The Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting profile of Stephen L. Johnson, the outgoing head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Although tasked with protecting the environment, Johnson felt that it was important to do so only if there was no conflict between the science and commerce. I'm sure this has nothing to do with Johnson's education in biology at a university that apparently teaches creationism. Is it fair to expect a person who apparently doesn't understand science to understand why the environment should take precedence over the economy?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Only Another Month and a Half to Go
The Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting profile of Stephen L. Johnson, the outgoing head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Although tasked with protecting the environment, Johnson felt that it was important to do so only if there was no conflict between the science and commerce. I'm sure this has nothing to do with Johnson's education in biology at a university that apparently teaches creationism. Is it fair to expect a person who apparently doesn't understand science to understand why the environment should take precedence over the economy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Creationism takes out all the guilt.
If this world was specially designed this for us, then it's ours to do with what we please, yeah?
Nice of the contractor to put all that oil under those Ay-Rab countries...
Yeah, what's up with that? Chosen people my ass...
It is a carefully designed carrot.
The bible says the middle east is the focus of armageddon, like anyone would give a rat's ass...
So intelligently, The Designer sent an angel to the inventor of the Holy Internal Combustion Machine. And the angel said, gas.
What thou needst is black, greasy, and bound to run dry just in time for the apocalypse.
I read somewhere about the huge numbers of White House staff and other administration positions that were staffed by these unaccredited christian schools - "policy" positions, "lawyers" (grads but no passing of the bar), "economists" and "scientists." Something outrageous like 76% of the new hires during W's reign of mediocrity and terror.
I'm going to look this back up and post the stats.
But the best thing is - only about another MONTH and a week!
Don't you think it's an oversimplification to say that either the environment or the economy must take precedence over the other? They are awfully inter-connected, after all. I hope the new administration won't take an unbending position of one over the other, when they ought to be weighed against each other. Of course, the best situation is when something is good for both.
Hi, Kev,
I think it's nice when we can find solutions to environmental problems that don't hurt the environment, but I don't think it's always possible, and I think that the environment should always win a tie game. You've given me an idea for a post...
Hi, Arty,
Did I understand you to say somewhere that you have a blog going?
It seems to me that giving people an economic (or other) stake in protecting the environment is better than playing one off against another. A while ago I recall reading about a movement to ban fishing in national parks. It occurred to me that that would be a horrible idea because it takes away a whole class of supporters of the parks. For years, I have treasured the weeks I have spent fishing in wilderness areas. I would be the first to oppose anything that endangered these areas. But if fishing were banned, I'd have much less of a personal stake. I'd much rather see incentives toward a positive direction than laws forcing such things.
Dude, nothing takes precedence over the economy. Not the environment, not debt, not war. Haven't you learned anything these eight years? Now get out there and buy something--those big screen teevees aren't going to consume themselves.
Hi, Kev. Of course you're right that giving people a stake in the National Parks is the best way to keep them concerned about them. I guess I'm talking about bigger-picture stuff. It's when the overall environment--the entire climate, for example--comes up against economic development that environment has to trump the economy. And while it might seem that any idiot could see that is so, remember that Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol for economic, not scientific, reasons.
Keifus--I already feel hypocritically guilty about being a douchebaggish consumer, but I will say that The Simpsons looks great on my new big-screen. So, just hush up about it.
If you recall, the Kyoto Treaty had little if any support in the Senate, and the Clinton Administration decided not to submit it for ratification. So, it wasn't just President Bush who did not support it.
Anyway, congratulations on your television.
Merry Christmas!
Post a Comment