school students her inspirational person is Mao, and then you have another senior member of the Obama administration again telling people publicly that he too is a follower of the Chinese Mao school of management.
And you write an article about government editing science, and not crafting disinformation.
When the most senior staff people who have the ear to the President are confirmed Marxist-Leninists, and those people firmly believe "the ends justifies the means". And revolution trumps the electorate. You know the all this stuff about climate change was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It was all about wrangling out leverage to push social activism into areas not attainable in the normal voting methods and practice. Environmental issues were used against you not for you, and certainly not for the improvement of the environment.
Political and social science are also sciences. Economics also teach how to avoid taxation with common sense for interdependent survival. Corruption and bribery happens to the other guys unless you don't get it, and are subject to extortion, kidnappings, and never seem to have enough money to pay them all off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup, here come the dimwits. Here's an article documenting abuses by our former dimwit president who systematically worked to discredit global climate change by suppressing scientists with actual evidence who disagreed with his "hunch" that it wasn't true, and they begin to talk about how they don't trust the new administration because they're going to suppress scientists. Seriously, you people really need some mental help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Union of Concerned Scientists has documented the lies and distortions of science during the Bush administration. Go to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
and click on "Abuses of Science". There is an A-Z list.
It's sad that COMMON SENSE and HONESTY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisare not more COMMON!
The Bush administration did more HARM than good!
This mess was made by BUSH!! Who else?
Geeze! The spelling, punctuation and syntax in this posting are pathetic. I wish you right-wingers would learn how to properly use the English language, before attempting to lecture us on the "Marxist-Leninist" conspiracy in the Democratic Party.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen again, I guess the quality of your writing pretty much indicates the quality of your ideas. Not much has changed since a spokesman for the previous adminstration remarked that they made their own reality.
Hawkeye:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment only shows the vacuosness of your understanding of science. I wish you left-wing eco-fascist Democrats would understand that science is not the victory of form over function and refrain from crowing "Victory" as if the best turned out model in a fashion show wins the day.
Science cares only for those who can provide evidence; the inarticulate, ineloquent and unwashed also have the right for their voices to be heard and the merit of their views tested and judged.
I find it ironic that two coutries, Japan and Russia, both of which have students whose understanding of science far outranks the U.S. are also the same countries who have turned against the thesis of MMGW, except of course under conditions where they can make a buck off of it.
"Science cares only for those who can provide evidence; the inarticulate, ineloquent and unwashed also have the right for their voices to be heard and the merit of their views tested and judged."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's not exactly true. They're welcome to do their own testing and submit evidence, too. They're not welcome to an opinion that's not based on facts and expect scientists to jump at the opportunity to conduct an experiment on their behalf to prove or disprove the hypothesis. They're also not welcome to continue to push an opinion that's based on no merits or evidence in light of evidence that's already shown their opinions to be wrong. For example, many wingnuts like to think the "hockeystick" has been disproved, but there's been dozens of experiments and statistical analyses done to back it up.
As to the lies about Japan and Russia...well, they just don't stand up to simple Googling. I found ONE article on the Register that somewhat supports that one group in Japan is disclaiming AGW. Of course, in reading the article, I've found numerous examples that the Japan Society of Energy and Resources didn't do their own bit of homework (such as they dismiss America's ground-based measurements of temperature as suspect, despite that it correlates with satellite-based temperature gathering as well).
Spoonman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI welcome your comments. They support completely the point that I'm making. Opinions that challenge MMGW dogma are not wanted. Please continue.
As to the Hockey Stick, it has been discredited and shown to be a fraudulent product of data cherry-picking. Move on; everyone else has.
" Opinions that challenge MMGW dogma are not wanted."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's absolutely correct. OPINIONS that challenge ANY standing science are useless. It's just plain good science to reject any opinion that isn't backed by any real science. Should we listen to just any Joe On The Street who says "I've been looking over this "relativity" crap from Einstein and it just doesn't make any sense. Look, science doesn't even really understand what GRAVITY is! GRAVITY! Can you believe it? Einsteinien physics are thus complete bunk!"? Of course not.
Now, currently, there's a highly qualified astrophysicist who has some solid EVIDENCE that contradicts Einstein, and has the potential to change everything we know about physics on a grand scale (and, I apologize, I can't find the article again that discusses this). In her case, people are listening, despite the fact that it has the potential of putting a lot of people out of work. Why are they listening to her instead of you? Simple: she knows what she's talking about and she's brought evidence. Do you now understand how it works?
