March 26, 2002

12:13 PM

Clean air? We don't need no stink'n clean air. "The White House firmly defended Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Tuesday as newly released documents showed he held at least eight private meetings with industry leaders -- but none with environmentalists -- while the administration crafted its energy plan." Is this really a surprise?
posted by aj100 (33 comments total)

I assume an "industry leader" is someone who actually runs a business, employs people, and makes a product that people want. What is an environmentalist? Is it just someone who mouths off on the environment? Like a "community activist?" Is it an academic post? Is it a research post? How does one earn the designation "environmentalist?" An "industry leader," I'm thinking, actually has to jump through a few very considerable hoops to get to that position. What does an "environmentalist" do to have earned commensurate face time with the president?
posted by Faze at 12:23 PM on March 26, 2002

Environmental engineers, perhaps? Scientists whose sole purpose is to study the environment, the planet, and the impact that people have on the planet. Presumably, someone with a great deal of education, and scientific hands on experience with the environment and studying it. That pretty much fits the bill of some people they could have checked with, but did not.
posted by benjh at 12:27 PM on March 26, 2002

Geez, The whitehouse administration is acting as if they are just a bunch of Republicans!
posted by BentPenguin at 12:29 PM on March 26, 2002

Uh, like the article says: "News flash: it's no surprise to anybody that the secretary of energy meets with energy-related groups," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

Do you think Greenspan and the Fed should meet with anti-capitalist groups to help move fiscal policy forward? Hey, maybe if Greenpeace offered a real proposal that was environmentally friendly and allowed us to meet our energy needs, they would be worth listening to. I spent 15 minutes looking on the Greenpeace.org website for policy papers and couldn't find a thing. All I found was anecdotal information with no hard numbers, no roadmap of how we're going to get to a non-oil future, how I should feel guilty for driving a car that doesn't get 38 MPG, and so forth. I found plenty of articles on how these wackos illegally stopped legal practices. The current administration doesn't want to be associated with groups who practice illegal activities - it's no surprise to me that they refused to meet with Greenpeace as well as Enron.

BTW, who's going to do the research to find out if the energy secretary during the Clinton years met with environmentatlist groups. I think BentPenguin's remarks might have some credibility if this data was available.
posted by stormy at 12:47 PM on March 26, 2002

It's he-said she-said, but the Energy Dept said it tried to engage green groups.
posted by stormy at 12:52 PM on March 26, 2002

Presumably, someone with a great deal of education, and scientific hands on experience with the environment and studying it.
Once again, that's not very specific. In fact, benjh, your description what constitutes an environmentalist would fit most people we would call "industry leaders." Leaders of the mining, lumber, oil and agriculture industries probably have a more intimate knowledge of the environments they utilize than anyone on earth. If they don't know the natural history of the environment they work in, they go broke. (They're probably engineers, too.) Who would understand trees better than someone who runs a lumber business? When these men or women are wrong about the environment, they lose their jobs. What happens to an "environmentalist" makes a wrong call or wrong judgement in a book or paper? Probably nothing. They live to write another day. I'd rather see the president consult with people who have some responsibility in the world, and not someone "whose sole purpose is to study the environment, the planet, and the impact that people have on the planet" and answers to nobody.
posted by Faze at 12:56 PM on March 26, 2002

faze.

i wonder if the departure of the director of the EPA who leaves behind a scathing indictment of the bush administrations attempts to relax environmental regulations at the behest of your so called experts the "industry leaders" (do the names jeffery skilling and kenneth lay ring a bell?) tells you anything???
posted by specialk420 at 1:15 PM on March 26, 2002

Uh, like the article says: "News flash: it's no surprise to anybody that the secretary of energy meets with energy-related groups," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

I think that an environmental group with a bent towards renewable/responsible energy resource usage can still be thought of as an 'energy group.' Secondly, I think the perceived problem is that the secretary meets only with energy groups from the business sector.

Personally, I think that a good energy policy would incorporate thinking from those who manage immediate resources and strive for short term shareholder pleasing gains. Like Enron. And from those who come from the perspective of long-term sustainability. I don't see many arguments here that disqualify that need other than pitching mud at qualifications.
posted by holycola at 1:19 PM on March 26, 2002

How about environmental groups which for all their non-specific non-profit origins do have a constituency? Like the Sierra club? If you'll meet with Lay but not the Sierra Club then I'm going to doubt your judgement.
posted by Wood at 1:33 PM on March 26, 2002

Wood, you beat me to it. Thank you for mentioning the Sierra Club.

