One week after refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (at least through the end of the Bush administration), the EPA has released a report saying climate change will pose "substantial" threats to human health.
How do they square the two? The answer lies, I think most clearly, with who they consulted with to arrive at the non-regulation decision:
...senior EPA officials met with representatives from Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, who argued that Bush should not undermine his legacy by regulating greenhouse gases.Yes, we wouldn't want to undermine a nearly perfect legacy of disastrous mismanagement and the constant trumping of science and reason with narrow ideology and short term profiteering.
On the positive side, even this administration can no longer deny the overriding ecological truths that are emerging, climate change amongst the sharpest. They won't do anything about them, but still, it's a start.
0 comments:
Post a Comment