Endless Disappointment
Obama’s decision to not implement stricter clean air standards might be the final blow to anyone who had hopes for him as an environmental president. While he campaigned on promoting clean energy and fighting climate change, he’s had to scale much of that back in the face of congressional opposition and Republican extremism. This I can understand on some level–if you can’t get the votes, you can’t get the votes.
But the president’s greatest power on environmental issues is through the executive branch and working with regulatory agencies. We saw George W. Bush do this very effectively–he wanted to eviscerate environmental regulations and he did. But Obama has generally refused to go down this road. While I think most of us were encourage by the appointment of Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy, his appointment of Ken Salazar as opposed to someone like Raul Grijalva as Secretary of the Interior was very disappointing. Salazar has always been friendly to the energy industry and we’ve seen his Department of the Interior follow that path. Obama has not been strong on rallying for the National Park Service (which provides jobs, good environmental management considering the number of visitors and a big place in Americans’ hearts). He hasn’t pushed much for wilderness or new protections for federal lands. He signed the wilderness bill in 2009, but that was drafted before he took office.
Like most other issues, Obama caved on clean energy pretty fast, opening up drilling off the Atlantic Coast, apparently thinking this would get petroleum companies behind his energy policy, which showed his typical naivete when it comes to how Washington works. He stopped deepwater drilling after last year’s oil spill but that’s on its way back to pre-spill heights with no real additional regulations to prevent future problems.
And now we see Obama opposing the rules on clean air developed by his own EPA, apparently because he buys into the idea that environmental regulations hurt the economy and cause unemployment, an assertion commonly repeated but without empirical evidence.
It’s all extremely discouraging. I mean, I’ll vote for the guy, but that’s about it. The alternative will be atrocious on environmental issues, but it’d be nice to see Obama flex some presidential muscle and put through behind the scenes what he can’t get done through Congress. Alas, no.
Our b3 bomber jacket and short leather jacket are Used by professional riders worldwide. You can also find sophisticated bomber jackets for men, winter motorcycle gloves and womens motorcycle gear at cheap prices.
This only refers to the ozone standards, not to the much more dramatic possibility for CO2 regulations (which haven’t even been developed yet.) There’s still a chance Obama could do the right thing on that one? Right? Maybe?
None. And it will be a rust-belt Senate caucus, led by Democrats, including impeccable progressives like Levin and Sherrod Brown, that keeps it from happening, who don’t want any use of the EPA regulatory regime to circumvent Congressional (in)action
Democratic Senators who are proud of it, too.
Plenty of brickbats to go around on this.
There’s still a chance Obama could do the right thing on that one?
There’s as much chance of that as Darth Cheney confessing to his war crimes.
The leopard doesn’t change his spots. Obama isn’t going to do the right thing in any area. And I’ll bet he’ll be even worse after January, 2012.
I maintain that by far his worst and most shameless failure was giving the Bush war crimes a pass. Meanwhile, he’s proven that his “we’re looking forwards” excuse is a lie with the D.O.J. assaults on the whistle-blowers who had the courage to tell the truth about what Bush and Cheney were doing.
I voted for him in the primary and general elections of 2008. I will not vote for Obama again.
~
The leopard doesn’t change his spots. Obama isn’t going to do the right thing in any area.
Here’s what the Obama administration – that “Endlessly Disappointing” EPA that “caves pretty fast” – has issued for environmental regulations just in the past few months:
The first regulations on mercury emissions from gold mines. You’ve never heard of this, but boy do you have your narrative all ready to go!~
The CSAPR rules, strict new emissions on mercury, arsenic, and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, replacing the old CAIR rules – neither of which any of the shit-sandwich eaters here have ever heard of or bothered to find out about before bitching an moaning about how terrible the administration’s record is, and how quickly they cave.
Tighter regulations on stationary diesel engines’ emissions.
Tighter air toxic standards for oil and natural gas production.
Repealed the New Source Review grandfather provisions – and incredibly important regulatory development – maybe one of you is familiar with the name “Filthy Five?” Anyone? Bueller? – yet another term you tools have absolutely idea what it means, and have never bothered to find out about.
Regulations on asbestos emissions from demolition projects. Nobody here has ever heard of this, either.
That’s just some of the air regulations. Want me to do water?
You know, just because this story is the only thing you personally know about the Obama EPA’s air quality regulations doesn’t make the results of your gut-check accurate.
This is one of the weaker posts you’ve written, Erik.
First, he didn’t make a “decision not to implement stricter clean air standards.” He decided to implement them according the existing EPA schedule (2013, after the ongoing studies are done) instead of an expedited schedule.
Second, the EPA itself estimated the cost of these regulations at $90 billion. Your blanket statement that environmental regulations don’t cause job losses – made without any distinctions between different regulations – is as much an expression of ill-informed ideological absolutism as its opposite, that environmental regulations always cause job losses. In this case, we’re talking about foregoing a very small environmental gain (adopting an area compliance level two years sooner, in a weak economy that would shut off the investment by which compliance is attained) in exchange for a large cost (also during a weak economy).
I know something about how the area-compliance regulations work, and this post reads like it was written by someone who first heard of them from this news story.
BTW, funny how the CAFE standard increase, which is a couple orders of magnitude more significant than this decision, doesn’t make the list of actions by which we’re supposed to judge Obama’s clean energy record.
No the EPA estimated costs of 19 to 90 billion. That money doesn’t disappear it’s money that is spent to buy stuff that makes the air cleaner, it isn’t the same thing as a loss for the economy as a whole.
Also, Erik said that their is no evidence, that is not the same thing as no effect, environmental regulations can create jobs as well.
“environmental regulations can create jobs as well.”
Yes indeed. And as with labor regulations, business crying about lost jobs because of environmental restrictions have almost always been proven unfounded. There are cases, such as the spotted owl in the Northwest, where certainly local communities were hurt by environmental legislation, but the long-term economic impact of the Endangered Species Act has been positive for Oregon and Washington because the increased tourism money and the states becoming destinations for outdoors people have mitigated the job losses. On the town level, things are more complicated, but on the state and regional level, environmental regulations make places more desirable locations to live and work.
But of course, this estimate isn’t from “business.” It’s the EPA’s own estimate.
Long-term is the key here. The cost of these regulations will almost certainly be outweighed by the benefits over the long term.