And yeah, while it's not earth-shattering news that the Environmental constituency was ignored by the Dept of Energy, analysis of these papers (which Dick kept a death-grip on for as long as he could) reveals a significant bias against granting high-level access to anyone who doesn't stand to benefit monetarily from the current policy.

That's what sticks in my craw more than anything.
posted by gangcandy at 1:41 PM on March 26, 2002

How would you describe the Sierra Club's constituancy? Are they comparable to the owners, stockholders and employees of a business or industry? Again, why should the president give the Sierra Club the same time and attention he gives to the serious providers of goods and services?
posted by Faze at 2:01 PM on March 26, 2002

aka, contributors to his political party.
posted by crunchland at 2:11 PM on March 26, 2002

Again, why should the president give the Sierra Club the same time and attention he gives to the serious providers of goods and services?

The mob provides plenty of goods and services to its customers. I guess we shouldn't question their methods either. We certainly shouldn't include any cops in the decision making regarding our policies towards organized crime. Sure, cops provide a service per se, but it's not a service that shareholders can make a buck off of, so why would they have any kind of useful opinion?
posted by badstone at 2:13 PM on March 26, 2002

Faze, to answer your first question: me and my friends are among the S. Club's constituency. And as for your third question: he should give them the same time and attention because I (and others) want him to. Otherwise fuck him and his daddy's horse that he rode in on. He got fewer votes than his opponent. I am aware of the method by which we elect presidents in this country. However, I recall him promising to be mindful of the 50/50 split in this country in his acceptance speech. That's why you invite these other people to participate.
posted by Wood at 2:14 PM on March 26, 2002

That was a bit over the top, sorry. But, still, Faze, I'm not against the president meeting with big business. That'd be crazy. But lots of non-industrialists are trying to participate in our civic dialogues. Some of environmentalism can be seen as a challenge to the capitalist status quo. The idea of externalities is textbook, but the debate is what exactly they are and how to reduce harm they generate. You can't expect current energy tycoons to assuredly have the knowledge or the motivation to look at something like that.
posted by Wood at 2:24 PM on March 26, 2002

why should the president give the Sierra Club the same time and attention he gives to the serious providers of goods and services?

Well, why should the president give the Red Cross, the American Cancer Society or any one of a hundred other patient advocacy groups the same time and attention he gives to HMO's and insurance companies?

Last time I checked, the job title is President of the United States of America, not President of the United Shareholders of America. Considering only the economic aspect of big issues such as energy or health care makes the administration look like a tool of these corporations. The economics are important, but they're not the whole story.
posted by groundhog at 2:26 PM on March 26, 2002

Leaders of the mining, lumber, oil and agriculture industries probably have a more intimate knowledge of the environments they utilize than anyone on earth.

Complete, unpurified, unadulterated, corporate bullshit.

Sounds like someone's been listening to too much slick public relations drivel, hmmmm? You know, like how cigarette companies are really benevolent pulmonary medicine specialists. And how oil executives spend their off hours shooing seals away from the latest "accidental" oil slick, scrubbing the tar from cormorants, and putting up fences and "Do Not Disturb" signs around the Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Right.

Listening to this kind of money-grubbing, sycophantic swill is what gave us Love Canal (thank you, all you "environmentalists" at Hooker Chemicals), Prince William Sound (thank you, "environmentalists" at Exxon), clear-cut foresting, strip mining, Chernobyl/Hanford/Three Mile Island (thank you, you "environmentalist" engineers), Woburn, Bhopal (thank you, "environmentalists" at Union Carbide), the Big Sandy River (thank you, Martin County Coal Company), the formerly blue Danube (thank you, Aurul Inc.), Kanawha Valley (thank you, "environmentalists" at Dupont), etc etc ad nauseum/infinitum.

Oh, and let's not forget to thank our "environmentalist industry leaders" for the following little problem areas, ok? There are only about 40,000 of them, so it may take a while to get around to properly thanking all those responsible corporate "environmentalists", I suppose (read: I'm not sure there's that much rope available). Our "super-environmentalists" corporate friends just must have been having bad days or were perhaps just temporarily overcome with greed when they caused those 40,000 little problems, eh?

When these men or women are wrong about the environment, they lose their jobs.

Damn. I'd like to see a list of those folks and what their terrible current living conditions might be. Can you provide one? Maybe we could all send them some money, just as a kindness.

I'd rather see the president consult with people who have some responsibility in the world, and not someone "whose sole purpose is to study the environment, the planet, and the impact that people have on the planet" and answers to nobody.