"As to the Hockey Stick, it has been discredited and shown to be a fraudulent product of data"
Nope, not at all. What was found was they used a non-standard formula to analyze the data. However, other studies of other data have all produced a hockey stick indicating this century to be the warmest:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
The fact is, Mr. Beck, no amount of evidence will ever lead you to reason, but there's plenty out there.
Spoonman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm astonished with your answers; it's highly unusual to run across someone who openly admits his (or her) lack of understanding. But I do appreciate your opinion that the Mann hockey stick is not fraudulent, but the evidence states otherwise. The test lies in the stonewalling of the researchers wrt to releasing the original data set.
Using a court of law as an analogy, defence counsel would cite "evidence" with opposing counsel having the right to examine and challenge the "evidence". And herein lies the problem with the peer review process and how its function is misrepresented by the MMGW True Believers.
The analogy to a court of law and defence and opposing cousels is preferred by MMGW True Believers to be incomplete. To the layman, there is an unfounded belief that this discussion and examination by opposing counsels occurs within the peer review process. In reality, it does not, nor should it, as diametrically opposed views within the peer review process might suppress an article's publication and that would be unacceptable as well.
To return to the court of law analogy, a publication is reviewed and approved by a panel of peers (let's call them the "defence counsel", as obviously they have approved the publication and so must agree with and defend it's findings). The actual contesting of the "evidence" is not made until other individuals (those who were not part of the publication's peer review, and we will term them opposing counsel) have reviewed and commented.
At this point the MMGW True Believers twist science. They are dishonest in stating that any proof or legitamacy whatsoever arises at the "peer review" stage. Using the legal analogy, defence counsel has merely presented it's evidence and opposing counsel has not yet risen to speak. Despite this, the MMGW True Believers already claim victory and shout down any who oppose their opinions. In fact, until opposing counsel speaks, the process of debate has not yet begun, let alone ended.
Again, using the legal analogy, evidence examined by opposing counsel, and found to be incomplete, withheld or "lost", or algorithms not disclosed are meaningless and have no standing. In the Hockey Stick case defence counsel failed to disclose how the "evidence" was collected, treated etc. When the entire "chain of evidence" was disclosed, the data and it's findings were much, much less than compelling.
Again, in a legal analogy, the behavior of the researchers in the Hockey Stick fiasco would have been jailed for perjury and misleading the court.
"It's highly unusual to run across someone who openly admits his (or her) lack of understanding."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am confused. I have reread my last comment and I cannot find where this happens. Perhaps you're reading something into the conversation? You do appear to be good that.
"But the evidence states otherwise. The test lies in the stonewalling of the researchers wrt to releasing the original data set. "
It does? The site I linked to referenced about eleven proxy studies that were done of which "The results all confirm the same general conclusion: although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
So, after you've provided sufficient rebuttals to ALL eleven papers which back up Mann's original, if not flawed in its methodology, study we can continue. Otherwise, you have your opinion only, which is nothing more than paranoia, and your opinion is therefore flawed.
"Using a court of law as an analogy"
And there's why. You start off with the belief that the scientific process is ANYTHING like the corporate silliness you deal with every day. You cannot adequately describe the scientific process with an analogy based on the legal system. The legal system is an adversarial environment. There MUST be a clear winner in a legal case, no such requirement exists for science. Is there competition for grants? Absolutely. Do people want to maintain the status quo? Of course. But, in the case of science, the status quo comes from centuries and centuries of methods tried, failed or successful. Of course it's only natural for YOU to believe that maintaining the status quo is nothing more than a fear of change. That implies it is irrational.
You can see, feel, hear, touch and smell the products of science. They exist only because of what they're built on. They're built on science that builds on what came before. We know it works and our model of how it works closely mimics how it all works because, simply, airplanes fly. In the model you propose, very little of science would actually work. The whole point of your comment is to point out how the Scientific Method is flawed because it can be influenced by greed and avarice. If the whole of how science is done is, as you say, an adversarial conflict that only rewards who
has the more popular opinion to the point that the science is flawed, then one has to conclude that ALL science done following this method is also flawed. We therefore should not have made any significant advancements in science in the last 40ish years (about the time that climate change has been discussed). If the methods of science are so flawed that the significant number of scientists back Anthropomorphic Climate Change are deluded into thinking that solely due to a poorly structured methodology...then any science that follows that same methodology would be doomed to failure. The problem with your argument...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...ALL science follows that methodology. It does so because it is a successful methodology built up over, literally, millenia. The Scientific Method (big "S", big "M") was not put together by a couple of lawyers in a back room trying to figure out how best to keep the jury from convicting. The method started when the first primate rubbed two sticks together to get fire.