But we’re not talking about whether or not to implement the regulations, but whether to do so now or in two years. The long-term effect, by definition, doesn’t depend on the timing. The short-term economic effect, on the other hand, does. Right now, in the set of circumstances this country is faced with, the short-term job impact is a higher priority than the long-term job impact.
Right now, in the set of circumstances this country is faced with, the short-term job impact is a higher priority than the long-term job impact.
It is? Who decided this? It probably wasn’t the progressive green community. Screw the long-term environmental impact. Screw the long-term jobs impact. As long as the GOP can be shut up (for half an hour), I guess it’s totally worth it. Now companies can go about creating jobs with all that money they’re saving.
As long as we’re firmly willing to undo environmental regulations if they cost business money (which could, theoretically, be used, in the short-term for jobs. Maybe.).
You’re not much of a reader, are you?
Uh, champ? The “long-term environmental impact” has nothing to do with whether the regs are adopted two years sooner. Do you even understand what “long-term” means?
is a very strange thing to write in response to
Yeeeeah…no. You don’t even understand what this story is about. There are no regulations being undone.
Kindly inform yourself about the story before commenting on it again. You’re adding nothing here.
The EPA is recommending that ozone standards be set at 60 to 70 ppb. The Bush admin set the standards at 75 ppb instead. The Obama admin indicated to the EPA that they were going to go with the 60 to 70 ppb. My understanding is that they told the states not to implement the 75 ppb because they were going to issue a new standard soon. Now they are backing off of that.
Yeah, maybe the standards will be reset in 2013. Of course, that’s only when they are due for review. One assumes the review might take a few years. I also fear we may have a Republican president who will be delighted to tell the EPA to shove their recommendations.
So, um, champ, from what I have read, the implementation of new standards for ozone have been shelved indefinitely.
The same goes for long-term economic impact. Your faith that Obama will be re-elected and will do the right thing in a couple of years is touching.
Sorry I spoke somewhat loosely about “undoing” regulations. How ’bout “betraying his supporters.”
I believe you: from what you have read, they’ve been shelved indefinitely.
The change is hard-wired for 2013. It would not require any action from the President to implement those regulations. Clearly, this is not in what you have read.
How ’bout, this is the level of understanding and knowledge of the policy informing critics. You need to stop using your feelings about Obama as a proxy for knowledge about issues.
I know I can’t read and that I am an idiot. Every source I’ve read on this story, well, I thought that they all said the policy was up for reconsideration in 2013. But I am a moron, so I went and checked.
NYT:
Ezra:
And I never once saw anything about “hard-wired for 2013.” But then, I’m an ass who can’t read.
No one has said they weren’t. That’s not the part you were wrong about. This was:
No, they have not. They have been shelved until the next reconsideration. Didn’t you read your own quote about what Cass Sustein said? in advance of the scheduled reconsideration in 2013
2013 is not ‘indefinitely.’
Except the rules are already being crafted, and the 2013 reconsideration can utilize the work done for this abortive interim modification.
Yes, you are an ass, and I have to say – you aren’t any great shakes as a reader.
I said “implementation” has been shelved indefinitely. I quote Ezra saying that the WH has said they don’t know when a “reconsideration” might be finished. There’s, at best, a 50-50% chance that the President in 2013 will not want to implement anything the EPA recommends on ozone (hey, just like 2011!).
So far, you’ve cited nothing showing that regulations are “hard-wired for 2013.” You’ve quoted no one saying that this is just a two-year delay. Not even the WH is saying that.
Thanks for the convo, tho. Time to go home.
Looks like I assumed too much information on your part.
The adoption of this standard today would have also not led to immediate implementation, owing to those same lawsuits and studies that would delay an adoption in 2013. It’s the same two-year difference either way.
Ah, of course. Nobody except you ever does anything except for underhanded reasons.
It must be awfully nice not to have to consider whether anyone else has a point.
Uh huh. Also, throwing rocks through windows improves the economy!
Throwing rocks through windows destroys the value of those windows.
Making modifications to industrial boilers and power stations doesn’t destroy any value.
Nobody is throwing any rocks here; the “homeowner” doesn’t lose any of the value of his “windows.”
But nice try.
That money is a cost, for which we receive a benefit. Whether the economic cost of a regulation is greater or less than the benefit it produces is something to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Sometimes they can create jobs; sometimes they can cost jobs. I just said that:
The “cost” is to the firms that have to comply, it is not, necessarily, a cost to the economy as a whole. This is true, before, we talk about the possible environmental benefits.
I’m not going to defend Erik’s choice of phrasing further, I’ll let other readers decide if you made a fair paraphrase.
Erik himself doesn’t seem to have a problem with my paraphrase.
I suspect that this is because nobody except you has any idea what you’re even talking about.
I’m sure that you are, so seem oblivious to so many simple things.
This wouldn’t have made any sense even it was grammatical.
Gotcha!
No shit.
Businesses have nearly $2 trillion dollars cash on hand, just the nonfinancials. They’ve been sitting on that nest egg for years now. Forcing them to spend a sliver of that conforming to tighter air pollution standards, in turn lowering household medical costs, would be an almost unvarnished benefit to the economy. I could see the costs imposed on states being a problem, but the cost to business isn’t.
Except that spending wouldn’t have happened for years. The steps between finding an area to be in non-attainment and money being spent to bring it into attainment go on for years.
The discussion of this subject would be greatly improved if the reporters and commentators made an effort to find out something about the regulation in question.
it’d be nice to see Obama flex some presidential muscle and put through behind the scenes what he can’t get done through Congress. Alas, no.
Or, you know, not.
The fuel efficiency standards are nice and all but the auto companies clearly believe they will never have to go along with them.
And your basis for making that statement is…what?
the last 30 or so years of the implementation and adjudication of the fuel efficiency standards
The ones that have steadily risen?
If by steadily risen you mean dropped in 1986 then rose some in 1989 and then back to the pre-1986 level in 1990 and were unchanged through 2010, then yes I would agree, but that seems an odd definition of steadily risen. This was for cars, but light trucks also dropped twice in that time frame. The CAFE (not standard but actual new car fuel efficiency) also dropped at least three times since 1986, so again that is a definition of steadily risen with which I am unfamiliar.
President Bush proposed higher standards than the initial proposal by President Obama, but these got held up in court for being arbitrary and capricious.
