whitman christine todd 2 CTW

===

is this 2?

whitman518

apologize for 911 /12 air call; kia more than towers

wind [sock] dummy

===

YIKES OFFSHORE OIL AN 9 26

President Donald Trump has made numerous moves criticized as "power grabs" throughout his second term in the White House, but in a new piece for The Hill, a former Republican sounded the alarm about one that has potentially flown under the radar.

Christine Todd Whitman previously served as the first female governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001, before joining the administration of George W. Bush as head of the Environmental Protection Agency until 2003. As of 2022, however, she has departed the Republican Party to head up the Forward Party, an attempt to launch a centrist third party, alongside former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang.

On Sunday, Whitman published a new op-ed for The Hill in which she professed to be "extremely concerned" about Trump's efforts to manipulate the Coastal Zone Management Act in order "to impose a federal takeover of California’s coast." She praised the law, signed by Richard Nixon, for establishing a system of "state-federal partnership" in managing ocean and lake coastlines that helps states "advance their own priorities in federal decision making," rather than allowing decisions to be made via "presidential fiat."

"Under the guise of expanding offshore oil drilling and space launches, along with the establishment of seabed mining, this effort is supported by some of my Republican friends," Whitman wrote. "But political pendulums inevitably swing, and this short-sighted initiative creates a dangerous power grab for future presidents of any political stripe to exploit. It began when Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick ordered the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to reopen the routine evaluation of California’s coastal management program done, but not finalized, under the Biden administration. Lutnick’s order, citing economic factors and favoring select industries, signals this duplicative review is rigged."

Whitman added that "California has successfully worked alongside 10 presidents" in managing its coastlines under this law, and over the decades has "expanded access to its coast, preserved coastal parkland and wildlife, and ensured local governments have a voice in the approval of federal projects, including subsea fiber optic cables, offshore oil and gas production, and military training exercises." Under this newly ordered review, the state now stands to lose all of that progress.

"Over nearly 50 years, California has reviewed more than 3,700 federal actions impacting its coast and, in 96 percent of cases, either negotiated improvements or approved projects as submitted," Whitman explained. "Clearly, the state-federal partnership has worked.... This formula for success falls apart if Washington can supplant California’s priorities with its own, especially if the Trump administration’s rush for new offshore drilling results in oil spills. We’ve seen time and again that such spills close fisheries, beaches and harbors, and transform vibrant coastal communities into ghost towns overnight."

Whitman also noted that California's coastal management systems are widely regarded as the best in the nation. If Trump were to successfully wreck them, "then like dominos, other states will easily follow, destroying one of our best examples of federalist governance."

"This should alarm every American," Whitman concluded. "Our love of the ocean is universal, so the right to manage the coast should remain equal under the law for all coastal states. Instead we see the administration play favorites, demonstrated by the abandonment of its oil drilling plans off the Atlantic coast after significant opposition from the region’s Republican leaders. As the old saying goes, Washington doesn’t have a monopoly on wisdom. Hopefully, we won’t have to relearn this lesson the hard way."

-=-=

fec musk bribery

Former GOP officials question Musk $1 million payouts to pro-Trump voters

o troye

Others who signed the letter included Donald Ayer, deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush; Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission; and Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey.

an 9 24

In an interview earlier this week with the right-wing Real America's Voice network, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts praised the Supreme Court's Monday immunity ruling in favor of Donald Trump, and appeared to threaten violence against Democrats should the former president lose his reelection bid in November.

"In spite of all this nonsense from the left, we are going to win," Roberts said. "We're in the process of taking this country back. We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless, if the left allows it to be."

Earlier this year, legal analyst and New York University professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat told MSNBC's Ali Velshi that the far-right organization's Project 2025 "would effectively transform American government from a meritocratic democracy to a regime resembling Vladimir Putin's Russia."

Months later, a former Republican leader is warning that the GOP's plan also resembles former Nazi Party Adolf Hitler's manifesto, Mein Kampf.

Speaking with MSNBC's Katie Phang on Wednesday, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (R) said, "If you look at Project 2025, and compare it to the Nazis' manifesto, it's very, very scary. There's so many parallels there of what can be done, of what they're promising in 2025 to do. Do away with the justice system, basically. Get rid of all public servants, do away with actually every department and agency that provides any kind of stability for this country. It's really frightening. The people who say 'Oh, well, he'll never do that.' Why would you say that? If you believe he's gonna cut taxes, and you believe he's gonna do away with regulation, why don't you believe the rest of it? You can't have it both ways. Our democracy is teetering the brink right now."

In December, while speaking to an Iowa rally crowd, Trump denied that he'd ever read the manifesto.

ABC News reported, "Trump's denial that he had read Hitler's memoir came after he has made a series of incendiary remarks in recent weeks referring to his political opponents as 'vermin' and saying illegal immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country.'"

Watch the video below or at this link.

---

an 6 24

former Republican New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who introduced US Supreme Court Justice Samuel during his 2006 confirmation hearing, and recommended him to the Senate Judiciary Committee, wishes that she never backed him in the first place.

The former GOP leader shared her regret with CNN's Erin Burnett Monday, after journalist Lauren Windsor released audio from her undercover interview with the justice last week during the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner last week.

Windsor posed as a Catholic conservative while speaking with both Alito and his wife, Martha Ann Alito — who the justice blamed for the January 6 related flags flying outside of his homes.

Alito confirmed his Christian conservative views during his interview with Windsor after she said, "People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness."

The justice replied, "I agree with you, I agree with you."

"Nearly 20 years since you vouched for Alito," Burnett said to Whitman, "And now time has passed, and you see things he has done. You see his defiance amid this flag controversy. Does this make you see him differently or regret your support?"

The former governor replied, "Absolutely. Without question. I mean, I was willing to support him because I looked back at his record. And when I was appointing justices, particularly of the Supreme Court, or any of the judges, what I look for is how many times said they've been overturned, did they write clear opinions, and were they able to judge cases based on the facts presented to them in that case."

Whitman continued, "And I actually saw a case that Judge Alito had actually had decided in favor of a plaintiff. It was clearly against what his personal convictions were relative to the matter of choice and abortion. So my feeling was, 'Okay, he's shown that he will put aside his personal convictions to judge and decide the case based on the facts presented in that case.' Unfortunately, since he's gone to the Supreme Court, that just seems to have gone by the wayside."

Watch the video below or at this link.

---

an 2 24

During Wednesday's episode of MSNBC's The ReidOut, a former Republican governor laid out his reasons for filing a brief — along with two other ex-GOP governors — in support of disqualifying Donald Trump from office under the 14th Amendment.

"Three former Republican elected officials stand out in a party that is otherwise completely submissive to Trump — joining the ranks of those arguing to the Supreme Court that he is disqualified to appear on the ballot because he engaged in insurrection," host Joy Reid said. "They are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and former Montana Governor Marc Racicot."

She continued, "The filing notes that the three governors have been members of the Republican party for decades. Their objectives in filing this brief are not partisan but purely patriotic, motivated by their commitment to public service. The governors argue, 'Should Mr. Trump be permitted to stand again for election to the presidency, despite his past actions, neither section 3 of the 14th amendment ,nor the oaths that undergird the bedrock premise that public officials serve to advance the welfare of the people and our common national project will ever be the same. They will have been rendered meaningless in their legal force and stripped of their moral authority and power. They will, in effect, have been written out of our Constitution."

Reid then began her phone interview with ex-Governor Racicot. "Tell me why you felt compelled to weigh in on this Supreme Court involving Donald Trump," she said.

Racicot replied, "Well, because it's a serious violation of the Constitution to ignore it. And the fact of the matter is that nobody has a right to run for office. We certainly have a right to vote, if we qualify and haven't disabled ourselves from being able to vote. But we don't have a right to run. In order to run, the person that is the candidate has to prove that, in fact, they can meet the qualifications. So you don't get access to the ballot unless you meet the qualifications. The qualifications have been there from the beginning of the Constitution 235 years ago. You have to be 35 years of age. You have to be native born, and have to have been resident of the country for the past 14 years."

