Report highlights Obama's broken environmental promises

[woo me with science]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/nov/28/report-obama-broken-environmental-promises

Report highlights Obama's broken environmental promises:
Critics say White House office operates as 'one-stop wrecking machine' for important environmental protections
by Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Monday 28 November 2011 17.37 EST guardian.co.uk


Barack Obama has been just as zealous as George Bush in stripping away environmental, health and safety protection at the behest of industry, it turns out.

Some environmental organisations were beginning to suspect this, after Obama over-ruled his scientific advisors and blocked stronger ozone standards. Now, a new report from the Centre for Progressive Reform has dug up some key data revealing that the White House in the age of Obama has been just as receptive to the pleadings of industry lobbyists as it was in the Bush era. And it goes far beyond ozone.

Under Obama, a little known corner of the White House - known as the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or Oira - has changed more than 80% of the rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

None of these were changes for the good, the report says...

(much more at link)

_______________________________________

The corporations have purchased our government. Support OWS.

[Tx4obama]

1. Obama has KEPT the majority of his 2008 environmental campaign promises

The majority of Obama's 2008 environmental campaign promises have been kept and/or still in the works.
See the three pages of them here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/environment/?page=1

[woo me with science]

2. Read the article. nt

[Tx4obama]

3. I skimmed it. I don't believe anything The Guardian prints.

They are the folks that printed that Naomi Wolf article the other day that was total BS.

Politifact.com deals in FACTS not unsourced 'opinion'.

[woo me with science]

4. Direct link to report from the Center for Progressive Reform

No Guardian necessary. You might try actually reading it.

http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/OIRA_Meetings_1111.pdf

[TheWraith]

27. So an otherwise unknown action group pushing an agenda is more accurate than truth?

Or more accurate than, say, an organization like Politifact with NO agenda? Bullshit.

[cui bono]

5. LOL.

Someone else said earlier Glenn Greenwald is on ignore. Now you don't believe the Guardian. Bill Moyers has been thrown under the bus. Can't remember the other real progressives who have... but basically anyone who doesn't have blinders on and speaks truth to power.

Geez... keep looking and I'm sure you'll find something that says only what you want to hear. You know there's an entire media conglomerate that does that and has the same kind of audience but they like to criticize Obama a lot so they won't do either.

:rofl:

[tblue]

6. Anything or anyone who is totally & immediately so one-sided I disregard.

Especially the knee-jerk whitewash. Oy! I can check out the OFA website if I want to be spun.

Johnny-on-the-spot POTUS Rapid Response only makes Obama appear too good to be true. He does a couple things right and a quite a bit wrong. Anyone who says he can do no wrong is using some kinda yardstick that I don't care to recognize.

[patrice]

8. Same goes for those who say he can do no right, especially given tons of missing, and assumed

insignificant, details, e.g. what actually happened with the ozone decision.

[tblue]

31. That's fair.

I see both sides of Obama. I'm more disappointed that happy with him. But I can't say he never did anything good.

[ZenaD]

28. Paul Krugman was their BFF when he was defending Obama's reversal on the mandate

Now he's under the bus because he refuses to worship at the austerity altar.

[patrice]

9. Don't you just love the old cannard about "promises"?! Like we're all stupid children thinking the

only thing that is needed is for daddy to decide to give us what we want.

[Marr]

11. LMAO-- The GUARDIAN is now an untrusted news source?

Jesus Christ, you really have to throw just about everything but the official White House press release page under the bus these days if you want to maintain that message discipline.

[woo me with science]

13. ...

Well said.

[hifiguy]

23. +1

The Guardian is as good as it gets. Better than any US paper I can think of, including NYT.

[Uncle Joe]

25. I believe it was the Guardian which most aggressively reported on Murdoch Minions' wiretapping

years before it was cool to do so.

[PufPuf23]

29. Do you work for Obama's buddy Cass Sunstein? (sarcasm)

The same Cass Sunstein that is a political disinfo specialist?

To quote from the article:

"Under Obama, Oira has dedicated more than half of its meetings, 51%, to discussing pending environmental regulations with industry lobbyists, the report says.

And for industry the meetings paid off – about as much under Obama as under Bush. Following those meetings with outsiders, Oira changed 84% of EPA rules during the Bush era. Depending on how you calculate it, the change rate was even higher under Obama. Oira changed 81% of environmental rules after meetings with lobbyists. But the change rate rises to 85% once all Oira decisions on environmental regulations are factored in.

Oira does not make public records of those meetings.

Is there any chance that Obama is unaware of what Oira is up to? Rena Steinzor, the law professor at the University of Maryland who wrote the report, doesn't think so. She notes that Sunstein is a longtime friend of Obama, who has for years advocated against government regulations."

