EPA Nominee Gina McCarthy: Science Above Politics or Warrior Against Affordable Energy?

"President Obama on Monday named two people to his cabinet who will be charged with making good on his threat to use the powers of the executive branch to tackle climate change and energy policy if Congress does not act quickly. Yesterday, President Barack Obama nominated Gina McCarthy to head up the Environmental Protection Agency," reports the New York Times today. Nice word '" "threat." After all, McCarthy would be in charge of the bureaucracy that hopes to determine the kind and price of energy that Americans will use for decades to come.

Given the flood of canned comments filling my email inbox, McCarthy's nomination is particularly fraught. Environmental and subsidized "green" energy lobbyists love her; conventional fuel advocates, not so much.  Below is a selection of endorsements and denunciations regarding McCarthy's nomination.  

Endorsements:

League of Conservation Voters head Gene Karpinski: "Gina McCarthy cares about progress not partisanship…. We look forward to working with her to combat the climate crisis, protect our air and water, and advance chemical policy reform."

Alliance to Save Energy President Kateri Callahan: "From her state-level energy work to her important role in the historic, new federal fuel economy standards, Gina McCarthy has been, and will continue to be, a major player in advancing energy efficiency."

Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee for the US Environmental Protection Agency member Dr. Jerome Paulson: "Gina McCarthy has demonstrated she can put science above politics. Gina McCarthy is clearly a leader in the protection of children from environmental health threats. Climate change is the most important environmental health problem facing the children of the U.S. and the world."

Biofuels lobbying group Growth Energy's CEO Tom Buis: "She's willing to listen to all of the different stakeholders in the debate and as we move forward in a number of challenges to increase biofuels throughout this country we look forward to working with Gina again."

Denunciations:

Institute for Energy Research President Thomas Pyle: "Today's announcement that the president wants Gina McCarthy to serve as the next EPA administrator is a clear indication that the administration will continue a war on affordable energy…. McCarthy will continue the regulatory attack on oil, coal, and natural gas with the result that Americans will experience increasing energy costs and high unemployment rates."

Heartland Institute Senior Environmental Policy Fellow James Taylor: "Gina McCarthy has a long history of demonizing affordable energy and doing everything possible to shut it down. She also has a long history of making up fictitious facts to support her anti-energy ideology. McCarthy's number-one priority at EPA will be enacting unprecedented restrictions on energy production and use that will further drive up energy prices. If Americans like dramatically rising gasoline prices and rapidly rising electricity prices, they are going to love Gina McCarthy."

Instead of immediately antagonizing the bureaucrat who is likely to oversee the regulations that determine their futures with denunciations, fossil fuel industry public statements basically express wan hopes that the new administrator will be kinder to them than the last one was.

American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard: "We congratulate Gina McCarthy on her nomination to head the EPA. President Obama says his top priority is creating American jobs, and we will continue working with the EPA and the administration to help avoid jeopardizing that goal. The problem is that EPA, in many cases, is not proposing regulations that meet this goal."

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity President and CEO Mike Duncan: "We hope for a more constructive working relationship with the EPA under [Gina McCarthy's] leadership. We hope that if she is confirmed she can put EPA on a more balanced path that recognizes America's continued need for coal, and the importance of clean coal technology."

The Senate hearings on McCarthy's nomination should be fun to watch, but the Democrats likely have the votes to confirm her as administrator.

Comments

[sarcasmic]

Luddites.

[OldMexican]

Oh, God... that face! She looks like a nasty nun!

[darius404]

That comment says a lot more about you than her.

[Acosmist]

Damn, she DOES look like a Cirinist.

[My Dog Bites Better Than Yours]

I had to look at the alt-text to be sure it wasn't Bill Clinton.

[Invisible Finger]

I thought it was Frank Vincent.

[a better weapon]

...or warrior against affordable energy?

I've always just assumed this was a requirement to work for the EPA.

[alan_s]

I'm pretty sure it is.