President Obama’s rules have a large ability to move between types, so for instance Hyundai could decrease their overall fleet economy by about 1 mpg and still meet the proposed/current standard.
I also don’t believe the new standards increase the penalty for non-compliance significantly, if at all. The penalty has risen only 10% since 1983 and in real dollars is about half what it was in 1983. It is I believe $55/mpg under standard per vehicle. So if a company’s new car is supposed to get 35 mpg and only gets 30 mpg that’s an additional $625 per car, which isn’t very much for a large miss in fuel economy. $~100 per vehicle is much more likely. Mercedes and BMW paid fines ~80% of the 25 years between 1983 and 2008. In 2006 Mercedes paid over $30 million in fines.
Stop picking nits Joe. How about history? GM bought off higher economy standards by promising to develop electric cars. Seems to me they tried the same approach by promising hydrogen fueled cars, but I can’t remember if they succeeded. History says they usually manage to stave off higher CAFE standards, and with a good shot at a Rethuglican White House in 2013, why should they *not* believe they’ll do so again.
Not that they need a different president. The current one seems to do what they want.
Why do I get the feeling that Obama’s favorite movie is “Being There”?
Tag fail. Anon was I.
I was unaware that questioning the accuracy of a claim in total was “picking nits.” Apparently, that phrase no longer refers to complaints being petty or beside the point, and now refers to any dissent you, personally, don’t want to hear.
Nice vagueness and stuff. To be specific, what they did was convince the government not to raise CAFE standards – which is a little off point, since my links are to stories about how the government raised – past tense, indicating an action that has already occurred – CAFE standards this past May.
For the same reason you were unaware of the increase in CAFE standards: because you have some issues surrounding your feelings about Barack Obama, and you allow them to play the lead role in your understanding of government.
Me: GM bought off higher economy standards by promising to develop electric cars.
You: Nice vagueness and stuff. To be specific, what they did was convince the government not to raise CAFE standards …
Oh just FOAD Joe. For every perceptive point you raise you manage to follow with two more of just crap (see above). You are the biggest goalpost mover on this forum and it just isn’t worth the time any more.
Nice elipses to change the meaning of what I wrote. Hmmm, what comes after the part of my statement that you wanted to use, that you felt it was so important to chop off?
Why, that would be:
You dishonest little hack! What a fucking disgrace. Do you think people can’t read the comment you were replying to when you misrepresented it?
If you want shut your pissy, dishonest little pie hole and not annoy me with your mountainous defensiveness and ignorance anymore, that would be just fine by me.
But you won’t. I’m very effective at making points you don’t want to hear, and someone like you just won’t be able to stop from leaping on them.
I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I don’t think I will be.
There you are. No ellipses. You ask Erik to justify his opinion about present-day auto company belief. I mention “history”, referring to the EV-1 (I really didn’t think I had to spell it out when it is such a notorious event) being used to forestall higher CAFÉ standards, and then dumping the program as unsuccessful when people were clamoring to buy the ‘failed’ EV-1s – their whole game plan was to continue building gas guzzlers because they had the highest built-in profit. This is NOT off the point of your question to Erik. If you think I was talking about last May when I say “history”, then you’re moving the goalposts to fit *your* opinion.
The same goes for your amateurish psychoanalysis of my reference to “Being There.”
Perhaps you should return to your previous occupation as a Vogon poet.
I explained why your history is irrelevant in the part you chopped out, but it clearly went over your head, so now I’ll try again.
THE CAFE STANDARDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RAISED. Did you get it this time? THE CAFE STANDARDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RAISED.
As I already explained to you, GM PREVENTED CAFE STANDARDS FROM BEING RAISED last time. This time, CAFE STANDARDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RAISED. GM cannot prevent CAFE standards from being raised because…let’s see if you can figure it out yourself.
If you don’t get it this time, I don’t know what to tell you.
Oh, BTW: it just isn’t worth the time any more. Toldja.
The stronger regulations would have resulted in additional real investment, which is a plus in a period during which much productive capacity is on the sideline. By putting off the new regs, Obama missed an opportunity to get around Congress and actually stimulate the economy.
As far as the politics are concerned, Obama’s move isn’t even sensible cynicism since Democrats have to periodically show big business interests that they can hurt them or these interests won’t try to placate them with contributions.
The way the attainment regs work, it is unlikely that there would be much, if any, additional real investment over the short term.
These aren’t tail-pipe regulations, where everyone running a facility has to improve it the day after the regulations are passed. They actually apply to state, county, and municipal governments. If a state (or part of it) is out of attainment a certain number of times, or for a certain period of time, it has to take steps to get back into attainment. This might include passing a regulation requiring that all new power plants or major renovations of old power plants implement some technology. This is not a fast process, between the adoption of the regulations and the money being spent.
The economic estimates are yearly averages; the actual spending/cost in any year is going to vary greatly based on the underlying state of the economy.
That’s actually a good point. In an environment where firms are refusing to invest, regulations that make them invest can have a stimulating effect.
this is a key point. regulation, if well-enforced, is an economic stimulus because it forces spending that would otherwise would not have happened. the fact that obama caved to the most short-sighted and ignorant cohort in modern america is a sad commentary on his presidency.
I expected better Eric. This is not an obvious call scientifically. I know that there is a need to put things into a broader narrative, and that this fits into a “environment vs. corporation” framework that is superficially appealing. I’m also ready to ticize things if I’m given grounds to do so.
But this is the sort of thing that is very, very difficult to set precise boundaries for. The current threshold is 75 ppb. The EPA prposal ranges from 60 to 70 – which indicates a substantial margin of error in the safety estimates. The 70 threshold is estimated to save relatively few lives, the 60 threshold is estimated to be more costly.
In other words, this really is an economic call – you’re looking at a marginal improvement in health, by an uncertain amount, for considerable expense. The administration has made a lot of calls on items like this, and they’ve consistently gone in favor of public health.
This could be the start of a bad trend, but it looks just as likely to me that this was a case where the costs were high and the benefits not-obvious.
And yet another case where an adamant unwillingness to give Obama the benefit of the doubt spreads across the online left like wildfire.
Put another way, I’m not seeing any of the bloggers condeming this referencing any primary or secondary sources about the actual science involved, the actual costs, or how serious this would be from a public health point of view. The very wide ranges that I’ve seen for costs and lives saved suggests a hell of a lot of uncertainty.