The former governor emphasized, "Then there's a fourth requirement that you have to meet in order to be eligible. And that is, you cannot have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and thereafter involve, engage, incite, or in any other way, be involved with an insurrection against the United States of America, and against the Constitution. So, simply, as you said in your introduction, it cannot be ignored. It can't be waived. It's not an option. This is something that is mandatory. And the burden is on Mr. Trump to prove that, in fact, he meets the qualifications. And there is evidence from two courts — a district court in Colorado, and the United States Supreme Court, plus the Secretary of State in the state of Maine that have all held after a due process hearing that, in fact, Mr. Trump was involved in an insurrection. And as a consequence, he is therefore ineligible to run for president. So, we want to see faith be paid to the Constitution, that's the bottom line.

Watch the video below or at this link.

---

an 3 21

A New Political Party is the Way Forward

Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and former New Jersey governorChristine Todd Whitmanhave founded a new party known as the Forward Party, and it has already announced candidates who will be running for office in the midterm elections.

The party is focused on depolarizing America and healing the division, but without proposing policies that are directly in the center, since they also do not move America “forward.” Because it is open to candidates who lean right and left, it is bipartisan, but it also the definition of progressive, because its platform consists of many radical new ideas—like Yang’s plan for universal basic income (UBI). It may sound like an oxymoron, but the Forward Party might just be America’s first “bipartisan progressive party.”

Could a third party be the thing that unites all rational Americans in a war against corruption, political extremism, and Trumpism? It is hard to say, since neither side seems to be too interested in compromise, and divisive issues like abortion and gun control make any kind of reconciliation difficult to imagine. And what new big ideas is the Forward Party offering that make it something radically different from the Democratic party?

I, for one, believe it is a step in the right direction, though I understand if some think the Forward Party is too young to stand a real chance in the next presidential election. However, if there was ever a time that a third party actually stood a chance, it is right now. If the Forward Party’s presidential candidate seems like the best choice for America, a reasonable strategy would be to support that candidate right up until the moment it seems like defeating Trump is no longer possible. At that point, the Forward Party candidate would urge their supporters to vote for the candidate who can ensure Trump never gets back into the oval office. But if the Forward Party’s pick is polling well and has a chance to win, then it would seem like the perfect opportunity to break America’s infamous two-party system. According to the Washington Post, a growing number of experts believe that the way to fix democracy is to move beyond the two-party system....

frontline 4 22

// my acct ?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN:

Before I went to my first G8 environmental ministers meeting in Italy, I went to the White House and I basically said, "Look, I am going to say we'll put a cap on carbon," because that had been in the campaign literature. And I ran that all the way up the flagpole at the White House to make sure it was OK and—"Fine. Go ahead."

Trieste, Italy

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN:

[Archive] The president has indicated he acknowledges that global warming is of primary importance. It’s at the top of his agenda.

NARRATOR:

But while Whitman was in Italy, a very different message was being promoted through the top ranks of the Bush administration. Haley Barbour, an influential Republican and energy lobbyist, had written to Vice President Dick Cheney, questioning whether the carbon cap idea was “eco-extremism” and risked exacerbating the country’s energy problems. Other prominent voices, some from think tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry, joined in, too, opposing climate action.

BILL O’REILLY, FOX News:

This global warming controversy is unprovable, but that doesn't stop people on both sides from swearing they know what the heck is going on. Joining us now from Washington is Jerry Taylor, the Cato Institute’s director of natural resource studies.

JERRY TAYLOR, Cato Institute, 1991-2014:

My objective while at Cato was to demonstrate to smart, engaged people that the case against climate action was far stronger than they realized. And I honestly and in good faith felt that the arguments against climate action were far, far stronger. And so that was my job. And I did it well.

For most people, if things are very uncertain, they're not going to commit a lot of resources to address them until that certain uncertainty clears up.

BILL O’REILLY:

Do you believe that the people of the United States should do anything because of the weather?

DEB CALLAHAN, League of Conservation Voters:

You know, in fact, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman—

JERRY TAYLOR:

Debate is performance art. I was pretty good at that performance art. I was the good communicating gunslinger.

DEB CALLAHAN:

Things that will save money and save the environment.

BILL O’REILLY:

Mr. Taylor, last word.

JERRY TAYLOR:

[Archive] We've already had about a third of the amount of warming that we're going to get this century. It's already happened, and crop yields are up, life expectancy is up.

BILL O’REILLY:

All right. So you’re fine and Ms. Callahan is battening down the hatches. Well—

JERRY TAYLOR:

[Archive] Things are fine so far.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN:

When I returned from Italy, I heard some rumors that all of a sudden we weren't going to go forward with a cap on carbon. So I asked for a meeting with the president, went over and met with him. And it was a done deal.

In fact, as I walked out of the office after that meeting, the vice president was just coming by and said, "Do you have the letter for me?" I didn't know what letter he was talking about. He asked the secretary, and they handed him an envelope. And he was on his way up to the Hill. And it was the letter that said, "We're not doing a cap on carbon—too bad, rest of the world."...

MALE NEWSREADER:

The president claims he dropped the plan because it would drive up already inflated energy costs. But the announcement left his EPA chief, who had vigorously promoted the curbs, twisting in the wind.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN:

I was really blindsided when I found that we were backing out of that pledge. I was monumentally disappointed. The administration was extremely close to the energy industry. The vice president was industry, through and through. And he was very persuasive in his arguments, as were the some of the Republicans on the Hill about how this was going to kill the economy, that we needed more energy. We could not start to put a cap on carbon. And so there just was no appetite, economically, politically or otherwise, to go forward with a cap on carbon.

NARRATOR:

The vice president was stressing the need for more fossil fuels.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY:

Some things about the future we cannot know. Years down the road, alternative fuels may become a great deal more plentiful than they are today. But we are not yet in any position to stake our economy and our way of life on that possibility. For years down the road, this will continue to be true.

NARRATOR:

The president, too, veered from the tone he’d struck as a candidate and was emphasizing the uncertainty of climate science.

GEORGE W. BUSH:

Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world. We do not know how fast change will occur or even how some of our actions could impact it.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN:

It really was a tragedy. If President Bush had gone forward with a cap on carbon, it would have made an enormous difference. It would have been a huge signal coming from a Republican administration.

MALE NEWSREADER:

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced her resignation today. Christine Whitman said she wanted to spend more time with her family.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN:

Once we'd gone through this what I would call a debacle over the cap on carbon, there was no appetite for addressing climate change at all. It wasn't going to be the number one issue. It just wasn't. That was it. I mean, you just didn't talk about it. The industry was winning a lot of battles that I was losing. I mean, ultimately, that's what led me to leave the administration. I wasn't going to just be a rubber stamp for industry. [hmn arsenic?] And I just had had enough.

MALE NEWSREADER:

History’s biggest merger created America’s largest company, and together Exxon and Mobil will be the biggest oil company in the world: 123,000 employees, $200 billion in revenue and 47,000 gas stations worldwide.

NARRATOR:

The Bush administration’s U-turn was a victory for Big Oil—especially Exxon Mobil. Its CEO, Lee Raymond, was close to the vice president, who’d been an oil industry executive himself.

RUSSELL GOLD, The Wall Street Journal, 2002-21:

These men were business associates. They were friendly. They were part of the same fraternity—the oil fraternity.

Corporate citizenship award presentation, 2003

DICK CHENEY:

You rolling?

MALE VOICE:

Yes, sir.

DICK CHENEY:

As chairman and chief executive officer of one of the world’s leading energy companies, Lee Raymond has helped to improve the lives of countless people all over the world. And as the head of a major science and knowledge-based corporation, Lee understands the critical importance of science and technology to continued progress and economic growth, both at home and abroad.

KERT DAVIES:

I've been investigating the fossil industry for decades, and Exxon was a ringleader. And they were at the center of the campaigns that were around in the late '90s, early 2000s, to stall climate policy.

Exxon had emerged as the real bully on climate change, headed by Lee Raymond, who was a hardened denier.

Shareholder meeting

LEE RAYMOND:

Number two, please.

MALE SPEAKER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to comment on the findings of fact about the relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and of climate deterioration. I understand that the corporation's policy is that this remains in the realm of the unproven, but I would like to state from the broad scientific community that this is, in fact, a well-established fact.

LEE RAYMOND:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

NEELA BANERJEE, Supervising Climate Editor, NPR:

Lee Raymond is salient because he kept hammering away at the idea of scientific uncertainty about human activity driving climate change, even as the science grew more certain.

new

https://theecologist.org/**2018/oct/**08/why-did-george-w-bush-pull-out-kyoto-protocol

Despite the huge amount of fossil fuel funding upon which George W. Bush was elected president in 2001, insiders in the monopoly-dominated oil industry remained unsure that he would fight for them - and against climate scientists.