Beyond that, they don't ALL do science for the purpose of fame and glory or money (like lawyers). Most do it because they're kids who just get to do what they love and they care very much that it's done right. There are some shysters and con men, sure. But, the system setup by scientists is also designed to weed them out. Interestingly enough, you got most of the steps right in the process and still managed to completely not understand the points and intrinsic elegance of this system. You got it completely backward because you wanted to compare it to the legal system. Tsk, tsk. Watch out, that plane's about to fall out of the sky!
"The analogy to a court of law and defence and opposing cousels is preferred by MMGW True Believers to be incomplete."
You misspelled "incorrect" at the end there.
"To the layman"
The layman would be better informed if he read a book or two. Or, better yet, took some science classes. And, preferably, some philosophy classes (good for teaching critical thinking skills).
"In reality, it does not, nor should it, as diametrically opposed views within the peer review process might suppress an article's publication and that would be unacceptable as well."
Again...here's your flaw: the phrase "diametrically opposed". Adversarial. Having been privileged to have sat in on a few of these sessions back in my consultant days, let me make it very clear: there's nothing adversarial about it. Typically the review process begins within your department, and before any experiment or study is begun.
You have to come with a hypothesis that's possible. Does it mean more radical ideas get shunned? Absolutely. Because every scientist in that room knows you don't change the world just because you want it to happen. If your idea is more radical, then you need to bring more evidence. But, radical ideas are accepted everyday...once there's evidence. Just because you want the world to be different does not mean it has to pay any attention to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To return to the court of law analogy, a publication is reviewed and approved by a panel of peers (let's call them the "defence counsel", as obviously they have approved the publication and so must agree with and defend it's findings). The actual contesting of the "evidence" is not made until other individuals (those who were not part of the publication's peer review, and we will term them opposing counsel) have reviewed and commented."
That's fairly close. Typically, as you're doing your study, your work is checked by your peers to ensure you're adhering to methodology. This is accepted and necessary in order for the system to work. At the end, the results are rigorously studied by others in your department to spot any flaws, again in the methodology. No one looks at a perfectly executed study and says "even though these results exactly match a flawless experiment, we're rejecting them because they deviate from the norm." Are you kidding? Really? THAT'S what you think happens? Really? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of doing science? If there really is a "holy crap" moment, it's farmed out further for review to ensure there's no flaws. Oftentimes, you'll send your work out to your "closest competitor". Someone who might be working to get the same grant or fellowship you're applying for. If that person then signs off on it, it goes to publication, where it can be viewed (and reviewed).
Interestingly enough, this process does mirror the political process in the US to some degree. Committees decide on the veracity of a bill before it's brought up for a vote. Then Congress does it's thing, which IS adversarial. If it passes there, it goes on to their biggest competitor, the President. If he signs, it's a law. Of course, that's again the difference: if a study is published...it's not a law.
"Using the legal analogy, defence counsel has merely presented it's evidence and opposing counsel has not yet risen to speak. Despite this, the MMGW True Believers already claim victory and shout down any who oppose their opinions.
In fact, until opposing counsel speaks, the process of debate has not yet begun, let alone ended."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAHA! I think I see your problem. Apparently, you think climate change is something new. Wallace S. Broecker coined the term "global warming" in 1975, but his work was based on data going back decades before that. There's been plenty of time to debunk Broecker's work, and a lot of effort has put in to do so, but the evidence mounts in
the direction of AGW. The data covers hundreds of thousands of years. You can't debunk the work of thousands of researchers in dozens of fields whose work builds on each other by simply playing a game of semantics. You especially can't do it when your argument isn't even logically consistent as in above where you conclude that the scientific method is flawed.
"Again, using the legal analogy"
Yeah, let's not.
"evidence examined by opposing counsel, and found to be incomplete, withheld or "lost", or algorithms not disclosed are meaningless and have no standing. In the Hockey Stick case defence counsel failed to disclose how the "evidence" was collected, treated etc. When the entire "chain of evidence" was disclosed, the data and it's findings
were much, much less than compelling."
And, in this case you're also completely wrong. There was ONE publication that published a single article that claimed to find flaws in the statistical model of ONE study done for the IPCC. The fact that these researchers didn't grasp that the inconsistencies were the point of the study is merely moot. The best summation: "Three important things have been overlooked in much of the media coverage. First, even if scientific critics had been right, this would not have called into question the very cautious conclusion drawn by the IPCC from the reconstruction by MBJH… This conclusion has since been supported further by every single one of close to a dozen new reconstructions."