[OldMexican]

League of Conservation Voters head Gene Karpinski: "Gina McCarthy cares about progress not partisanship... We look forward to working with her to combat the climate crisis, protect our air and water, and advance chemical policy reform."

In other words: "Hands up! This is a stick-up!"

Biofuels lobbying group Growth Energy's CEO Tom Buis: "She's willing to listen to all of the different stakeholders in the debate and as we move forward in a number of challenges to increase biofuels throughout this country we look forward to working with Gina again."

In other words: "Do what she says, people! This is a stick-up! She's not kidding!"

[Killazontherun]

She's willing to listen to all of the different stakeholders

Parasites have as much interest in the outcome as the host organism does.

[Pro Libertate]

Why don't we just ban oil, gas, and coal right now? Why piss around?

[Brett L]

If they hurry the legislation, it may accidentally ban things their biofuel buddies add to their product.

[Jordan]

We should just give the EPA summary execution powers.

[sarcasmic]

For the same reason they don't outright ban tobacco. They depend on the tax revenue.

[Jordan]

Not to mention all the powers that come with it. It's much easier to gin up a massive fine or felony charge through regulations than through outright banning.

[Pro Libertate]

Tobacco just hurts people. Burning stuff hurts Gaia.

[Zeb]

What about burning tobacco?

[Pro Libertate]

They'll deal with that later. It's de minimis, of course, but zero tolerance is zero tolerance.

[sarcasmic]

The CO2 released when burning tobacco came from the atmosphere while the plant was alive. It's a zero sum.
Burning things that came from underground is bad, because that actually adds to the atmosphere.

[LTC(ret) John]

Last night I was trying something quite foolish - to get a forecast from the Weather Channel - instead, I managed to get a slobbering piece on O! nominating this apparatchik and the new Sec Energy.

I had to go online to find out when Snowmageddon was going to reach Chicago.

[Kaptious Kristen]

I'm listening to ORD ATC right now...braking action isn't even affected. Some Snowmaggedon!

[kinnath]

It's all about devotion to the mythology for these people. Actual facts are irrelevant.

[sarcasmic]

Human activity must be hurting the planet because it must. The climate is not the same every year. Since human activity must be hurting the planet because it must, human activity must be the cause of any and all inconsistencies in the climate!

Begging the question for the win!

[RPR2]

Gina, heh.

[Drake]

Holy shit does she look like an unpleasant woman. That is her version of a smile? A face only gets that way from decades of scowling.

[Brett L]

That's not a woman... this is a woman.

[Kaptious Kristen]

I'd go gay for Kate Upton, in a New York minute.

[Caleb Turberville]

OT, but a gas: http://freethoughtblogs.com/ph...../#comments

Blogger doesn't understand airline pricing.

[Night Elf Mohawk]

In all honesty, I wouldn't mind some insight into that subject.

It's often cheaper to fly from Austin to DFW to Miami than it is to fly from DFW to Miami on the exact same flight that the Austin passengers switch to once they arrive at DFW.

[RPR2]

that's my new Mendoza line for emitting carbon: is it more important than PZ Meyers attending the Women in Secularism 2 conference? why yes it is.

[Tulpa (LAOL-PA)]

I know it's wrong to judge people by their looks, but have you ever seen a more repulsive set of mugs than BO's Cabinet and agency heads? When Tim Geithner is the looker of the bunch you know you've got problems.

[sarcasmic]

They're still more attractive than his wife.

[Drake]

Maybe Obama always wants to be the best looking person in the room. That would explain many of his choices.

[OldMexican]

Maybe there is some truth in what Rush Limbaugh said once, that Feminism was the attempt at putting ugly women into the mainstream...

[heart_of_flint]

"making good on his threat to use the powers of the executive branch to tackle climate change and energy policy if Congress does not act quickly."

The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law, not enforce its will regardless of the law.

[NeonCat]

Such a quaint notion.

[Russell]

Wow-- one rarely sees a Heartland Institute flack get out two full sentences before telling its first lie !