Bush had suggested during his candidacy that CO2 should be treated as a pollutant and, therefore, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act - even if the international Kyoto Agreement was not economically favourable for America.

Bush’s fence-sitting was strategic: swing states such as Florida were environmentally conscious and speaking out would likely give Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore the advantage.

But, optimistic environmentalists remained hopeful while wary oil-men were worried that it demonstrated a willingness to agree to the broad principles of the treaty.

A Rumoured Speech

Shortly after his inauguration, a rumour circulated that Bush planned to include a line reinforcing his earlier pledge in a forthcoming speech.

Word of the speech reached the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Koch- and Exxon-funded think tank that helped donate to Bush’s presidential campaign. CEI set to work. As their founder and president, Fred Smith latertold *Newsweek*: “We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out.”

Despite the think tank’s best efforts, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman testified, on 27 February 2001 at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subcommittee, that she was in favour of regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

A week later, she signed a joint statement at the G8 Environment Ministers Meeting which said: “We commit ourselves to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.”

The President’s Position

At this, the denial machine set in motion.Haley Barbour, a lobbyist for a utility firm that stood to lose if greenhouse gases were regulated, urged Vice President Dick Cheneyin a March 1 memo to persuade Bush not to align with the “eco-extremism” of those who saw carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

A group of far-right Republican senators wrote an open letter to their new president. In light of Whitman’s testimony, they asked that Bush clarify his position on climate change, “in particular the Kyoto Protocol, and the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.”

Aware of the rising tide against her, Whitman went to the Oval Office to fight her case on the morning of March 13. But, Bush had already composed his response, shortly to be sent via Cheney to the senators, which he read to her.

“I do not believe,” read the letter, “that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”

Information from the Department of Energy had shown that consumers’ energy bills might be affected, and that this warranted a re-evaluation of his earlier pledge, “especially… given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of and solution to global climate change.”

Polluter Pull-Out

Whitman left defeated, just as the puppeteer Cheney arrived to hand-deliver the President’s response to the senators.

By the end of the month, the world’s biggest polluter had pulled out of Kyoto.

Whitman, who later said the decision was “the equivalent to ‘flipping the bird’ frankly to the rest of the world,” was the one to deliver the news. “We have no interest in implementing that treaty,” the former New Jersey Governor told assembled journalists.

Though the terms of the treaty would be finalised in Bonn that July, they would be made all but useless, with the world’s largest polluter out of the game.

Years later, freedom of information disclosures revealed the industry’s input to this decision.

A briefing note prepared for Paula Dobrianksy, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, ahead of her meeting with Glenn Kelly of the Exxon-bankrolled Global Climate Coalition, states: “POTUS [President of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you… Interested in hearing from you, what type of international alternatives to Kyoto would you support?”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press).He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Bush's CO2 Flip-Flop: The Surprising Truth - Rolling Stone

https://www.rollingstone.com/.../bushs-co2-flip-flop-the-surprising-truth-20010510

May 10, 2001 - Two weeks later, Whitman announced that, so far as the Bush .... among them Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Larry Craig of Idaho, were complaining via letters and phone calls. On the receiving end were Vice President Dick Cheney; Karl Rove, Bush's ... On March 13th, the White House sent a letter to Sen.

Six Years of Deceit: Inside the Bush Administration's Secret Campaign ...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/six-years-of-deceit-20070628

Jun 28, 2007 - Cheney's statements were the latest move in the Bush ... In March 2001, Whitmantraveled to Italy for climate talks with ... In a move Cheney is suspected of engineering, conservative senators Jesse Helms, Chuck Hagel and Larry Craig ... Although the letter was signed by the president, it bore Cheney's ...

Bush backpedals on environment - seattlepi.com

https://www.seattlepi.com/local/.../Bush-backpedals-on-environment-1150792.php

Aug 3, 2004 - Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho, Jesse Helms of ... Bush held up a letter -- also written by Cheney, both O'Neill and Whitman ...

Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency - Google Books Result

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=144062982X

Barton Gellman - 2008 - ?Biography & Autobiography

Whitman said Cheney simply took advantage of an opportunity. “I don't think they needed any prompting,” she said of Senators Chuck Hagel, Pat Roberts, Jesse Helms, and Larry Craig. Whitman interview, Dec. 12, 2006. The letter from the senators is at http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/ arti cl es/ Hagell etter . html .

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/donald-trump-christine-whitman-climate

A couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump took a stage in Bismarck, North Dakota, and laid out his vision for addressing climate change and energy issues should he win the White House. It was about what you might expect from a candidate who has previously claimed that global warming is a hoax invented by Chinese bureaucrats to disadvantage US manufacturers. He railed against the historic global agreement on climate change struck inParis last year, called President Barack Obama's cornerstone climate policy "stupid," and said that his administration "will focus on real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we've been looking at." Though after he fulfills his promise to dismantle the "Department of Environmental," it is hard to imagine how he would make that happen.

The Washington Post called Trump's proposals "dangerous and nonsensical," and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey and head of the Environmental Protection Agency during George W. Bush's first term, agreed. Whitman has always been a bit of a nonconformist among conservatives on climate change: She pushed hard for Bush to let the United States join the Kyoto Protocol, the last significant stab at global climate action prior to Paris, and she infamously told the Post that she left the EPA after coming under intense pressure from then-Vice President Dick Cheney to implement lax regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants.

These days, she co-chairs the CASEnergy Coalition, an educational coalition that promotes the use of nuclear power as a solution to climate change. In earlier, more innocent days of the Republican primary race, she endorsed Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Now she "will not vote for Trump," but is on the fence about Hillary Clinton. The Democratic nominee, she said, "has real flaws, but hers are more within the normal parameters we're used to. Trump's are way outside, as far as I'm concerned."

I had a chat with Gov. Whitman about the threat Trump's candidacy poses to Obama's climate legacy and why his energy "plan" makes no sense: ...Not surprised, but disappointed. I don't think he has a full grasp, not surprisingly, of the issues. He's taking moves that I believe are totally contrary to the health and well-being of the country and the citizens, when you talk about walking away from [the Paris Agreement], when you talk about having a need to restart coal plants. He should know that the reason a lot of the coal plants are shutting down now has nothing to do with environmental regulations and everything to do with economics and the low price of natural gas, which he also wants to encourage. So those two things run counter to one another in a way. He's talking about rolling back the clock, which I think is very dangerous.

CD: Trump’s comments on climate and energy might seem radical, but aren't they really just a more extreme, less articulate version of sentiments we hear from Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans frequently: Climate change isn't a threat, we need to save coal and the fossil fuel industry, etc.?

[During the Nixon era] the public said, "We don't like being told not to go outside from 10 to 4 because of bad air quality," and "We don't like seeing our land turned into a garbage dump." That's what drove Congress and the president to actually take action. To walk away from [environmental issues] is a very dangerous political move, if nothing else, because the public still doesn't want dirty air and dirty water and trashed land.CW: Well, first of all, environmental protection is a Republican issue. The first president to set aside public land was Lincoln. It was Nixon who established, with a Democratic Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency. This is in our DNA. Conservation is inherently conservative, and it should be something that we embrace. So I would like to see Republicans understand this and also recognize facts. You can have economic growth and a clean and green environment. We've done it. It's not a zero-sum game. They've just got to get off this attitude that you can't have them both at the same time.

You really don’t have any credible scientists who say that climate change isn't occurring, and you don't have any credible scientists who say humans don't play a role. If you want to ignore it, you do so at your peril.

CD: And yet, here we are with a Republican nominee for president who is a climate change denier. What do you think the effect of Trump's candidacy on Obama's climate legacy will be? Is he lending a sense of urgency to formally finalize the Paris Agreement?

CW: Well, I hope he's not representative of the party as a whole. I mean, he's off the charts as far as what you can expect him to do or say. He is scaring other countries, and that's pushing a desire to get [the Paris Agreement] done while we can—and make it that much harder for him to roll back. He says he's going to roll back a lot of things, but he can't do it. He's not an emperor, but he doesn't seem to get it. He is going to try to push the powers of the presidency, the boundaries. He doesn't seem to understand the Constitution or really care much about it.

CD: What are you hoping to see from the candidates on climate change as the election moves forward?But still, some of those who oppose taking dramatic action [on climate change] in India or in China are saying, "Wait a minute, the United States is going to back out. Do we still want to be a part of this?" So it's making it much more difficult and confusing for people.