Your hypothesis is flawed, your evidence and logic are wanting and your conclusions are vacuous and inept. But, other than that a thoroughly unejoyable read.
Spoonman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOuch... I must have hit a raw nerd... I mean nerve... Judging from how you attack my comments, there must be something in them that you find positively threatening. Relax, it's only science.
Obviously you've never had to defend your legal rights in court or had papers published, otherwise you'd understand both mechanisms far better. Pity.
Threatening...absolutely. Dimwits like you are pushing for the destruction of our planet out of your own ignorance. Fortunately, though, your kind are on the demise. "Only science"...yeah.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to defending myself in court, I sure have. I have never personally published a paper, though. I have participated in the process a couple of times,though, and so am familiar with it.
Well Shosin, I didn't make any comment about science, although being a scientific professional myself, I would be glad to stack up my knowledge of science against yours any day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo back and read my post again, and it's OK if you want to move your lips while you do it.
I said I wish you right wingers would learn spelling and grammar before you pontificate to us.
Your inability to write coherently was obvious, but it now appears that you can't read, either.
The facts are the facts. That is what CEQ aims to track. Clearly, the prior commentors are not at all familiar with the history of CEQ and its focus on SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Oh well, some people will believe they can sell anyone a bridge; and they think that maybe they'll sell one of the many ones now crumbling in America, since the previous Administration didn't give a hoot about the best interests of the United States of America or the American people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen to change!!!!!!!!!
Oh brother. . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat awareness and clarity. Thank you for being about the only clear head in this thread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHawkeye:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll spell it out for you, as your understanding of science is obviously challenged:
M+A+N+N = HYPOCRITE
J+O+N+E+S = SCIENCE SUPPRESSOR
A+G+W = GARBAGE
I+P+C+C = THIEVES
S+C+I+A+M = Complicit in this FRAUD for not calling out these carpetbaggers and merely regurgitating their propagandist press releases.
The powers to be will always have the final word when it comes to government environmental policy. Through different administrations we have seen this fact both hinder and help environmental causes. The question that is of biggest concern to me is this: why on earth would an administration do anything to hamper positive environmental progress? As evidenced by this article, the Bush administration has on numerous occasions edited scientific findings that exemplified the increasing risk of global warming. In addition, they effectively stripped power away from the EPA by declaring that greenhouse gases are not a health risk to the public. To answer the question of they would ever act in this fashion, I think it is imperative to look at the economic interest of the President and those in his administration. In the case of Bush it boils down to this: he is an oil man through and through. He was governor of an oil-producing state, high ranking officials in his administration worked for energy companies like Enron, and he himself worked in the oil industry prior to his political career. Effectively, any policy that would do anything to restrict greenhouse emissions or anything that would raise awareness and concern for climate change would directly impair a vast majority of the administrations personal wealth. So it isn’t any wonder that the administration acted the way that they did. All of us, as concerned, well informed citizens should be cognoscente of the fact that at the end of the day our elected officials don’t act with the best interest of the people. They are merely men, and men with conflicting interest are weak. They will always do everything in their power to side with money. That is why the juxtaposition of the Bush and Obama administration is so profound. Unlike Bush, Obama did not come into office with any economic interest that would conflict with his policy making.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe powers to be will always have the final word when it comes to government environmental policy. Through different administrations we have seen this fact both hinder and help environmental causes. The question that is of biggest concern to me is this: why on earth would an administration do anything to hamper positive environmental progress? As evidenced by this article, the Bush administration has on numerous occasions edited scientific findings that exemplified the increasing risk of global warming. In addition, they effectively stripped power away from the EPA by declaring that greenhouse gases are not a health risk to the public. To answer the question of they would ever act in this fashion, I think it is imperative to look at the economic interest of the President and those in his administration. In the case of Bush it boils down to this: he is an oil man through and through. He was governor of an oil-producing state, high ranking officials in his administration worked for energy companies like Enron, and he himself worked in the oil industry prior to his political career. Effectively, any policy that would do anything to restrict greenhouse emissions or anything that would raise awareness and concern for climate change would directly impair a vast majority of the administrations personal wealth. So it isn’t any wonder that the administration acted the way that they did. All of us, as concerned, well informed citizens should be cognoscente of the fact that at the end of the day our elected officials don’t act with the best interest of the people. They are merely men, and men with conflicting interest are weak. They will always do everything in their power to side with money. That is why the juxtaposition of the Bush and Obama administration is so profound. Unlike Bush, Obama did not come into office with any economic interest that would conflict with his policy making.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this