Do you really think Obama made a scientifically-based call here?
If the science was obvious, yes, I believe that he would have announced rules changes. That would fit his prior behavior.
The difference between 70 and 75 ppb is going to be a cost-benefit game one way or another. I feel as if we’re not getting much information from anyone as to the clarity and magnitude of either.
Put another way, I’ve seen estimates of costs as 19 to 90 billion, and estimates of lives saved as 4,000, – 12,000. That range has a factor of 4.5 in cost and a factor of 3 in value. At the low end it’s obviously reasonable to change the threshold (at 1.1 million per life saved); at the high end it’s not (22.5 million per life saved is quite high by typical EPA metrics – which were 7.4 million per life from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/MortalityRiskValuation.html.)
This is not as clear-cut as we’re seeing claimed.
This is one of those asymmetrical debates.
I don’t think the people who are outraged by this decision even accept the notion that a cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate measure.
Exhibit A:
Hey, something we can agree on!
Yeah, preventable deaths from asthma aren’t a chit that one tosses on the table and giggles about afterward.
However, since some of our number seem to buy the eggs/omelets formulation here…
Shorter Doc; there is no number of other people’s jobs I won’t destroy for any discernible environmental benefit.
He just cares about the poor that much.
Then the EPA disagrees with them too, because the EPA is mandated to balance the two. There is no such thing as a zero-risk world, and it’s actually destructive to advocate for one. (That takes us down the road of shifting risk, so that others farther from us end up getting hurt far more than we are helped.)
Yeah, I’ve seen how cost-benefit analysis tend to balance out. I guess I’m just crazy thinking that capitalists and industry have their thumb on the scale.
Of course, by your own logic, the EPA did a cost-benefit analysis of ozone and determined that 60-70 ppb was where we should be aiming. Obama disagrees, well, because according to the WH there’s a scheduled review in 2013 so they don’t want to rush into anything.
I feel like the environment v. the economy debate has been going on my entire life. Growing up in Oregon as part of a timber family, I am fully versed in what a bunch of DFH environmentalist are. I believe that my grandfather had a “Hungry? Eat a spotted owl!” bumper sticker. It took me a long time to understand that over-harvesting, lack of mill upgrades, and the exportation of raw logs did a lot more to kill the NW timber industry than environmentalists.
Still, one argument that I never bought was that jobs trump the environment. I always thought that argument was simplistic and stupid. In fact, almost anyone making it would acknowledge that cutting down every last tree in the name of jobs would be silly, but they always said something like “There are plenty of trees! Who’s to draw the line, some hippy? Some judge?” I always thought that hippies and judges were better deciders than the timber industry. Better to stop too soon than too late, was my thought.
Here we are some twenty-five years later having the same argument. “But this time we’re in a crisis!” In the PNW, we’ve been in an economic crisis since 1982, so that argument has been around for as long. There’s always going to be some crisis, some reason to keep cutting trees, to keep pumping ozone into the atmosphere. To keep drilling, to keep dumping, to keep blowing the tops off of mountains. Doing things different is always going to have the potential to cost some one a job (or cost a company money, that they will tell you will cost someone a job). That is no reason to not do things different if different means better.
I have an article coming out on this very issue in a journal this spring.
Some things – like lead pollution, climate change, or ozone depletion – are extremely important. The costs of dealing with regulations are always overestimated by industry, strangely reluctant to acknowledge the power of the market.
But arbitrary emissions standards really can be a problem. We simply don’t know much about what happens at very low levels of exposure; the risks could be linear, or the risks could be zero. This is a domain where regulations can be a waste of effort, and where you can be asking to spend a lot of money for what may be zero actual benefit.
Actually, we know a lot about the effects of ground-level ozone; it causes a hell of a lot of asthma. This in turn leads to preventable deaths, chiefly among children and the elderly.
We can argue about the statistics, but we know very well what low levels of exposure to ozone does to a large number of people.
All I gotta say is that better be one helluva speech next week. Obama seems to be systematically dismantling the evanescent coalition that got him 359 electoral votes in 2008.
Every holder of a bag of money who is made happy by his anti-environment decision is going to give all of his or her money to Republicans.
Here’s a preview:
1) Austerity
2) ???????
3) JOBS!
Just like when you assured us he was going to call for Social Security cuts in the State of the Union speech last January.
Why in God’s name do you think you know anything about anything?
Fuck you too, joe!
I’d put what I write about this President against the nonsense you constantly spew in defense of absolutely anything he does any day of the week.
Up yours, you twat.
You sound like the Dursley kid in the first chapter of Harry Potter, screaming because there aren’t enough presents.
Except he could fucking count.
Let me step back an apologize for that previous outburst.
The last thing in the world I want to do is behave that way.
I obviously disagree with you pretty thoroughly about things of substance.
But there’s simply no excuse to start swearing at people, or to respond to that kind of behavior with more of the same.
How about, you use all the dirty language you want, but you find out what you’re talking about?
I’ll take that trade.
Joe,
I’ve just sent you an e-mail. Please give it some thought when considering you future as a commenter at LGM.
Obama has bought pretty hard into the austerity rhetoric. Even a, um, supporter like you has to know that.
What in his record should suggest to us that he’s not going to pursue an austerity-based approach? I’ve been watching his pronouncements on matters economic pretty closely for some time now, and all it gets me is more and more gobsmacked. He talks like a believer, Joe, not someone who is going along to get along in the face of an intransigent Republican Congress.
No, he hasn’t. He’s bought into the LONG-TERM DEFICIT rhetoric; that’s a very different thing.
Putting his entire legislative on hold in order to pass the largest stimulus package in American history?
His recent speeches calling for short-term spending?
you’ll be sorry when he uses the chewbacca defense on the campaign trail!!
“I mean, I’ll vote for the guy, but that’s about it.”
which is why you’ll continue to get presidents as weak as Obama.
Yes, because clearly the millions of people who went out to work hard for Obama created a strong presidency.
You won’t even concede that, Erik?
Electing lesser evils may be necessary. But it guaranteed to continue to make things worse.
And the fact that people like me knew full well that Obama would make things worse, but, because he’d do so more slowly than McCain, we nonetheless had to vote for him, doesn’t change that fact.