Here's a really radical, supremely nonintuitive suggestion for both you and our boy blunder president, in regards to making decisions that affect us all. Listen a little closer to those without any financial interest in the outcome. You'll hear truth a damned sight faster than from those greedheads who'll make a killing off a favorable political decision.

In other words, if you want the truth, don't solicit only the views of these disgusting little industry bean counters. Their only expertise is the remarkable ability to smell the fresh green ink on a single dollar bill fluttering in the sulfur dioxide stench from a thousand smokestacks.

Duh.

Oh, but then again, I keep forgetting that these same industry folks are the people who paid to get Bushtard (the illegitimate) "elected". Well, it looks like they're getting exactly what they paid for.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:34 PM on March 26, 2002

If you at least entertain the premise that much of the energy industry's activity harms the environment then yes, the President should give some time to groups like the Sierra Club. Owners, stockholders and employees of a business or industry should not have an indisputable priviledge to harm our shared environment in order to produce their goods and services. We all share the environment and industry should not have the exclusive priviledge of determining how it is treated; both sides deserve a hearing. The President is supposed to work for all American citizens and should take all our interests into account. (Fellow cynics, please note my heavy use of the word "should," I am under no illusions here).
posted by homunculus at 2:42 PM on March 26, 2002

thank you f&m, homunculus, and others. I'm glad you folks have the patience to rebut the guy. It's too much like talking to a wall for me.
posted by Dean King at 2:45 PM on March 26, 2002

i wonder if the departure of the director of the EPA blah blah blah...

Funny, he doesn't appear to have been the "director of the EPA" according to any news reports or his own resignation letter. And he resigned for the basest of political reasons. His Clintonian/Gorish Dream Team was replaced by a new administration that decided to change policy, so he got pissed off, took his ball and went home. And then pathetically blast-faxed his resignation to every news organization and left-wing environmental group he could think of. Oh, and did I mention he had another job lined up five weeks before he so bravely quit in protest? Yeah, Mr. Man of Honor he is.
posted by aaron at 3:40 PM on March 26, 2002

His Clintonian/Gorish Dream Team was replaced by a new administration that decided to change policy, so he got pissed off, took his ball and went home.

Didn't I read he was appointed by Bush senior? Can find the article to link to, but I'm sure that's what I heard - and would certainly tend to put the lie to his quitting for political reasons.
posted by cakeman at 4:28 PM on March 26, 2002

Bush the elder's environmental policies != Dubya's environmental policices. Also, people can become more (or less) extremist on policy matters over the course of twelve years. And I will repeat, he didn't just resign, he resigned and blast-faxed his resignation in a (largely failed) attempt to severly embarrass the Bush Administration. You don't do that when honesty resigning over respectful policy differences. You do that to out of political hate, to instill political damage.

(And for the umpteenth time, it is not Bush Sr and Bush Jr. One is George Herbert Walker Bush. One is George Walker Bush. No "Junior" in the name.)
posted by aaron at 4:36 PM on March 26, 2002

Last time I checked, the job title is President of the United States of America, not President of the United Shareholders of America.

Well said.
posted by holycola at 4:44 PM on March 26, 2002

Schaefer was the director of the office of regulatory enforcement - where the EPA rubber hits the road, pretty much. The effect of his "political hate" was to get a senate investigation started into Bush's environmental record, such as it is. What about that record is he protesting? :

We are in the ninth month of a "90 day review" to reexamine the law, and fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. It is hard to know which is worse, the endless delay or the repeated leaks by energy industry lobbyists of draft rule changes that would undermine lawsuits already filed. At their heart, these proposals would turn narrow exemptions into larger loopholes that would allow old "grandfathered" plants to be continually rebuilt (and emissions to increase) without modern pollution controls.

Oh, it's just a little highly undemocratic manipulation of the system by our President and his (and aaron and Faze's) corporate pals, nothing new.
posted by badstone at 5:04 PM on March 26, 2002

Green bashing on Metafilter by clueless conservatives. Film at 11.
posted by mark13 at 5:49 PM on March 26, 2002

Green bashing on Metafilter by clueless conservatives. Film at 11.

Wow, I hope you didn't hurt your head thinking of that troll.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:07 PM on March 26, 2002

Oh, it's just a little highly undemocratic manipulation of the system by our President and his (and aaron and Faze's) corporate pals, nothing new.