Obama is most comparable to Reagan as an environmental POTUS in my lifetime and worse than Nixon considering the times.

[patrice]

7. "promises"? Could we see links to quotes where he used that word? It seems unlikely.

Possibly something more TTE, "I will work/try/direct-others to ________________" which we can see how well a lot of that has worked out, what with the loss of political power needed to implement these kinds of changes, political losses due to the base that wanted these things to happen abandoning him immediately . . . abandoning him in an EPA milieu with a high probability of a high degree of regulatory capture.

Amy Goodman did an interview with a 25 year veteran of EPA Science Advisory, who explained what happened with the ozone standards, if anyone cares: a range was specified by the previous Clean Air science review; the lower standard in that range was adopted; new EPA administrator orders a review of the previous review and changes the standard to the higher standard in that same range, doing so after new studies as scheduled by law were already well under-way and due to report out results and define a new standard based on those results in less than 2 years. So, in the interest of not tasking an agency already suffering from cut-backs with running a review of a review while at the same time, with the same resources, doing the new studies, the executive branch directed the agency to live with its previous administrator's decision, i.e. the adoption of the lower standard in the recommended range, and to concentrate on the new research and "correct"/support a new standard in 2013 based on that science, rather than engaging in a witch-hunt about OLD science, in order to out how the lower standard in the recommended range had been selected in the first place.

None of which matters to those who just know that Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about clean air and he'd much rather appease the 1% than do something good for the health of millions of Americans . . . just in case, :sarcasm:

[woo me with science]

10. Oh for pete's sake. A link to where *who* used that word?

What on earth are you talking about? What "he" are you referring to?

You appear to be quibbling about the wording of a headline (?) and inexplicably trying to make the argument about ozone standards. Did you even look at what the article actually says, patrice?

The article describes a pattern in lobbying and its results that should concern us all. Instead of throwing out sarcasm emoticons and peripheral arguments, you might try addressing the findings of the article.

[patrice]

14. Obviously that would be he who it is claimed made the "promises", links to BO saying "I promise...",

where are they?

[woo me with science]

19. Good lord.

First, calm down. It would help if you can reply in ONE post, instead of this frenetic, repetitive posting all over the place. Try to slow down and have a conversation.

Second, you still are arguing the wording of a headline that I merely cut and pasted, rather than the substance of the article. Do you realize that headlines are usually written by some grunt worker before deadline at the newspaper?

Third, do you have any comments on what the article actually says?

[patrice]

15. What's peripheral about asking for proof of a claim, i.e. that promises were made.

[patrice]

16. What is peripheral about debunking the myth that BO is "stripping away" environmental regs with that

not-even-a-half-truth about the ozone ruling?

Odd that such a supporter of science is so comfortable with such loaded language.

[patrice]

17. BTW, they weren't even HIS scientific advisors. The advice was from the previous administration, the

current EPA science advice on the air quality standards is in the process of being formulated, i.e. since the Clean Air standards review cycle is 5 years, advice from "his scientific advisers" on this particular issue does not exist yet.

[patrice]

18. Also BTW, if you don't mind my asking, are you tenured? Do you have health care insurance?

Just working on my own hypothesis for why some people don't care about throwing away the first decent chance we had for something like public option health care, plus throwing away an increase in an interest in the right to organize, that we've had in a long time . . . throwing those two opportunities away in order to prove somekind of political point is a luxury that those without job security and health care insurance cannot afford.

[woo me with science]

20. Well, that was incoherent.

What on earth does the public option have to do with this?

Patrice, I think I will leave you to this, because you are not making any sense.

[patrice]

22. way to NOT answer an honest question, as usual. & Context is ir-relevant to a scientist??? wow.

[girl gone mad]

12. k & r

[Laelth]

21. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[blindpig]

24. No surprise, given the way that BP was coddled.

And 'coddle' is really pretty weak. There is no doubt that the priorities of the US government are those of Capital, not the people or that which sustains them.

Capitalism or Nature?

[PufPuf23]

30. Besides BP, The Federal Line Officers that signed off on the NEPA

permitting that approved the drilling under a NEPA Categorical Exclusion should have been fired and criminally prosecuted.

[roman7]

26. obama is really pissing me off too

i dont understand why he cant stand in front of all the ows people so they dont have to subject themselves to any real hardships for their cause and while hes at it i wish he could hurry up and punish everyone thats guilty of anything and reward all of us who arent .in fact i cant see why he hasnt fixed everthing as quickly as those guys down at the burger joint can. i mean wtf his first term is almost as bad as that fellow ..lincoln