The problem here is not the strength of the Presidency. The White House had the authority to do the right thing. But, entirely predictably, they’re in the pocket of business interests.
I didn’t think my choice in 2008 was good.
But I had no idea Obama would be this bad.
~
Then you aren’t sufficiently cynical. Everybody who was anybody (in other words, all VSP) knew Obama was a corporate hack. There is no reason to be disappointed, especially as regard policies that had to pass through Congress. If you eliminate all the foreign policy choices, the civil liberty decisions, and the never-ending series of horrible appointments, it becomes quite clear that Obama is the greatest progressive since FDR. I will vote for him proudly and without shame. Any other alternative aids and abets those reactionary forces which strike fear in my heart. Four more years!
You don’t have to lay it all on Obama’s inclinations for it to have been predictable that the Republicans would do their best to sink the country so long as it would take Obama down with a sizable chunk looking to do sink the country in order to sink most of the government.
A administration with a much more left wing inclination would still have had a hard time, I think.
This doesn’t excuse the fails which are all his, e.g., civil liberties, etc. There are institutional constraints there, of course, but he could do much better.
Upon reflection, I want to qualify that a bit. Formally, he clearly could do much better on civil liberties, etc. AFAIK, there’s no law compelling Obama’s use of drones or the targeting US citizens policy. Not investigating war crimes is also a choice, at least formally.
But I remember thinking pretty much the same thing about gays in the military under Clinton. I.e., commander in chief, do a Truman, bam it’s all over. That didn’t quite work out as I hoped. (I remember being shocked at Colin Powell’s behavior.)
I’d really love to see a more detailed analysis of the plausible institutional inclinations that would make it plausible for Obama to be reluctant to be more direct in his exercise of presidential authority in certain directions. His use of Republican appointees (Gates being the most obvious example) seems not only to fit with his rhetoric, but almost required. (I’ve often been amazed at how “independent prosecuters” are basically all Republican: honest when appointed by Dems, and dishonest hacks (yes, Starr, looking at you) when appointed by Republicans.)
But I had no idea Obama would be this bad.
This is the buyers’ remorse that those who weren’t mesmerized predicted before the election of Dear Leader.
That’s disingenuous. Wingnuts like you would pre-emptively declare Captain America himself a “bad president” as long as he had a D after his name.
When you bet on all the horses, it doesn’t automatically make you a winner.
[...] the pipeline (1, 2, 3) and the ozone standards (4, 5, 6) the Obama stickers are coming off the car tonight. I don’t know how long I’ll stick [...]
Like most other issues, Obama caved on clean energy pretty fast,
I miss Dr. Carpenter more everyday.
I will ask gays, women, the millions with more health care and other benefits and many more how much “caving” he has been doing. Yeah. I see no reason to do much than vote for the guy. What good has he done, really?
Oh, and what Joe from Lowell said. My accent at times sounds like I’m from MA, but no, I’m a different person.
Logic much?
How does doing the right thing on other issues excuse his ravaging the environment?
And we really shouldn’t count those healthcare chickens before they’re hatched….
Erik says Obama “caves” on most things, not just the environment, but darn if I saw various things accomplished in the face of Republican opposition. And, his move here is not enough (even JFL is wrong, which I don’t see) to tell me he is “ravaging” the environment. Unsupported hyperbole, much?
Provisions of the healthcare law are already in place. Even Republicans don’t oppose various aspects of the law. So, what are you talking about? The people helped now, even for two years, do they not matter, or what?
Oh, STFU.
Was it “ravaging the environment” when he issued the CSPAR rules?
Wait, why am I asking you? You have no fucking idea what that is, and what’s worse, you don’t have the slightest fucking interest in bothering to find out before you go into your boring, self-pitying, predictable song and dance.
Take a look at global warming. Now look at these air standards. Tell me if that’s not contributing to environmental destruction.
My guess is that you thought they did when Bush proposed them.
The Obama EPA has issued the first regulations ever to restrict the emission of GHGs.
You didn’t know that, either, but since when has that ever stopped you?
Ozone isn’t a greenhouse gas, Einstein.
It isn’t just that you don’t know WTF you’re talking about.
It’s that you don’t think you need to.
if you are a democratic president elected with a ginormous mandate in a time of great economic stress and three years later the best you have done is hilda solis, some gay army stuff and the possibility of birth control pills for little or no copay, you are well and truly screwed and dragging the rest of us to hell along with you.
Good thing that’s not the best he’s done, then.
The first regulations on mercury emissions from gold mines.
The CSAPR rules, strict new emissions on mercury, arsenic, and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, replacing the old CAIR rules.
Tighter regulations on stationary diesel engines’ emissions.
Tighter air toxic standards for oil and natural gas production.
Repealed the New Source Review grandfather provisions
Regulations on asbestos emissions from demolition projects. Nobody here has ever heard of this, either.
Regulations on intakes for cooling towers’ water intakes.
Regulations on lead paint abatement contractors.
Billions of dollars in subsidies for clean energy.
Billions of additional dollars for rail.
This President has absolutely nothing to apologize for when it comes to his environmental record.
So he should give two $#!@s about what you think because …?
Seriously, this is a negotiating strategy worthy of Obama himself. Good luck with that.
You people are fucking idiots. You believe everything you’re told that you want to believe.
Here’s what the Obama administration – that “Endlessly Disappointing” EPA that “caves pretty fast” – has issued for environmental regulations just in the past few months:
The first regulations on mercury emissions from gold mines. You’ve never heard of this, but boy do you have your narrative all ready to go!~
The CSAPR rules, strict new emissions on mercury, arsenic, and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, replacing the old CAIR rules – neither of which any of the shit-sandwich eaters here have ever heard of or bothered to find out about before bitching an moaning about how terrible the administration’s record is, and how quickly they cave.
Tighter regulations on stationary diesel engines’ emissions.
Tighter air toxic standards for oil and natural gas production.
Repealed the New Source Review grandfather provisions – and incredibly important regulatory development – maybe one of you is familiar with the name “Filthy Five?” Anyone? Bueller? – yet another term you tools have absolutely idea what it means, and have never bothered to find out about.
Regulations on asbestos emissions from demolition projects. Nobody here has ever heard of this, either.
That’s just some of the air regulations. Want me to do water?