The Executive Branch is not a democracy, just like the United States itself. It is a representative republic. The ruling party (and individual Administration) RULES, and that means it can change the policies instituted by prior administrations/parties. You don't like it, try again in 2004.
posted by aaron at 10:15 PM on March 26, 2002

aaron.

thank you for the correction - "director of enforcement for the EPA". i stand corrected.

ill admit its a little hard to for me to get interested in rebutting your barely informed posts - after spending most of my eve with a well grounded, delightful, tall, exquisitely good looking, young woman.

have a good night - and send my regards to pat robertson (or perhaps tonight its Joseph J. Sabia) when you come up for air.
posted by specialk420 at 11:58 PM on March 26, 2002

What fold_and_mutilate said. Thanks for spending time debating this issue with the !Defenders of Dubya!. May they and their families all die of industrial toxins as they count their generous returns from stocks. If I said "Don't shit in your nest!" would the !Defenders of Dubya! understand that? Rats do live in nests, don't they?
posted by nofundy at 5:14 AM on March 27, 2002

Well, why should the president give the Red Cross, the American Cancer Society or any one of a hundred other patient advocacy groups the same time and attention he gives to HMO's and insurance companies?

Because the Red Cross is actually doing more than just lobbying at ground level, the ACS and like groups are actually doing solid, substantive, sound scientific study (consonance is my friend) and they are more than mere advocacy groups.

And I'm sorry, but the obnoxious rhetoric doesn't serve anyone. I could easily turn the tables:

In other words, if you want the truth, don't solicit only the views of those disgusting little enviroweenies. Their only expertise is the remarkable ability to trespass, vandalise, picket, propagandise, justify the hypocrisy inherent in their still-on-the-grid lifestyles and push for Even More Laws that typically end up benefitting no one but the endless string of enforcement bureaucrats.

There is a responsible approach to environmental issues, and it isn't to be found in corporations nor environemntal advocacy agitation groups. The answer is in the science, and that means turning to the people who have the empirical data to answer the questions, data which cannot be skewed to fulfill any group or corporation's political agenda.
posted by Dreama at 6:10 AM on March 27, 2002

im guessing Dr. George Divoky's work in the arctic - spending every summer living in a tent for 20 years of exhaustive research which has shown some compelling evidence of global warming might qualify as "solid, substantive, sound scientific study ". An excellent fulll article is archived at the NYT.
posted by specialk420 at 7:04 AM on March 27, 2002

The Executive Branch is not a democracy, just like the United States itself. It is a representative republic. The ruling party (and individual Administration) RULES, and that means it can change the policies instituted by prior administrations/parties. You don't like it, try again in 2004.

On the other hand, the entire notion of a president that uses executive power in order to create de facto legislation is a relatively new development. Originally, the president was primarily the commander-in-chief and the executor of law not the person who created it. One could make a very strong argument that our current regulatory environment is the opposite of what was intended, with the executive creating and pushing laws like the patriot act through Congress without even giving time to for Congress to review the several hundred pages of additional new powers they were granting to the executive.

And of course, we could make a strong argument that the fundamental philosophical basis of the representative republic is that the representative is a public servant and not given a free license for two to six years to do whatever they want. At any rate, the Bush presidency certainly looks like it is shaping up into a renegade administration that treats congressional and public review of its actions as a unnecessary inconvenience rather than a central part of its role. "Bipartisanship" is simply doublespeak for "give me what I want." With the exception of Oliver North, the people that saw a congressional mandate to stop spending money on right-wing terrorists in Central America as an suggestion rather than a law are back in the executive. The Sept. 11 attacks managed to salvage the administration's foreign policy efforts which previously had been doing an excellent job of treating our allies as if they were our lackeys.

But there is another problem here. The energy policy seems particularly regressive rather than innovative. As a result, it looks like we're getting an energy policy that is not only bad in terms of the environment, the bad in terms of our economics. A large fringe benefit of Great Britain's investment into renewable energy resources was the realization that their gross domestic product will grow larger through an investment in renewable resources and greater efficiency. As much as Bush is starting to look like Nixon in terms of wanting to be a unilateral dictator, even Richard Nixon managed to understand that energy efficiency was a good idea.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:18 AM on March 27, 2002

ill admit its a little hard to for me to get interested in rebutting your barely informed posts - after spending most of my eve with a well grounded, delightful, tall, exquisitely good looking, young woman.

have a good night - and send my regards to pat robertson (or perhaps tonight its Joseph J. Sabia) when you come up for air.

(Score -3; off-topic, junior high putdowns, homophobic)
posted by OneBallJay at 11:19 PM on March 27, 2002