CW: Truth? I hope they don't get into it. [An election] is the worst time to discuss serious policy, because people politicize everything. I really don't want to see a deep dive into climate change or into these issues, other than a recognition that they exist, that they're important, and that we have to take action. Right now, on every issue, the extremes are pushing the agendas.

What I'm really scared about is that people get dug in too far. And they'll have to move further to the left, further to the right, the lines will get harder, and then once someone is elected there will be an inability to move back to the center or to really get things done. We all know that people will say things during campaigns that they don't really mean. Or they'll be willing, when they come into office, to look at what the reality is. So when they get in, if they've really painted themselves into a corner, then we're not going to be able to have the kind of discussion that we need to get these issues solved.

update; toll on twin twrs 1st responders mounts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

There has been growing concern over the health effects arising from theSeptember 11 attacks in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan. Within seconds of the collapse of the World Trade Center, building materials, electronic equipment, and furniture were pulverized and spread over the area.

In the five months following the attacks, dust from the pulverized buildings continued to fill the air of the World Trade Center site. Increasing numbers of New York residents are reporting symptoms of Ground Zero respiratory illnesses.[1]

Various health programs have arisen to deal with the ongoing health effects of the September 11 attacks. The World Trade Center Health Program, which provides testing and treatment to 9/11 responders and survivors, consolidated many of these after the James Zadroga Act became law in January 2011.[2]

...

President George W. Bush has been faulted by the Sierra Club for allegedly interfering with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interpretations and pronouncements regarding air quality.[32]

Early statement by Christine Todd Whitman

On September 18, 2001, EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman told the public, via a press release, "We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances" and that "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink."[15]

Alleged EPA deceptions about Ground Zero air quality

See also: United States Environmental Protection Agency September 11 attacks pollution controversy

An August 2003 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA said the Bush administration pressured the EPA to remove cautionary information about the air quality at Ground Zero.[33]

Numerous key differences between the draft versions and final versions of EPA statements were found. A recommendation that homes and businesses near ground zero be cleaned by professionals was replaced by a request that citizens follow orders from NYC officials. Another statement that showed concerns about "sensitive populations" was deleted altogether. Language used to describe excessive amounts of asbestos in the area was altered drastically to minimize the dangers it posed.[34]

In September 2006, the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security held a two-day hearing on illnesses caused by post-9/11 air quality. Former EPA head Christine Todd Whitman was a frequent target of criticism.[35]

EPA scientist Dr. Cate Jenkins said on CBS television on September 8, 2006 that agency officials lied about the air quality in the weeks following September 11, 2001. She said that in her opinion the EPA knew about the toxicity of the air, and that WTC dust included asbestos and disturbingly high PH levels. She said that some of the dust was "as caustic and alkaline as Drano."[36] Dr. Marjorie Clarke also warned of the consequences of breathing toxic dust and fumes. Yet, agencies did not heed her warnings.[37]

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation conducted a study of the World Trade Center site, but refused to release the results of its study, saying they were part of a criminal investigation.[38]

On September 13, 2006, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (NY), Anthony Weiner (NY), Bill Pascrell Jr. (NJ) filed a request with US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to investigate whether criminal charges may be brought against Whitman for lying about air safety in the Ground Zero area.[39]

Alleged government downplaying of health risks

Critics assert that government officials – notably Bush, Christine Todd Whitman (former head of the US EPA), and New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani – downplayed the health risks of the area and rushed to reopen the area around Ground Zero, although this posed a grave and immediate health risk to first responders.[40] Many corporations were eager to hear the news of the New York Stock Exchange being reopened only a few days after the collapse.[41] On June 25, 2007, Whitman testified before a House of Representatives committee chaired by Jerrold Nadler. She said that a White House official informed her that President Bush expected that the Financial District would reopen within three days, that is, by September 14. She said that she replied that this would be cumbersome, since the EPA was still judging the health situation in the area.[41] Investigations after the attacks suggest that the Bush administration pressured Whitman and Giuliani to provide health reassurances in order to keep Wall Street operating.[42][43][44]

Statements by Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Two days after the collapse of the World Trade Center, mayor Giuliani said, "The air is safe as far as we can tell, with respect to chemical and biological agents."[45] Giuliani, in attempting to deflate New York Daily News journalist Juan Gonzalez' reportage of the 9/11 air issue, claimed that "the problems created… are not health-threatening."[46] In the first month after the attacks, the mayor said, "The air quality is safe and acceptable."[4]

In November 2001, Giuliani wrote to the city's Congressional delegation and urged that the city's liability for Ground Zero illnesses be limited, in total, at $350 million. Two years after Mayor Giuliani finished his term, FEMA appropriated $1 billion to a special insurance fund to protect the city against 9/11 lawsuits.[47]

In a September 18, 2006 New York Daily News article titled, "Rudy's Black Cloud: WTC health risks may hurt Prez Bid", Sally Regenhard, mother of firefighter Christian Regenhard who died on September 11, is quoted, "There's a large and growing number of both FDNY families, FDNY members, former and current, and civilian families who want to expose the true failures of the Giuliani administration when it comes to 9/11." She told the New York Daily News that she intends to "Swift Boat" Giuliani.[43]

Then senator Hillary Rodham Clinton contemplated calling Giuliani to testify before a Senate committee on whether the government failed to protect recovery workers from the effects of polluted Ground Zero air.[48][49]

Congressman Nadler was quoted in a March 1, 2007 "New York Sun" article, "Potential Clinton-Giuliani Battle Brews Over 9/11 Health Issues." He said that he "absolutely" wishes to interview Giuliani administration officials regarding the environment in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. He asked, "Who made decisions, if any, that resulted unnecessarily in a lot of people getting sick?"[50]

MAY 1-3, 2009

Corporate Think Tanks Muddy the Waters

Life, Death and Water Policy

by DIANE FARSETTA

In May 2008, the major law firm Hunton & Williams launched the Water Policy Institute (WPI), a think tank-esque, industry-supported consortium formed "to address water supply, quality and use issues," according to its website.

After the initial flurry of press releases, WPI appeared to languish. Then, ten months after its formation, WPI issued its first white paper. "Water Wars: Conflicts Over Shared Waters" focuses on two river basins in the Southeastern United States. The paper urges the states involved — Georgia, Florida and Alabama — to put aside litigation and work with federal mediators to reach an agreement on water allocation. It also supports further study of seasonal water use, ecological issues and efficiency measures.

The white paper’s conclusions seem reasonable, even obvious. So much so that it’s unclear why Hunton & Williams felt the need to recruit major public relations and corporate powerhouses when forming WPI — and what they, and the law firm, get out of the effort.

What is clear is that WPI, Hunton & Williams and their corporate allies have a long history of siding with (or being) polluters and attempting to undermine water quality safeguards. It seems reasonable, therefore, to worry that whatever WPI is up to, it’s likely to do more harm than good.

WPI’s usual suspects

The Water Policy Institute’s chair is former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Todd Whitman. After leaving the EPA, Whitman founded her own public relations firm. The Whitman Strategy Group’s clients include FMC Corporation, a chemical and pesticide manufacturer; the oil company Chevron’s Environmental Management Company; and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry lobby group. Since 2006, Whitman has co-chaired the NEI-funded andHill & Knowlton-managed Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a pro-nuclear front group.

"I have, for many years now, believed that water is the greatest environmental challenge facing the world in the 21st century," Whitman stated, in a speech at WPI’s inaugural meeting. Since first being elected to public office 25 years ago, she said, "I have been wrestling with water issues." WPI "will help policymakers in every sector better understand — and more effectively communicate and advance — the need for action," she added.

There are also financial incentives for Whitman’s involvement with WPI. Whitman "is now helping to bring clients to the law firm of Hunton & Williams as chairwoman of its new Water Policy Institute," reported Congressional Quarterly in June 2008. "Whitman’s firm will get an undisclosed fee for its work."

In addition to Whitman’s political star power, WPI presumably benefits from the connections and resources of its founding corporate members: BP, GE Water and the Central Arizona Project. As a multinational oil, gas and fuels company, BP’s interests in water issues are significant. For example, the company is invested in Alberta’s tar sands, where oil development requires — and pollutes — large volumes of water. Last year, BP was party to a $423 million settlement compensating U.S. public water systems for contamination from the gas additive MTBE.