Oh, but none of those were stories in the Washington Post, and none of those allow people – people who are oh-so-incredibly concerned about air quality, people who are oh-so-confident as they hold forth on the performance of the Obama EPA – to don their favorite little poutrage masks and go all emo about how this President isn’t good enough.
You want to know why your bitching and moaning isn’t “good enough,” Inconsequentia? Because you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and you don’t ever let that stop you as you spin the same boring fucking story every single fucking day, without ever once making an effort to find out what the fuck you’re talking about.
Maybe you can go back and reread the LGM blog posts about those.
OH WAIT…!
Obama is better than Bush on the environment. Significantly better.
Unfortunately, environmental quality and global warming aren’t graded on a curve.
Obama is significantly better than every President in history on the environment.
People for whom actual political progress is important grade on that standard.
Yes! Better on the environment than Andrew Jackson! Better than Franklin Pierce! Better, even, than Rutherford B. Friggin’ Hayes!
Take that, bitchez!
Hey, congratulations, tools!
You’re going along with the Rick Perry troll guy’s efforts!
So where does Obama stand on 54/40?
I believe he uses synthetic motor oil.
On that one, he might actually fight.
Here’s the funny thing, joe.
Many, if not most of us who disagree with you (certainly, e.g., Erik and me), are going to be voting for Obama in 2012 because we well understand that the alternative is even worse.
You obviously care pretty passionately about the guy. And I think you have some things to say in his defense.
But if you’re actually serious about contributing to the President’s reelection chances, I’d seriously think about taking another tack when talking to people who are somewhat less enthusiastic than you are.
Even if you think we’re all fucking morons and have no idea what we’re talking about, leading with that POV is really not doing your cause any good.
People who actually care about political change don’t spend all their time raging at potential allies who disagree with them.
No, not really. He wasn’t even my first choice in the primaries. Or my second, even.
That’s just you projecting. You obviously have very strong feelings about him personally, which determine your responses to stories involving him, and when I don’t find your implausible interpretation convincing, you conclude that it’s because of something about him personally.
I care passionately about the advancement of the progressive agenda, and I get pissed off when people, through malice or ignorance, misrepresent progressive politics.
To the extent that anything written on these threads is of any consequence to the election, deterring ignoramuses from writing bullshit by calling them on it when they spout off seems to be as effective a strategy as any.
I’ve given up on getting you to see the light. I’d be happy just getting you to think twice before spouting off ignorantly.
Well, joe, you ain’t deterring me from doing anything.
So you’ve failed at that, too.
Really?
I’ve seen you drop topics before after I took you to the cleaners.
And I’ll bet I don’t see you spouting off about the Obama EPA for a while.
Dream on, joe…
I say my piece and, at a certain point, I move on.
Just because you stick around and rage some more doesn’t mean that I would have, say, reposted the same comment two dozen times in the thread if you hadn’t yelled at me, er, “taken me to the cleaners.”
IB, when you do it, it’s because you’ve been taken to the cleaners. When jfl does it (and he does – there are examples in this very thread), it’s because the exchange has grown tiresome.
Joe will not be satisfied until Obama’s share of the vote has been reduced to two–Joe’s own and Michelle Obama’s.
(Obama, of course, would never vote for himself. That would be divisive. Some in Congress might vote for themselves, but not Obama.)
Also: Is there some other population of people you hang out with, joe, who is convinced of things by being constantly sworn at, cursed, insulted, and denigrated?
‘Cause this seems to me to be a rather silly argumentative strategy if you’re aiming to convince anyone of anything.
But maybe I just don’t know the right people.
If you don’t want to get your ass kicked, don’t shoot off your mouth with bullshit like
It shouldn’t be my fucking job to hold you fucking hand. If you’re going to write about topics and completely shit the bed because you don’t know WTF you’re talking about, and then call me out for not being as fucking ignorant you, you know what? I’m going to kick the shit out you for it.
It’s certainly not your “job” to abuse anyone on this blog, joe. At least I hope that nobody’s paying you to do this, because I can’t imagine that it’s worth much of anything to anyone else.
I agree, incidentally that I was wrong about this:
Apparently I should have written:
The first regulations on mercury emissions from gold mines.
The CSAPR rules, strict new emissions on mercury, arsenic, and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, replacing the old CAIR rules.
Tighter regulations on stationary diesel engines’ emissions.
Tighter air toxic standards for oil and natural gas production.
Repealed the New Source Review grandfather provisions
Regulations on asbestos emissions from demolition projects. Nobody here has ever heard of this, either.
Regulations on intakes for cooling towers’ water intakes.
Regulations on lead paint abatement contractors.
Billions of dollars in subsidies for clean energy.
Billions of additional dollars for rail.
But this is a “shit sandwich” because 1) you’ve never heard of any of those things and 2) it makes you feel all awesome to say so.
This President has absolutely nothing to apologize for when it comes to his environmental record.
That’s a nice list, Joe. Will enforcement match regulation, and if so, how?
What do you mean “how?”
Through the issuance and denial of permits, the issuance of fines for violations…the same way the EPA has always enforced its regulations.
So there have been no problems with enforcement in the last few years?
I tried to provide some links, but the comment containing them was oblivionated.
By the way, how’s the SEC doing?
“The last few years?”
You mean, going back to the Bush years?
Yeah, there have been problems with enforcement “over the last few years.”
This is a thread about the issuance of regulations by the EPA. I really don’t have a whole lot to say about the novel location of your goal posts.
No, I meant the years since Obama took office. The issuance of regulations is meaningless without teeth. I’ll try again:
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2011/epa-sued-for-failure-to-enforce-air-pollution-laws-in-central-california
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/06/federal-judge-allows-environmental-groups-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil.php
The EPA is sued by different groups all the time. This is not a novel development – it’s how environmental enforcement works. I can’t believe you don’t know this. The EPA is always being sued by someone who wants different regulatory action. There are pressure groups and law firms whose entire existence revolves around doing so.
Suing the EPA is SOP for getting them to do their job? Fantastic.
this is all on obama. his relentless fluffers can’t blame hostage-takers in the house, filibusters in the senate or brain-damaged fascists on the supreme court. it was solely an executive branch decision, and he caved to the u.s. chamber, the koch-sucker brothers and the teabaggers. there’s the real obama.
Try swearing at me a bit, virag. Maybe it’ll make you feel better, too!
