I'm very upset and worried about this. Obama has hired the lawyer responsible for defending the worst polluters in the world as his "ENFORCER" of environmental regulations.
It is forcing me to question the post I wrote only yesterday deriding people who demand ideological purity from their President.
If I can, I would like to simultaneously defend myself against hypocrisy and define why this is so worrisome.
I am willing to accept compromise. Even on the environment, which I'm realizing is probably my number one issue. For example, Obama seems to have decided that cap-and-trade is the most politically feasible method of addressing climate change. Many argue that a carbon tax would be more effective. But less likely to pass. So, Obama wants cap-and-trade. I understand that.
This appears to be something very different. This appears to be what Reagan did--put people in charge of government agencies whose philosophy was that those agencies should cease to exist. It is not a compromise, it's abandonment. It's sabotage. It's not accepting the less-than-perfect, it is ensuring the frustration of the good.
At least, it appears that way. Perhaps, Obama is playing a "Catch Me if You Can" game. Get the thief to catch other thieves. She knows all their tricks, so she can stop them. I hope that is what happens. However, I fear that Obama is really just caving to industry. He has hired someone who is compromised, who knows that these big corporations, once Obama's terms are over, are ready again to shell out the big bucks for more protection. In other words, it's in this person's professional interest to remain on good terms with, to be nice with, the very corporations she's supposed to be regulating.
To put it more succinctly, she has a vested interest in doing her job poorly. She may have the purest of motives (which I highly doubt) but still, always, in the back of her mind will be the thought--if I really call these guys out on their environmental abuses, if I make them look bad, if I make them lose money, am I screwing my kids out of a bigger inheritance?
I don't want the environmental enforcer having those thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Due to the lack of personal pronouns in the original story, I originally referred to the lawyer in question as "a guy." My bad. She is a woman. That doesn't change anything, of course.
In light of more recent good environmental news from the Obama administration--tightened fuel standards and talk of a deal with China to curb emissions--I'm willing to wait and see on this nominee. But still...we shouldn't just look the other way and trust blindly just because we like the guy. And I admit, I like the guy.
Post a Comment