GE Waterdescribes itself as "a leading global supplier of water treatment, wastewater treatment and process systems solutions." In an August 2006 press release, the company enthused, "Globally, the water market is $365 billion and offers a high growth potential." Its products range from water treatment chemicals, filters and membranes; to industrial water management systems; to "mobile water" emergency back-ups. GE Water boasts "the world’s largest base of desalination systems," which use an energy-intensive process to produce fresh water from seawater or salty water. GE Water is also involved with Canada’s tar sands, as part of a $15 million effort "to improve water usage" during oil extraction.

The Central Arizona Project is a "336-mile long system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants and pipelines" that directs Colorado River water to three Arizona counties. The "quasi-governmental entity" that runs the project has hired the Hunton & Williams firm to weigh in on several water-related legal cases. Due to growing population, drought and climate change, the Central Arizona Project is likely to face increased competition for water resources. It’s also nervous about possible carbon tax or cap-and-trade policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it relies on the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station for its substantial power needs.

Hunton for Robb

The Water Policy Institute’s home, Hunton & Williams, isn’t the most environmentally-friendly law firm. In a landmark 2007 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the firm argued that the EPA shouldn’t be allowed to regulate carbon dioxide. By the time the court ruled against them, Hunton & Williams "had built up a team of energy lobbyists who could … work to minimize the potential damage to their clients through legislation," reported The Hill.

Hunton & Williams’ lobbying clients include the oil giant ConocoPhillips, the electric industry’s Edison Electric Institute, infamous polluter Koch Industries and the powerful National Association of Manufacturers lobby group. Also on the list is "Americans for Affordable Climate Policy," a front group formed by coal interests to ensure that any cap-and-trade system gives free emissions credits to industry. Hunton & Williams’ non-lobbying clients include Altria (formerly known as Philip Morris), military contractor General Dynamics, drugmaker Pfizer and Texas energy company Luminant (formerly known as TXU).

On water issues, Hunton & Williams lobbies for the Waters Advocacy Coalition, another industry front group whose members include the National Mining Association, the anti-regulatory and industry-funded Western Business Roundtable, the pesticide industry group CropLife America and the American Forest & Paper Association, which represents the "forest products industry."

WPI’s director is Kathy Robb, a Hunton & Williams partner focused on resources, regulatory and environmental law. In a 2005 filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, Robb argued that hydroelectric dam operators shouldn’t be regulated under the Clean Water Act. In 2005 and 2006, Robb filed briefs on behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, which operates the Central Arizona Project. The briefs supported a canal lining project that environmentalists and local groups feared would dry up wetlands and harm rural communities. Robb’s clients include "developers, electric utilities, investors, chemical manufacturers, and paper mills," according to Hunton & Williams’ website.

Robb has said that WPI is interested in issues of water "scarcity and pricing and … how you can encourage people to conserve," "recycling and reclamation," "the interconnection between energy and water," and "the intersection increasingly of water quality and water quantity issues." How do those laudable goals square with Robb’s legal work to restrict the application of the Clean Water Act, with the interests of WPI’s corporate members, or with Hunton & Williams’ clients?

I called Robb’s office to request an interview. Her assistant quickly identified a time, several days later, when I could speak with her. Then, just before the interview was supposed to take place, the assistant called back to cancel it. I repeatedly contacted the office to reschedule. At one point, a nervous-sounding woman asked me where the interview would appear and what questions I would ask Robb. More than two weeks, several phone calls and emails later, it seems safe to conclude that Kathy Robb doesn’t want to talk with me.

Life, death and water policy

Kathy Robb’s silence doesn’t bode well for WPI. Serious policy groups realize that, in order to have any credibility, they must either scrupulously avoid or fully disclose potential conflicts of interest. If WPI has any such policies, they’re not public. WPI’s website doesn’t even include a list of its members.

In 2003, former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali stated, "Water will be more important than oil this century." Today, an estimated one billion people don’t have access to clean drinking water. In 2025, the UN predicts that 1.8 billion people will live in areas with "absolute water scarcity." According to a June 2008 technical paper for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is "very high confidence" that "adverse effects of climate change on freshwater systems [will] aggravate the impacts of other stresses, such as population growth, changing economic activity, land-use change and urbanisation."

These are serious, complex and urgent issues. The last thing we need is another corporate front group muddying the waters.

DIANE FARSETTA is the Center for Media and Democracy’s senior researcher. She can be reached at: diane@prwatch.org

suskind

price of loyalty

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june04/loyalty_01-15.html

published in early 2004, The Price of Loyalty chronicled the tenure of Paul O'Neill as Treasury Secretary during the Bush Administration. Like all treasury secretaries, O'Neill was the top domestic advisor to the president, as well as a member of the pivotal National Security Council. The book featured over 19,000 documents provided by O'Neill from his first two years with the Bush Administration.[1] Among the most damaging accusations in the book was that invasion of Iraq was on the agenda as early as February 2001, nearly 7 months before the September 11 attacks.

docs offline?

S&S 2004

d p moynihan threat to nat sec not secrets revelaed but bad analysis vii

rmn set up OMB to coord b/c the world too complex; dc 28 yo phd brought to Off Ec Opp (to carry on lbj grt soc) by Rumy; ex congr

dick armey: bi-part is another word for date rape (in minority) p11

PO head of RAND also at alcoa

at vet said called for 50c gas tax, deeply involved in climate change to DC

b2 trans team 100 staff, effic

1st cab mtg 1/31 PO gave of GW pamphlet from alcoa, incl CTW, who worried about her turf;

1st working mtg of secret tf NEPDGp, tightly controlled vy DC; aspenser, mineta, veneman, evans, norton, karen hughes, karl, and pol staff along wall.

ctw testify on brownfield but knew reporters wd catch her outside, said AGW p99 extension of b2 election; oil anf gas jrnl called his co2 pledge extrme 99 b2 said he had trouble w/ kyoto and talks put off to give time to formulate policy but never happened (intended?) 99

ctw54, 2nd in name rec only to c powell; dad rich connected judge; nelson rock, rmn OEO, marr banker (dad gov); took on sen bill bradly at peak, sacrificial, but only lost by 3, won gov as mod;

late feb no dir from b2, so went to rice and card with hedge: fix in? to move on co2 101 based on confid from mtg, she pushed back on Nova[no c]k on crossfire : CO2, sci is good 102 announced discussion on how to implement,

PO thought ctw doing a powell: just announce a pol, if only to make b2 state his; ng on GW for months; DC was doing energy, but climate is other side of coin, must be done in tandem, set up interagency process 103: figure out how to price carbon then apply to countries in kyoto

dept of state Daniel Bodansky already targeted; anon memo on st dept letterhead to5 cons gop sen: hagel, helms, also attacked NSC Ian Bowles (both BC, as gore supporters) want to boc b2 between bad policy and bad PR, off the rez;hagel sent widely, incl armitage and evans at commerce 104

PO says kyoto only buys us 11 yrs but wd make us reduce energy use by 30% 2008-12. 104 shd reframe: use measuarable co2 ppm, not try to track emissions; get all the info then make a plan; make group along w/ energy TF, get geo shultz, to wrangel; pres C-M u, Jared Cohen, env sci and Michael Oppenhiemer for rigor/cover fair fight 106 pain in ther ass

700m$ oops, PO heads off at printer's office;b2 lied in S of U?109

world pleasantly surprised at trieste ITALY (g8?) ctw wrote tough memo to b2 (in plane home?) our cred on line

sen ltr, ctw goes to PO; agreed fact based approach, an issue they could own; both thot DC wrote ltr; also seemed like his MO: pick issue, talk to ppl, create docs that look like discussion/analysis going on to get answer, then guide group to precooked concl 120

[she played her open door card; prepped/reduced complex [2 stacks of clippings?] B43? cut her off, decided; ~ kyoto b/c 80% world excl, incl India and China 121 changed mind on co2; priority is energy; coal to nat gas; CA crisis

"clean kill" DC picks up ltr to take to Hagel 122.

ctw shocked at hagel rollback, back to study; made no sense to PO; we gave away the env (as an issue?)123

the base likes our stance and who knows on sci; hagel ltr makes clear only energy and economy matter; both PO and ctw see DC behind it; exactly his pos in TF; he had become an ideologue;b2 relies on lindsey, rove and DC 126