Uh huh.
None of this is “the real Obama:”
The first regulations on mercury emissions from gold mines.
The CSAPR rules, strict new emissions on mercury, arsenic, and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, replacing the old CAIR rules.
Tighter regulations on stationary diesel engines’ emissions.
Tighter air toxic standards for oil and natural gas production.
Repealed the New Source Review grandfather provisions
Regulations on asbestos emissions from demolition projects. Nobody here has ever heard of this, either.
Regulations on intakes for cooling towers’ water intakes.
Regulations on lead paint abatement contractors.
Billions of dollars in subsidies for clean energy.
Billions of additional dollars for rail.
But that one story you didn’t understand very well about the ozone regs – that’s “the real Obama.”
yeah, fluff away. your kneepads must come in handy. my comprehension is just fine, but i’m sorry but my standards are just not as low as yours.
You can only imagine my surprise that the presentation of a large body of evidence is irrelevant to your opinion.
Why, it’s almost as shocking as discovering that an ill-informed kneejerk Obama-hater would use a gay sex reference.
Ready for my surprised face? :-0
joe, could you repaste that list again please?
Why would I bother?
Nobody wants to acknowledge it, because it doesn’t fit the little stories they like to tell themselves.
you are clearly an idiot. it is not a large body of evidence by any stretch. i’ll say it again: your standards are way too low cuz you are an idiot.
fluffing isn’t a gay sex reference you ill-informed reject. it’s one of the lowest-end jobs in any porn. and it’s yours, obviously. if you’re thinking gay, well, that’s your personal business.
Oh, and if anyone knows what “carbon nanotubes” are – the Obama EPA issued regulations for those, too.
You know…because of the caving the the disappointing and the wrong color ponies.
Huh.
Funny how nobody wants to hold forth on what an awful record the Obama EPA has anymore.
It’s all gay sex references and tut-tutting.
Good night.
‘night joe!
Wish I could say it’s been fun…
I’ve said this before, but this time I mean it: I’m absolutely through interacting with joe from Lowell. I just don’t need the abuse. My preference would be that he just ignore me, too (he keeps swearing that he will because I’m such an ignoramus, etc.). But if it’s gotta be one of us, something tells me that I’m the one with a little more self control.
So I’m gonna promise this unilaterally: I am going cold turkey on replying to any comments from joe from Lowell, whether directed at me or at anyone else. I’m sure joe will interpret this as his having successfully “taken me to the cleaners.” I don’t care. The rest of you should know that my refusal to respond to him has precisely nothing to do with the quality of his ideas.
Please please please please let this be true.
FYI, I’m still going to call you out when you’re an idiot.
And yet it’s not good enough for Joe and joe…who even lament criticism of Obama when it’s accompanied by a promise to continue to vote for him.
Ah the reality community — where calling people on bad criticism is a problem if they tepidly say they will vote for the person they are badly criticizing.
It’s not enough to eat the shit sandwich. We have to declare it’s the best meal we’ve been served by a President since 1965!
Didn’t say that, but yeah, on certain issues, the meal is better than it has been for years. Gays openly serving in the military and being having the POTUS go to fed court to put them on the same level as women on the equality meter — a bit more tasty than a “shit” sandwich.
The lame attack of reasonable criticism is starting to make this look like one of Glenn Greenwald’s threads.
IB’s talk of “shit sandwiches” etc. makes the idea that JFL is the problem not very convincing. JFL looks pretty pissed off, but personal attacks and bad argument from people who don’t actually appear to know what they are talking about does lead people passionate about good public policy to do something like that.
I’ll let others judge whether the other joe’s treatment of me and others in this thread is called for and whether my reference to “shit sandwiches” is remotely equivalent to it. In the meantime, I’ll add that I truly appreciate the fact that capital “J” Joe doesn’t behave as terribly as his namesake does. Thanks, Joe (seriously)!
I certainly don’t dispute that Obama has been the best President we’ve ever had on the issue of gay and lesbian rights. This post, however, does not have anything to do with that aspect of the Obama presidency.
This post does say he “caves” on most issues. Now, if that meant only environmental issues, fine,* I’ll buy that in context. But, given the other stuff Obama has done outside of that, it is worthy more than the tepid endorsement given. And, JFL, impolite or not, makes even slam on this one issue dubious.
Anyway, I try to be polite, if not always successful, so thanks for the voice of support. Sincerely.
* It surely isn’t that for some people here. See, e.g., RJ — “on all things.”
On all things, environment included, Obama is a Chicago schooler with an inkling of a conscience. This has been obvious for a very long time.
An inkling is not a very large difference. It’s just an inkling of a difference.
That Chicago schoolers have chosen to become Birchers since Obama’s election doesn’t change Obama’s politics; it changes theirs. Obama has always been a doctrinaire conservative, and that he continues to be one is not surprising at all.
You people are fucking idiots.
What is it you think you’re accomplishing here, joe? If it’s just about venting your frustration, fair enough, but I think venting for most people is a matter of “get it out of your system and move on.” But if it’s about actually accomplishing something constructive, do you honestly think your strategy of thread-bombing and screaming insults does anything other than turn every thread into a meta-discussion about you?
Oops…did I just answer my own question?
[...] says we just can’t afford any more clean air. This will not go well with the people who are still breathing. Of course there could be less [...]
I’m normally on the side of environmental regulation, but there have been some things asserted here that are simply not true, and untrue claims only discredit.
I’ve live the last 30 years in small-town Pacific NW timber country, near the boundary between the Fir and Redwood country. The people and economy have been devastated and the tourists haven’t come and they aren’t going to. For 20 years We’ve experienced the sort of unemployment the nation is now seeing. Average family income fell by as much as half. It has been a log saga of business failures, suicides, domestic violence, despair, and increasing alcoholism and drug use.The shining college-bound children I once knew are now the toothless “hicks,” “trailer trash”who clerk at the gas station and are sneered at by those driving through.
I thought it was laughable when governor Reagan said, “You’ve seen one redwood you’ve seen them all. Turns out he was right, at least as far as tourists are concerned. Dark endless forests don’t draw tourists, and if they do, don’t keep them. People get out, view some magnificent trees, ooh and aah appropriately, and it is then “What now?” They drive away. People like to know such forests are there from a distance. They don’t seem to like to spend time in them. I can see environmental regulations having a long-term economic benefit in places with drama , vistas, skiing and the like but they haven’t here. Those that claim they have are simply lying or speaking from faith or partisanship unqualified by observation.
