Utah Governor To Head EPA

|

President Bush is nominating Utah Governor Mike Leavitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Leavitt is an environmental moderate who endorses the so-called Enlibra Principles. Expect the Greens to gnash their teeth.

Advertisement

NEXT: Fuhrer Fashion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It at least makes sense to nominate someone from a western state where so much of our eco battles are fought (wild fires and so on).

    I don’t yet know anything about the guy but it should prove interesting. . .

  2. If there’s any weight behind these Enlibra Principles, then they appear to embrace some aspects of smaller, less intrusive government. I point to “Markets Before Mandates” and “National Standards, Neighborhood Solutions” as two specific principles that, on their face, sound quite reasonable.

    Any experts out there who feel Leavitt has some libertarian leanings that might result in a slightly less obnoxious EPA?

  3. And talking about “localizing” things …

    Right now, the weather is rather pleasant here in Texas.

    I’m sure Oregon is nice, too. And so is Colorado, Australia, Argentina, Mongolia, South Africa . . .

    I mean, this heat wave is hitting just a small part of Europe — the western part of it, at that.

    Yet at just about every news site (or paper) you read, they blame this summer temperature anomaly on “GLOBAL warming.”

    “Global” warming? Huh, what? In Japan? In Bolivia?

    Nothing “global” about it!

    Why all this scare-mongering?

  4. Iceman:

    See Number Watch for copious notes on how the media, especially in Britain, is simply failing to report record cold and early frosts that destroyed crops, while then turning around and reporting on record highs and heat waves, and then asking “Is this proof of global warming?” Tricky bastards, them.

    Here’s the site:

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2003%20August.htm

    Quote:

    Talking of scares, there is no way they are going to let us get away from the Global Warming myth. Just as they were flummoxed by a powdering of snow in January, so the British are in shock because it turns hot in August. Relying on the supposition that their readership is not only extremely stupid, but also extremely forgetful, the media pile on the ?evidence? for global warming.

    The Independent, assuming you have forgotten the temperatures of ?10?C that killed off all the ?hardy? crops in January in southern England, would like you to know: Britain bakes Europe burns. Is this proof of global warming? But here is an example of one they would not like you to know, July snow chills interior. We have published dozens of others in previous months of this year, which produced one of the most fatally cold winters for a long time, and they are only a selection of those submitted by regular readers.

  5. Uh, Ray? The Department of Agriculture fights wild fires.

    EPA fights the externalities and tragedies of the commons left behind in brownfields by the chemical industry. I think it makes more sense to appoint Jersey politicians to the position.

  6. Keith got to it first.

    Iceman,

    Well, even if warming were happening, it would not cause uniform warming across the planet. In fact that is one of the basic misconceptions about climate change in general, and demonstrates the level of ignorance you have regarding the field of climatology. Its unfortunate that the term “global warming” gets tossed about by the ignorant on both sides of the debate; the very phrase provides a whole host myths and misconceptions that are very difficult to combat.

  7. BTW, though it may be devastating for some, causing even death, the heat wave in France is going to create one of the best vintages in French wine history. Right now the grapes are being harvested, a week earlier than normal. Wine growers will be making loads of money, and wine drinkers will have much to savour. 🙂

  8. And THAT, my dear Jean, is why — if there were a so-called “global” warming (BIG “if”) — there would still be no need to panic.

    – We can finally see the treasures Greenland’s interior holds.
    – At long last we can come to understand how paleo man lived in the Alpine territories (they’ll be thawed by nature for study.)
    – Minnesotans and Nebraskans will be saving tons of money on winter heating costs.
    – Canada growing mangoes.

    Nice.

    BTW — the beneficial list is endless.

    But, (sigh) echoing Billy Joel, “It’s just a fantasy.”

  9. Iceman,

    Well, climate change will happen; it has happened in the past (the mini-ice age from the 14th-17th centuries proof enough of that) and it will happen in the future. The issue will be how we adapt and deal with it until we get into the Star Trek fantasy universe where all weather is controlled by computer. And yes there may be benefits to such; there will also be costs (no more Hawai’i?). In fact, its the potential costs that have so many nations in the South Pacific worried.

  10. Mike seems to have some reasonable policies, hopefully he’ll carry them out.

    I wonder if they’ll ever start cracking down on those damn cow farts like they have in NZ here in the US.

  11. Everybody knows you can’t grow bananas in the ‘peg. The damn mosquitoes will take off with ’em.

  12. Keith, the U.S. Forest Service is the largest firefighting agency in the U.S. Gubmint. It’s in the Dept. of Agriculture.