180 based on cab level review (lie) press said DC and Sp abe winners;180 in 1st 100 days w/o event driver almost unheard of; shocked non texas ppl;plans to take iraq oil; 129 CA crises easing and not due to real shortage but used as excuse; PO [paul o'neil?]decided that he ctw and C Powell were cover to make it look like smart ppl were doing analysis, vs rt wing kneejerk [not just oppos of BClinton policy]

b1 1989 ordered big energy study, unprecedented in scale, 1991; bill failed b/c of anwr

dc had seen 2 energy crisis, run co so thot expert

CA crisis: 145 gov considered bailout of energy co's; forced supplies to sell excess power to CA; CA passed $10b bond to prop them; PO thot TF odd b/c no outsiders (the purpose of TF is to get input) but wd meet w/ lobbyists after mtgs; SE met w/ chevron, mining, NPRA; norton indians wanted pwr plant; DC enron lay, coal; ctw auto makers, edison 147 PO 3 calls from Lay; ltr GS Hank P for J aron energy supplier to CA (pulled out before others busted); when b2 there, literally scripted 147 what purpose? all did bit but ctwno asked to speak; PO watch B2 for reaction; b2 does not seem to read even short memos PO sent; so troubling when b2 asked no q

TF apr 11 phase 2: recs YP and 8 cab; rove took bigger role; ctw, it's a slaughter 10-2. anwr, nuke, coal, nat gas rules; streamline new (coal?) plants; idea sems to be rules set up in advance and if you did right, fast-track [vs case by case?] in TF all woes blamed on EPA; she agreed and tried to fix; streamline/ used as erxcuse to gut (she feared?) Lindsey k attack, calimed thousands of plants not built b/c of regs; she challenged him, for proof; LL rolled eyes, snicker aside to ppl next, she called him on it, DC moved along 155 PO suggests ignored. some good ideaseg nat'l grid, regs for pipelines.

soc sec comm, picked by rove LL

faith base John J DiIulio jr, hijacked to toss $ to evangelical base; unpredendent run by policy, mayberry Machiavellinas 170 quit no policy papers;sr staff siad facts don't matter, only PR/strategy171 Robt Rubin had gotten into Sr staff mtg but PO failed

chill when clear PO was not going to play along

his GW memo leaked, gigot attack 172 reporters wd often call with out of ctx quote leaked by LL; not even subtle 174

aufhauser

PO violates central tenet of wa financial life: never use Engl lang to convey meaning " 209

bono spots mart PO; takes challenge to show what works on africa; put on robes; pablo -? big O (appliance store?); you're getting rep as truth teller, getting a cult 263 fired, refuses standard lie of family

mh conflict

http://www.salon.com/2002/01/15/whitman_5/

Christine Todd Whitman - After resigning as Secretary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (a post she held from January 2001 to May 2003), Whitman formed the Whitman Strategies Group consulting firm. The firm's first client was FMC Corporation, "a chemical company negotiating with the EPA over the cleanup of arsenic-contaminated soil at a factory near Buffalo, N.Y." In a May 2005 interview, Whitman said she had not worked directly with FMC, but would likely advise them on "how to improve their image" and gain "access to the people they need to speak to." FMC "is responsible for 136 Superfund sites across the country ... and has been subject to 47 EPA enforcement actions." [35]

http://www.climate-one.org/content/climate-and-politics video panel 13

CTW sold as green, but NJ gov rec'd not good; NJ open for biz, but appoved 99-0 (looked good comp to WU) cf Ron Suskind Price of Loyalty. wanted to repair

rep on GW, which she saw as real; triest mtg pre kyoto talk; talked w. O'Neil, good on gw at alcoa; cd not get mtg w/ b2, but rice and and card ok on co2 reg.

after crossfire,4 sen Hagel, pat roberts, idso, larry craig WU, helms sent ltr (may have been prompted/written by DC; b2 met but held up ltr in reply. kyoto

wd hurt us economy

"clean kill" --> "wind dummy" (c powell) CTW tried to recover w/ arsenic, which blew up (jeffords in part b/c of defected to dems, tilting power (epa wrong

on danger by 10x; 911 ended issue 55-6 rfk2

...

ctw hubby interests in Citigp, which owns Traveler's (also Port Authority) so incentive to downgrade risk of air79 moved robt martin omsbudsman (dep of

labor rules no cause), cancelled the position, on weekend sent agents to grab files and padlock office. Kaufman Resigned. air said ok before all test results

in. IG said risk downplayed, raw data blocked 80-1 3x safe level asbstos Connaughton leaned on Thernstrom (commun dir, now works for Norton) CEQ screamed

at epa's Kreisher, T 81 ground zero levels were record 81. admon gagged epa on perc, mercury toxicologist quits 83

GW reports altered, dismissed or hid 12 in 10 yrs 84: N Ac Sci, noaa, nasa and 2002 rept by combined agencies 84.

9/2002 epa air report left out usual section on gw; same with june 2003; july 2003 epa sci leaked report that gw could be dealt w/ at small cost. b2 in

response spent $100m for 10 yr study to prove gw is natural 84

Christine Todd Whitman - After resigning as Secretary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (a post she held from January 2001 to May 2003), Whitman formed the Whitman Strategies Group consulting firm. The firm's first client was FMC Corporation, "a chemical company negotiating with the EPA over the cleanup of arsenic-contaminated soil at a factory near Buffalo, N.Y." In a May 2005 interview, Whitman said she had not worked directly with FMC, but would likely advise them on "how to improve their image" and gain "access to the people they need to speak to." FMC "is responsible for 136 Superfund sites across the country ... and has been subject to 47 EPA enforcement actions." [35]

RS june 07

It's now almost impossible to fathom that back in 2000, after then-

candidate Bush vowed to place caps on carbon pollution, top climate

scientists believed he was just the man to take action on global

warming."It looked like we could finally get beyond the fray [which was? gore VP, oh BTU tax] that

had consumed the Clinton administration, " recalls James McCarthy, a

Harvard climate scientist who co-chaired the previous report issued

by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which gaveled down

the very day Bush was inaugurated in 2001.

Even at that point, the science was in. The U.N. panel linked "most

of the warming observed over the last fifty years" to "human

activities." That judgment aligned with the National Assessment on

climate change, a landmark federal report commissioned by Bush's

father in 1990 and completed just before Bush was elected in 2000.

The assessment projected dire impacts from global warming - from the

extinction of maple trees in New England to a catastrophic loss of

snowpack in California. "If we do nothing," McCarthy says, "the lack

of water in California will force a mass exodus."

But those who were expecting a Nixon-to-China moment from Bush on

climate weren't counting on the influence of the vice president and

his industrial patrons. In March 2001, Whitman traveled to Italy for

climate talks with European allies [G8]. She affirmed Bush's commitment to

regulating greenhouse gases - a position she had vetted with

Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andy Card. But what Whitman

didn't grasp was that when it came to climate, the president was

largely irrelevant.

Whitman should have had her doubts. Prior to joining the Cabinet, she

sought personal assurance from Bush that the EPA would be able to

call its own shots without deferring to the CEQ - the Council on

Environmental Quality, a policy arm of the White House. As Whitman

recalls it, Bush made no effort to mask his bureaucratic

ignorance. "What's CEQ?" he asked blankly.

Cheney took full advantage of the president's cluelessness, bringing

the CEQ into his own portfolio. "The environment and energy issues

were really turned over to him from the beginning," Whitman says.The

CEQ became Cheney's shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To

head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former

lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General

Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste

sites.

Industry swiftly took advantage of its new friend in the White House.

In a fax sent to the CEQ on February 6th, 2001 - two weeks after Bush

took office - ExxonMobil's top lobbyist, Randy Randol, demanded a

housecleaning of the scientists in charge of studying global warming.

Exxon urged CEQ to dump Robert Watson, who chaired the IPCC, along

with Rosina Bierbaum and Mike MacCracken, who had coordinated the

National Assessment.

Page 3

Exxon's wish was the CEQ's command. According to an internal e-mail

obtained by Rolling Stone, Connaughton' s first order of business -

even before his nomination was made public - was to write his White

House colleagues-to- be from his law firm of Sidley & Austin. He

echoed Exxon's call that Bierbaum, the acting director of the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, be "dealt." In the end, each of the

scientists on Exxon's hit list was replaced. "It was clear there was

a strong lobby and activity against me by some in the energy

industry - especially ExxonMobil," says Watson.

A month after Exxon's fax, Whitman got her first sign that the EPA

was no longer in charge of climate policy. "When I made the statement

in Italy that something might happen on CO2," she says, "the utility

industry got really engaged, and all of that caused a rethink." In a

move Cheney is suspected of engineering, conservative senators Jesse

Helms, Chuck Hagel and Larry Craig [4? Lindsey?]wrote the White House on March 6th

seeking a "clarification" of the president's policy.