The towns that were to boom from the creation of Redwood National Park , it was so confidently asserted to those who feared for their futures- Orick, Klamath, Leggett, Laytonville- are now ghost towns with a few tired people straggled along 101 trying to sell the sculptures of jolly bears they’ve carved from stumps they’ve salvaged.
There was excitement back when Clinton negotiated a deal to let sustainable harvesting resume. Nothing came of it. The forests are still locked up. Obama could start a regional boom and relieve a lot of suffering by selling some of the timber that was supposed to have been cut over the last 20 years. The market is strong and almost infinitely elastic as Japan and China are building furiously.
[...] explanation for its decision “blatantly preposterous.” Lawyers, Guns & Money laments the compromises made by yet another President that the environmental lobby had pinned its hopes on: The [...]
[...] pipeline (1, 2, 3) and the ozone standards (4, 5, 6) made the Obama sticker come off Gerry’s [...]
“I mean, I’ll vote for the guy, but that’s about it.”
This pretty much sums up your entire post. He can be an “endless disappointment” to you, but you’ll still vote for him. This ensures that he will remain an endless disappointment because he doesn’t need to listen to you–he’s got your vote anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25N-4zrk390
Good luck getting 60 Senate votes to reduce fuel mileage.
Here’s the Google search on “Obama cafe.”
Sweet, yummy wingnut tears!
The sad thing about Reality Check’s comment about the filibuster is that we all know that he’s probably right about it.
Getting rid of the filibuster is probably one of the best things that could happen for liberal politics in the long term, so I sure hope they don’t let it stop them!
No, he’s almost certainly wrong.
The filibuster is 1) a massive net impediment to progress, and 2) a rule that empowers individual senators.
I would love to see them get rid of the filibuster. The harm of two years of a Republican Senate with no filibuster is peanuts compared to the benefits for progressive legislation going forward. Think about all of the bills that have been blocked. Think about how much of the legislation Obama signed in 2009-2010 was weakened in order to get votes 51-60. That’s not a threat; it’s the fulfillment of a dearest wish.
But it’s not going to happen.
…a problem fixed by the new standards, which impose a 30 mpg standard for trucks in just five short years.
President Perry will fix that!
Is he really planning to take Texas out of the Union, like he said? Because that’s the only way he becomes “President Perry.”
And yet it’s not good enough for Joe and joe…who even lament criticism of Obama when it’s accompanied by a promise to continue to vote for him.
It’s not enough to eat the shit sandwich. We have to declare it’s the best meal we’ve been served by a President since 1965!
Right off that cliff!!
And maybe we’ll learn to fly.
But whatever, we won’t have to live in the hellhole of freedom you seem to rooting for.
How is the value calculated?
several years, long after the current economic downturn
Very funny.
No, since FDR. Lovely Spam! Wonderful Spam!
It’s not enough to eat the shit sandwich.
The interesting thing about the shit sandwich is…the more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat.
How about longer joe from Lowell?
The first regulations on mercury emissions from gold mines.
The CSAPR rules, strict new emissions on mercury, arsenic, and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, replacing the old CAIR rules.
Tighter regulations on stationary diesel engines’ emissions.
Tighter air toxic standards for oil and natural gas production.
Repealed the New Source Review grandfather provisions
Regulations on asbestos emissions from demolition projects. Nobody here has ever heard of this, either.
Regulations on intakes for cooling towers’ water intakes.
Regulations on lead paint abatement contractors.
Billions of dollars in subsidies for clean energy.
Billions of additional dollars for rail.
But this is a “shit sandwich,” because you haven’t heard of any of that.
This President has absolutely nothing to apologize for when it comes to his environmental record.
For you to call that “small beer” just illustrates your ignorance.
Just to clue you in: several – not just one, several – of those “small beer” regulations will save many times more lives than even the worst-case estimates for delaying this ozone regulation.
And yet, the decision on the ozone regulation is the cause of all of this wailing and rending of garments, while a long list of much more significant actions is “small beer.”
Obama strengthened regulations on off-shore drilling, in the very same executive order where he expanded where it can take place.
But you didn’t know that, either.
…and then the regulations were strengthened and issued.
And? Are we pretending that a draft proposal issued on March 31 caused an oil in April in a region that the then-just-proposed regulations didn’t even apply to?
No. I’m doing no such thing. I haven’t the foggiest idea how you managed to dream up that one.
I’m simply informing you about something you didn’t know about – that the changes Obama issued for off-shore drilling including not only an expansion of the area in which it can take place, but much stricter regulation of how it can be done.
You have a vivid imagination.
And issues with your sexuality.
Seriously, what is it with the firebaggers and gay sex imagery? Is it the black thing?
Seriously, if it’s not “bending over,” it’s blowjobs. They just can’t talk about Obama without this imagery, and that’s just weird.
…aaaaaaaaand we’ve completely dropped the topic about the Obama administration’s EPA record.
That’s ok. It was always just a jumping-off point for people with a line of bullshit about Obama anyway.
Oh, look, more gay sex references from the firebagger.
Seriously, what is it with you people?
Is it the black thing?
You keep posting this list, but it says a lot less than you seem to want us to think. “Regulations?” “Tightened?” Like we’ve never seen “tighter” “regulations” that in the end didn’t amount to more than show.
Except of course you know he’s to the right of Nixon which even Bruce Bartlett can see.
Yeah, this is the sort of lame-o response that leads to people who actually care about setting force a p.o.v. and public policy to get pissed off.
I’m the only person on this thread who has provided any new information relevant to the topic of the post.
But because you are incapable of understanding anything except in terms of “pro- or anti-Obama,” it’s a bad thing for me to do so.
Whatever.
Ah, so now passing tighter regulations doesn’t matter.
Oddly enough, before I posted that last, the need for the EPA to issue tighter regulations was incredibly important, and the failure to do so driving people to despair.
This lack of principle would be interesting if it wasn’t so predictable.
Tea bagging is not limited to gay people, Einstein. Someday, you’ll meet the right girl…wait, no you won’t.
As opposed to repeated references to someone named “joe” giving head to Barack Obama.
So much FAIL.
This sounds more likely.