    And actually, the issue is not what is causing global warming. The theory is pretty good but it’s a theory. The issue is what to do in the face of uncertain science that predicts events that will have negative consequences for life as we know it. And it’s not greennuts who observed the climate changing and developed a theory to explain it, but Ph.D. scientist-types. Not exactly a group of radicals.

    But because the issue deals with the most fundamental aspect of human economy, energy, it will be the most politicized scientific debate of the century.

  13. Caution! Mike Leavitt headed the new Constitutional convention movement on behalf of the Liberal power elite, world government advocates who were behind it. I’m not saying that his environmental views aren’t superior to the prevailing orthodoxy, but in view of his background, be cautious!

  14. What we need is a little “deteriation” of Ph.D. scientist-types who are constantly sucking at the Gubmint Grant Teats, to come up with all sorts of anthropogenic theories that — in the end — only hurt your pocket book (and your family.)

  15. “….theories that –in the end– only hurt your pocket book (and your family.)”

    Is that a fact Junksci, or yet another theory?

  16. The problem with most environmental management is that people want to place their ideology in the drivers seat and stuff science in the trunk. Things get real ugly when the science isn’t good enough to convince every skeptic. Will this Bush administration appointee place science in the driver’s seat, or ideology?

    There is no doubt that the climate has warmed over the past century in North and South America. This is vividly illustrated by the decreasing mass of glaciers on many of the mountains, as well as observed increases in air and surface water temperatures. Remember that we only have about three miles of breathable atmosphere above us. It’s a pretty thin skin.

  17. I’ll let you answer that yourself after everyone has signed on to Kyoto, and actually abides by those constricting rules.

    You think 9/11 was bad for the economy? Wait till you see what this world will look like, Kyoto style.

  18. Trainwreck,

    The issue is not whether the climate is warmer now than it was in the recent past. The issue is what is causing it. The greennuts blame humans. The skeptics say that is not a proven fact which drives the greennuts mad. Global warming is just a code word for “Animals and vegetables good, humans bad”. But when all the humans are gone who will save the noble carrots from the evil rabbits?

  19. Mangoes? Here? I’d rather see further development of our vineyards. Yummy.

  20. Iceman,

    Just so you know, it’s been a pretty friggin hot summer here in Colorado, not that that proves anything about gloabl warming…

    I would say the main question surrounding the global warming issue is whether human activity is causing climate change to happen more quickly and drastically than it has since, say, the beginning of the age of mammals. If not, we should expect life to adapt just as it always has. But if the change is seriously more drastic, then adaptation might be a lot more difficult. And while I understand libertarian arguments about private property and comparative economic value to the contrary, I think it’s a damn tragedy if we lose a lot of the beauty of the natural world, such as the deteriation of coral reefs and the diminishing numbers of frogs and of pikas here in Colorado.

  21. Mangoes. Sure. Or how about growing bananas in Winnipeg.

  22. So let’s do away with this $40 car inspection-sticker nonsense, shall we? And let’s also dispense with making cars smaller, flimsier, more dangerous. And by all means, let’s get our air conditioner’s freon back. (It’s much cheaper.)

    And Greenpeace can then use those ships for shipping marvelous goods from Taiwan, instead of constantly harassing maritime oilmen.

  23. National Standards, Neighborhood Solutions.

    The neighborhoods most in need of solutions are, surprise surprise, the ones with the fewest resources to carry them out. Urban areas with brownfields and smog, neighborhoods near chemical factories in Louisianna, etc. Will Sec. Leavitt work to provide these neighborhoods with what they need, or is this just an excuse to drop the ball at all levels? Or, maybe to apply Bush’s old “standards” strategy fromt the education debate – if the district doesn’t meet a set of standards (ie, needs a lot of help), withdraw resources to punish them.

  24. That’s right, I’ve got a front and a back. The rest is just top, bottom, and sides. Now that that is out of the way . . .
    It’s obvious that some, if not much, that is said here is caused by dull axes.
    We have scientific evidence of a global warming situation. As much as it might inconvenience folks (like the “Acid Rain” problem that inconveniently prove itself true in spite of the scientists at the ‘Gubmint’ teat) there is the question of what does it mean for the human race as a whole? If just a normal swing, it still might knock yer 4 wheeler out of the box. If it is us, it just might put your family and all you know down the crapper. To argue against knowlege is to take the last swallow of that bottle just before the wall, if ya know what I mean.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.