Two days later, the climate "rethink" was laid out in a memo by a

team of advisers loyal to Cheney - two of whom, Andrew Lundquist and

Karen Knutson, would go on to lead the vice president's energy task

force. The memo - provided to Rolling Stone by a former

administration official - concluded thatBush's campaign promise to

regulate CO2 "did not fully reflect the president's position" and

that "it would be premature at this time to propose any specific

policy or approach aimed at addressing global warming." The authors

dismissed both the IPCC and the National Assessment, writing

that "the current state of scientific knowledge about causes of and

solutions to global warming is inconclusive and . . . must await

further scientific inquiry."

When Whitman heard that Bush was wavering on warming, she "broke

through the palace guard," as the president had urged her to do, and

marched into the Oval Office. "I wanted to tell him that there were

ways to call for a cap on carbon that wouldn't hamstring the

economy," she says, "and that it was vitally important we not be seen

as ignoring the issue of climate change." But before Whitman could

even present her case, the president cut her off. "It was clear the

decision had already been made," she says.

As a dumbstruck Whitman walked out of the Oval Office, she bumped

into the true Decider. There was Cheney, collecting the envelope from

a secretary that contained Bush's "clarification" on climate-warming

pollution - which he was on his way to deliver, in person, to his

allies in the Senate.

Although the letter was signed by the president, it bore Cheney's

unmistakable stamp. Quoting the language of the vice president's

energy staffers almost verbatim, it not only reversed Bush's promise

to regulate CO2, it also made a sweeping new declaration: that carbon

dioxide "is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." (The

administration would cling to this untenable position for six years,

until the Supreme Court ruled in April that federal law compels the

EPA to take regulatory action on climate pollution.)

The letter concluded with a hint of things to come: "I look forward

to working with you and others to address global climate change

issues in the context of a national energy policy."Bush's about-face

on planet-warming pollution thus enabled Cheney to take control of

the White House's energy policy and to work with industry behind

closed doors to craft a polluter-friendly approach to global

warming. "By having control of the energy plan, the vice president

also had the reins on the climate policy," says Symons, who sat in on

Cheney's energy task force. "The ideology is simple: You don't put

limits on greenhouse-gas pollution, because that might put limits on

coal and oil - and that would hurt industry's performance. Everything

else flowed from that."

The Other Half of the Nuclear Industry's Power Couple: Christine Todd Whitman

by Diane Farsetta

"Was it wrong to try to get the city back on its feet as quickly as possible?" an exasperated Christine Todd Whitman asked members of Congress. The occasion was Whitman's first appearance before the House subcommittee investigating her handling of New York air quality issues post-9/11, when she headed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Absolutely not," she continued. "Safety was first and foremost, but we weren't going to let the terrorists win."

There are many critics of the EPA's response to the admittedly unprecedented attacks. In August 2003, the EPA's own inspector general reported that there was not "sufficient data and analyses" to claim -- as Whitman did on September 18, 2001 -- that New York's air was "safe to breathe." The inspector general also found that EPA statements were confusing even to experienced toxicologists, and may have contributed to low rates of respirator use among Ground Zero workers. In February 2006, federal judge Deborah Batts called Whitman's statements post-9/11 "misleading" and "conscience shocking." In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office identified serious, continuing problems with how Whitman's EPA addressed indoor contamination in lower Manhattan.

The issue is more than academic. Since 2001, some 70 percent of Ground Zero workers -- tens of thousands of people, many without health insurance -- have had respiratory problems, including chronic illnesses, according to one medical study. Two deaths have been linked to World Trade Center dust, and reports of rare cancers are on the rise.

Yet in her Congressional testimony on June 25, 2007, Christie Whitman dismissed criticisms of her former agency as "misinformation, innuendo and outright falsehoods." Presumably, the nuclear power industry admires Whitman's rhetorical chutzpah.

When the Nuclear Energy Institute -- with help from its PR firm, Hill & Knowlton -- launched the "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition" in April 2006, Christie Whitman was named its co-chair, a paid position. Since then, the industry-funded campaign to re-brand nuclear power as clean, green and safe has benefited from Whitman's communications skills, political connections and environmentalist image.

It's Not Easy Being (Seen as) Green

Whether Whitman has earned green credentials is another matter.

She's often portrayed as well-meaning but stymied by hard-line Republicans. When Whitman announced her resignation from the EPA in May 2003, the Philadelphia Inquirer lauded her as a "voice of reason." David Letterman joked that the Bush administration thought she was "too soft on decimating pristine forests." Whitman's 2005 book "It's My Party, Too" fed this image, as did her recent admission that she left the EPA not for personal reasons, as she claimed at the time, but to avoid signing off on plans to ease factory pollution controls.

(Whitman's admission -- four years after her resignation -- was made the same week as the 9/11 air quality hearing. Just before the hearing, Whitman charged the administration of former mayor Rudy Giuliani with not doing enough to ensure that Ground Zero workers used respirators, and with hampering the EPA's response to a 2001 anthrax scare. Whitman's belated candor conveniently deflected attention away from Congress' investigation into her role post-9/11.)

Jim DiPeso, the policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection, is among those who give Christie Whitman an "A for effort." During Whitman's tenure at the EPA, "she was on such a tight leash," DiPeso told PR Watch. "I think that she wanted to push the administration towards regulating greenhouse gases, putting caps on carbon dioxide emissions, but the White House and the Vice President's office just simply wouldn't allow it." DiPeso's group is a strategic partner of Whitman's political action committee, the Republican Leadership Council.

Others are more critical of Whitman's tenure at the EPA. "At times it seemed as if Ms. Whitman had been appointed merely to make the Bush administration seem more interested in the environment," editorialized the Washington Post in May 2003. "Yet if she really disagreed with some of the decisions, it seems strange that Ms. Whitman stayed in her job as long as she did."

If it were Bush, Cheney et al. that kept Whitman's environmentalism in check, then perhaps she championed green issues prior to moving to Washington. But Whitman's record as governor of New Jersey, from 1994 to 2001, is spotty at best, according to reporters, state workers and environmentalists.

Open for Business

As she took office, Whitman famously declared New Jersey "open for business." Two and a half years later, an award-winning series in The Record (Hackensack, N.J.) examined the impact of the governor's new policies.

The newspaper found that, "in trying to attract new jobs and new business," the Whitman administration drastically cut the budget for the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),with hundreds of layoffs and "an across-the-board five-hour weekly reduction in working hours." Subsequently, inspections and polluter fines decreased, the pace of toxic clean-ups slowed, and new "streamlined pollution permits" allowed increased dumping.

"Symbolic of the administration's priorities was the rewriting of the DEP's mission statement to add 'economic vitality' to its goals and to delete a promise to 'vigorously enforce' environmental laws," wrote The Record's Dunstan McNichol and Kelly Richmond. A new state Office of the Business Ombudsman, working with companies including repeat polluters, pressured the DEP to decrease fines and weaken environmental standards. Within DEP, Whitman established an Office of Dispute Resolution, to broker agreements "behind closed doors ... reducing environmental fines" and "extending the time [polluters] are given to clean up environmental hazards," according to The Record.

A 1997 survey of more than 700 DEP employees was particularly damning. More than two-thirds of respondents felt that "the regulated community excessively influences DEP permitting, policy and enforcement." More than three-quarters said environmental enforcement had decreased under Whitman, and more than 60 percent agreed that the state's "inaction or lack of enforcement has caused environmental damage."

What Christie Whitman touted as "a new chapter in the story of public-private cooperation in environmental protection" didn't seem like such a good deal for neighborhoods unable to get rid of hazardous waste, for emergency workers no longer able to access information on toxins at industrial sites, for homeowners denied compensation for damaging fuel and chemical spills, or for fishers dependent on state testing to ensure the safety of their catches.

Dunstan McNichol told PR Watch that the situation didn't improve after the 1996 Record series that he co-authored. "They've never gone back to fully funding the Department of Environmental Protection," he explained. "There are lots of areas of the Department that are still either just not in operation, or never really got underway. ... There's always this tension between economic growth and the environment, and I think since [Whitman's] administration, that balance has tilted."

However, the hoped-for economic boost was anemic. From 1994 to mid-1996, job growth in New Jersey was below the national average, and 80 percent of the new jobs "came in the lowest-paying sectors of the economy: services and retail sales," reported The Record. Up to today, according to McNichol, "The economy in New Jersey is not doing terrifically well."

Whitman did launch one major, popular environmental program as governor: the Garden State Preservation Trust Fund. While the original goal of purchasing one million acres of open space was not met, more than 400,000 acres have been preserved to date. That's a remarkable accomplishment, especially in the most densely populated U.S. state.

Even Whitman's critics applaud the dedicated conservation funding, but there are concerns about the program. Former DEP employee Bill Wolfe -- who became a whistleblower during the Whitman administration, leaking studies about mercury pollution in the state -- called the Trust Fund's land purchases "scattershot," made without reference to land use or conservation plans. The program also lacks regulatory safeguards to ensure that conservation goals are met, he added. "It's just creating a pot of money to give away to landowners," Wolfe told PR Watch.

Nuclear Spin

Still, Christie Whitman is a PR asset for the nuclear industry. She's a major political figure widely seen as a moderate. She was the first (and only, to date) woman governor of New Jersey, who ascended to the national stage by responding to President Clinton's 1995 State of the Union address and co-chairing the 1996 Republican National Convention with then-Governor George W. Bush.

Moreover, Whitman has worked hard to obscure her spotty environmental record. Even as she was dismantling New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, "She would ride her bicycle, she would horseback ride, and she would do a lot of public events around open space preservation," Bill Wolfe told PR Watch. "So, the public perception of her was very favorable on the environment."

For the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), Whitman has played a lower-profile role than her co-chair, Greenpeace activist turned PR consultant Patrick Moore. Both Whitman and Moore promote nuclear power as environmentally friendly. Both are being paid to do so, by the Nuclear Energy Institute. And overwhelmingly, media accounts fail to identify either as consultants for the nuclear industry.

A Nexis news database search revealed that nearly two-thirds of news items that mentioned Christine Todd Whitman and nuclear power, from April 2006 to August 2007, failed to disclose her financial relationship with the industry. Granted, Whitman's 35.5 percent disclosure rate is better than Moore's dismal rate of 12 percent (measured from April 2006 to March 2007). That difference is at least partially due to the smaller number of articles mentioning Whitman, and the greater relative percentage of industry trade press pieces. (In both pools of stories, the trade press articles were most likely to mention the Nuclear Energy Institute's funding of CASEnergy and its co-chairs.)

In some cases, journalists may have been informed about Whitman's industry consulting but chose not to mention it in their reports. But there are several instances where Whitman herself presumably could have disclosed her Nuclear Energy Institute work, but failed to do so. These include a September 2006 television interview with Whitman, an April 2007 letter to the editor from Whitman to Iowa's Des Moines Register, and op/eds penned by Whitman that ran in the Boston Globe (May 2006), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (September 2006), and North Carolina's Charlotte Observer (June 2007). CASEnergy press releases that named Whitman also failed to include disclosure.

Judging by CASEnergy's website, Whitman may be increasing her pro-nuclear public outreach. Her recent radio hits include WSMN and WGIR in New Hampshire, and WJR and WDET in Detroit. All four interviews were conducted on July 11, 2007, which -- along with a WSMN host's remark that "she's spending the day talking to talk shows all over the country" and the fact that the WSMN audio file is hosted on Hill & Knowlton's website (the URL contains hillandknowlton.com) -- suggests a radio media tour organized by the Nuclear Energy Institute's PR firm. In May 2007, Whitman appeared at CASEnergy events in Florida and Washington DC. The latter was a Capitol Hill Symposium also featuring Patrick Moore, Rep. James Clyburn, the American Enterprise Institute's Ben Wattenberg, the National Association of Manufacturers' Keith McCoy, and Environmental Defense's Mark Brownstein.

Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection doesn't think that Whitman's speaking in favor of nuclear power while being paid by the industry is a problem. "If the nuclear industry is paying for her services," he told PR Watch, "that should be out there. Everybody should be above board about that. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. ... The more important issue is what is the role of nuclear energy in a broader energy policy, and what is the role in driving down greenhouse gas emissions."

However, the public's perception of nuclear power and the energy policy debate is profoundly shaped by news media coverage. And news audiences are most swayed by people presented as independent experts. That's why the "third party technique" -- putting your words in someone else's mouth -- is standard PR practice.

That's also why nuclear power companies are launching pro-nuclear groups in areas where they operate plants. PR Watch previously reported on Entergy-funded groups in New York, Massachusetts and Vermont. In mid-August 2007, the "New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition" (NJ ACRE) was born. NJ ACRE's start-up funds came from Exelon, which operates the state's Oyster Creek nuclear power plant. Its media contact works at the PR firm Burson-Marsteller, which lists Exelon among its "past and present" energy clients. And one of NJ ACRE's two leaders is Richard Mroz, who served as chief counsel to Governor Christie Whitman.

Whose Line Is It, Anyway?

Christie Whitman is certainly not unique in making the transition from federal regulator to industry consultant. She opened her own firm, the Whitman Strategy Group, in late 2004. It has offices in New Jersey and Washington DC and offers services in issue management, crisis management and "brokering agreements among public, private, and non-profit sectors." Whitman's four partners in the firm also previously worked at the EPA.

What is remarkable about Whitman's current advocacy is how infrequently she talked about nuclear power, prior to being hired by the Nuclear Energy Institute. Even as a member of the unabashedly pro-nuclear Bush administration, Whitman rarely discussed nuclear energy. To be fair, nuclear power is much more the purview of the Energy Department, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Congress than it is an EPA concern. Still, her near silence on the issue seems curious, especially since she was part of the Cheney Energy Task Force.

News searches didn't identify any Whitman statements on nuclear energy while she served as governor, even though New Jersey gets roughly half its electricity from nuclear plants. While Whitman's assessments of nuclear power prior to 2006 are rare, they are positive, with the exception of a remark during a November 2004 interview: "Nuclear power isn't on the table -- people don't even want to talk about it."

The nuclear industry has been a defining client for the Whitman Strategy Group, but the firm's first ongoing client was FMC Corporation. FMC is a chemical and pesticide manufacturer "responsible for 136 Superfund sites around the country" that's been "subject to 47 EPA enforcement actions," according to the Star-Ledger. The New Jersey paper reported that FMC is "negotiating with EPA over the cleanup of arsenic-contaminated soil at a factory near Buffalo, N.Y." In response, Whitman told the Star-Ledger that "she will never represent any company looking to dodge environmental responsibilities." FMC has paid the Whitman Strategy Group at least $70,000, according to federal lobbying reports.

FMC isn't the only Whitman Strategy Group client with Superfund issues. Chevron Environmental Management Company retained the firm to address "issues associated with the cleanup of its Perth Amboy, NJ facility." Hovensa, which operates a Virgin Islands oil refinery partially owned by Venezuela's national oil company, has paid the firm at least $90,000, to "resolve a Title V emissions fee issue." National Re/Sources, a company that acquires and remediates "environmentally challenged properties," has paid the firm at least $140,000 to assist with "remediation issues in New Jersey under the auspices of the US EPA." Other clients listed in the Whitman Strategy Group's federal lobbying reports include the breast implant manufacturer Mentor, the energy company L S Power Development, and the industrial site developer ProLogis.

Federal lobbying reports suggest that the Whitman Strategy Group is popular among companies with business before the EPA. However, the reports don't contain any information on the firm's Nuclear Energy Institute account. That's because they only cover work focused on Washington legislators, policymakers and regulators. Christie Whitman, who works out of her firm's New Jersey office, has declined to say how much the nuclear industry is paying her firm. PR Watch's requests for comment from Whitman and her firm went unanswered.

When she opened her firm, Whitman told the Washington Post that it was "a way to stay involved in public policy and make a difference." That makes her current job sound like a continuation of her work as governor and EPA administrator. However, government officials are paid to act in the public interest, and are accountable to the public if they don't. Lobbyists and PR consultants are paid to further their clients' interests, and are accountable only to their clients and their bottom line.

This distinction is crucial, yet increasingly blurred. The confusion greatly benefits industries wanting to advance their interests from behind a screen of semi-anonymity. The losers include democratic debate, informed decision making and, often, the environment.

If Christie Whitman doesn't understand why, she should study her own record in New Jersey. The rest of us should start questioning Whitman's moderate, environmentalist image and ask who's benefiting from clothing their agenda in it. Diane Farsetta is a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy / PR Watch.<